New Report: Americans Spent Nearly $380 Billion on Fashion in 2015

~ Fashion Industry Employs over 1.8 Million Americans ~

NEW YORK – Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), Ranking Member of the U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee (JEC), today introduced The Economic Impact of the Fashion Industry, a new report detailing the financial role of the fashion industry in the United States. The report, produced by the Democratic staff of the JEC and timed for release just prior to New York City’s September Fashion Week, found that Americans spent nearly $380 billion on apparel and footwear in 2015, and that the fashion industry employed over 1.8 million Americans last year.

“Fashion isn’t just a way for people to express themselves, it also helps our nation’s bottom line,” Ranking Member Maloney said. “Fashion-related jobs are a vital part of the economy across the U.S., and especially in New York City, which I am proud to represent in Congress. As this new report makes clear, everyone in the industry, from the designer who creates a red-carpet gown to the retail worker who folds and sells the season’s latest looks, plays a critical role in this major economic driver. As we kick off 2016’s September Fashion Week, I’m more excited than ever about what the future holds for this dynamic and growing industry.”

The report also traces the evolution of the fashion industry. “Over the past quarter-century, U.S. apparel manufacturing employment has declined sharply, from almost 940,000 jobs in 1990 to fewer than 138,000 jobs in 2015, with many jobs moving overseas,” the report says. “However, while many apparel manufacturing jobs have left the United States, new high-value fashion industry jobs are being created in New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco and other U.S. cities. As with many industries in the manufacturing sector, the United States now concentrates on the high-value parts of the apparel global supply chain: research and development (R&D), design and marketing.”

Highlights of the report include:

• Over 900 fashion companies are headquartered in New York City, and over 5 percent of the city’s workforce is employed in fashion
• Jobs related to the fashion industry include fashion designers, market research analysts, computer systems developers, patternmakers, sewing machine operators, and wholesale buyers
• Fashion designers earn $73,180 a year on average
• While many fashion manufacturing jobs have moved overseas, there are signs of a return to U.S. production
• High-value jobs are being created not only in the fashion hubs of New York and Los Angeles, but in other U.S. cities like San Francisco, Oakland, San Diego, Kansas City and Columbus.

The full report can be read here.

###

WASHINGTON – Today, as we celebrate Women’s Equality Day, U.S Congress Joint Economic Committee Ranking Member Carolyn B. Maloney (D-NY) and U.S. Senator Bob Casey (D-PA) are sending a letter to the Government Accountability Office (GAO) requesting they undertake a study of gender-based price discrimination in the market for goods and services. The letter seeks to shine a light on why price disparities exist and why they tend to be burdensome for women.

A December 2015 study by the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs showed that goods and services—including personal care products, toys and clothing—marketed to women tend to be priced higher than similar versions marketed to men. This type of gender-based price discrimination can add up to a “gender tax” of tens of thousands of dollars over a woman’s lifetime.

 “Over time, these persistent markups can cost women thousands of dollars, a phenomenon that has been referred to as a “gender tax” on female consumers,” the members write. “The financial burden that price discrimination places on women is amplified further by the persistent wage gap.”

 A full text of the letter is below.

August 26, 2016

The Honorable Gene Dodaro
Comptroller General of the United States
U.S. Government Accountability Office
441 G St. NW
Washington, D.C. 20548

Dear Mr. Dodaro:

We write to request that GAO conduct a review of gender-based pricing of goods and services in the American marketplace. Many studies undertaken over the last few decades, and completed as recently as last December, have shown that goods and services—from personal care products to toys to clothing to lending services—offered to women tend to be priced higher than similar versions offered to men. Over time, these persistent markups can cost women thousands of dollars, a phenomenon that has been referred to as a “gender tax” on female consumers. We request GAO’s analysis of this issue and recommendations on actions Congress and the Administration can take to curb or eliminate gender price discrimination.

