An economics study has found that women who had better access to birth control pills in the 1970s were earning 8 percent more than those who didn’t by the time they reached age 50.
“The trio of researchers from the Universities of Michigan and Virginia found in a study from last December that women aged 18 to 21 who lived in states with better legal access to oral contraceptives in 1970 had hourly wages that were 8 percent higher than peers in less pill-friendly states by the time they reached their late forties….”
“In short, women on the pill are better able to get degrees, choose their occupation, and enter (and leave) the workforce when they want, which in turn gives them better footing with men in terms of commanding wages. “Our estimates imply that the pill can account for 10 percent of the convergence [of] the gender gap in the 1980s and 30 percent in the 1990s,” write the researchers. At 80 cents to each $1 a man earns in 2009, that gender wage gap is hardly closed, which is why this statistic (like others) has reentered the contraception troll-fest debate, with The New York Times calling back to it today.”
Now the question for me is: Were the states where the pill was available, more progressive and had more opportunity for women to work and earn money than the states where the pill wasn’t widely available? Is this more about progressive states and opportunities for women versus actually taking the pill and controlling births?
What do you think? Does this relationship make sense: more control of births, more control of jobs and income? Or do you think it’s more about progressive states with more opportunity for women to achieve? Is this study a good argument for birth control to be covered by insurance?