The Explosion Of "Bread-Winner" Mothers

The chart above (from the Pew Research Center) shows just how much our society has changed in the last 50 years. Back in 1960, less than 11% of households with children under the age of 18 had women as the primary income provider (3.5% had women who were married and earned more than their husband, while 7.3% were households with single mothers). Today those households comprise more than 40% of all households with children under age 18 -- about four times the percentage 50 years ago.

The households with married women who make more than their husbands has grown to about 15% (this includes about 5.1 million women, or 37% of women breadwinner households). These households are far better off than most households with children. In fact, they make an average of about $2000 more than households where both parents work and the husband is the primary breadwinner -- and an average of about $10,000 more than a household where both parents make roughly an equal salary. This is because the husband will make a better salary than most women, even when his wife's income is more than his.

The real problem is in the huge number of households headed by single mothers, who comprise about 25%, or 1 out of every 4 households with children. These households total about 8.6 million, and make up about 63% of the households where women are the primary breadwinners. This is the group that is in trouble these days. They make less than half of the national median income for households with children, and only about a quarter of the income for households where married women are the primary bread-winners. And it is the children in these households who suffer because the family doesn't have enough income.

The average median income for single mother households is $23,000 (and even lower for never married single mothers, whose median income is about $17,400). That is a very small income to try and raise a family on (especially when you consider that a big chunk must go to child care before the normal bills every family has can be paid). And note, since this is a median income figure, it means that in half of those 8.6 million households the single mother makes less than $23,000 (or less than $17,400 for never married mothers) -- sometimes far less. Those families are living in poverty.

These women don't want the stigma that comes with government support (no matter how many right-wingers may think they do). Like other Americans, they want to work and bring home a decent salary -- so they can be proud of supporting their families. The problem is that many of them can't get anything better than a low-wage and no benefit job (many times only a bare minimum wage job).

There is a cure for this. It would be to raise the minimum wage to a livable level (at least $10 an hour) like it was back in the late 1960's. This would allow these single mothers to earn enough to support their families through their hard work, and would take many of them off the government roles. The Republicans say they want poor people to work instead of being on government roles, but they oppose this simple solution (raising the minimum wage). They oppose it because they care more for the rich and the corporations (who would pay the higher wage) than they do for the women and children who are stuck in poverty.

It is time to raise the minimum wage to where it has the buying power it did in 1968 (slightly more than $10 an hour). There is absolutely no reason why a person (single mother or not) who is willing to work hard should make a salary that keeps them in poverty. Workers deserve at least a minimally decent standard of living. And while we're at it, it is time to insure that men and women are paid equally for equal work. We live in a different kind of society than we did 50 years ago -- a society where many more women are working (and many more have to work to support their families). Paying women 70% of a man's salary simply cannot be justified.