In December 2015, the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA) conducted a study that compared prices of nearly eight hundred products that had different versions marketed to men and women.^[1] These products were substantively similar except for their gender-specific packaging or coloring. The DCA found that, on average, women’s products cost seven percent more than products marketed to men. This upcharge for women’s products was not limited to a few types of items or certain retailers: the study included products sold by many national and online retailers in thirty-five categories, including toys and accessories, adult and children’s clothing and personal care products. In all but five of the categories, products marketed to women cost more than products marketed to men.

Gender-based upcharges may go unnoticed by consumers in some instances, particularly when women are purchasing a relatively low-priced item. And unseen markups can also be a problem for products and services, including loans, where prices are negotiable and the difficulty of accessing market information makes it harder to compare prices.^[2] Over time, the burden imposed by discriminatory pricing adds up: a 1994 assessment by the State of California determined that women paid an annual “gender tax” of about $1,351.^[3] In the course of a woman’s lifetime, she could pay tens of thousands of dollars more than men for similar products and services.

The financial burden that price discrimination places on women is amplified further by the persistent wage gap. Full-time female workers earn only about seventy-eight cents for every dollar that their male counterparts earn.^[4] In other words, on average women have less money to spend and pay comparatively higher prices for goods and services.

In order to get a broad understanding of the scope of this issue, we request that GAO study gender-based pricing for a representative sample of basic products and services in the United States and assess how gender-based pricing affects purchasing power. In your report, we ask that you address the following questions:

1. What is the average price differential between goods and services marketed to female consumers and similar goods and services marketed to male consumers?
2. How does this price differential affect expenditures by women on an annual basis?
3. What are the causes of this price differential? Including but not limited to:
1. Does price disparity originate at the wholesale or the retailer level?
2. Do profit margins align or diverge with respect to products marketed specifically to men and women?
4. Does price “tailoring” exist in the online marketplace with respect to the sale of gender-specific or gender-neutral products?
5. What actions can be taken at the federal level, through Congressional or Administrative action, to address gender-based pricing and make the marketplace more equitable?

Thank you for your attention to this important issue. We look forward to hearing your input.

Sincerely,

^[1] http://www1.nyc.gov/site/dca/partners/gender-pricing-study.page

² http://www.consumerfed.org/pdfs/WomenPrimeTargetsStudy120606.pdf

³ http://leginfo.ca.gov/pub/95-96/bill/asm/ab_1051-1100/ab_1100_cfa_950831_152302_sen_floor.html

⁴ https://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/equal-pay

                                                                        ###

WASHINGTON – Social Security benefits lifted 14.5 million seniors out of poverty in 2014, according to a new report from the Democratic staff of the U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee (JEC) under the direction of Ranking Member Carolyn Maloney (D-NY).

The report, timed to Social Security’s 81^st anniversary on Sunday, August 14, also details how important Social Security benefits are for millions of retirees. According to the report, roughly 45 percent of seniors, approximately 20 million people, rely on Social Security payments for a majority of their income. Twenty-two percent of seniors count on Social Security for 90 percent or more of their income.

“Social Security has been a pillar of economic and retirement security for more than 80 years,” Rep. Maloney said. “With fewer workers receiving pensions, it will be even more important in the coming decades. This report highlights why we must continue to support, and strengthen, our Social Security system.” 

The report adds that without Social Security, the poverty rate among women 65 and older would increase from 12 percent to over 45 percent. More than half of black seniors, and 47 percent of Hispanic seniors, would be living in poverty without Social Security benefits.

Other key points from the report include:

• The average retiree this year will receive $1,350 a month in Social Security benefits, or just over $16,000 annually
• According to the Federal Reserve, 90 percent of current retirees receive income from Social Security
• One in four women ages 65 and older receives at least 90 percent of her income from Social Security, compared with less than one in five men
• On average, Black and Hispanic seniors receive 41 percent of their retirement income from Social Security, while white seniors receive one-third of their retirement income from Social Security
• The latest Social Security Trustees report maintains even if no action is taken to shore up the program, it will continue paying full benefits through 2034, after which benefits would be reduced by about one-quarter

The full report can be read here.

###