Percentage of men/woman that work in shit jobs
Executive summary
Women are substantially overrepresented in low‑wage or “low‑quality” jobs: in most U.S. states women make up at least 60% of the low‑wage workforce and in 2016 women were 2.5 times more likely than men to hold low‑wage jobs in eight states (Wyoming, North Dakota, Louisiana, Mississippi, Iowa, Nebraska, West Virginia, Alabama) [1]. Recent reporting and research frame this overrepresentation as a major driver of persistent gender pay gaps—women earned about 85% of what men earned in 2024 by median hourly earnings, and policy analysts link occupational segregation to lower pay and fewer benefits in female‑dominated fields [2] [3].
1. The headline: “Women dominate low‑wage work”
Multiple analyses show that low‑wage work in the U.S. is disproportionately female: the National Women’s Law Center found women are at least twice as likely as men to hold low‑wage jobs in nearly every state and constitute at least 60% of low‑wage workers in all but one state (Nevada) [1]. Oxfam and NWLC research characterize these jobs as largely care, food service, cleaning and other “women’s work,” paying median wages under roughly $15 per hour and carrying thin benefits [4] [5].
2. Why it matters: a core driver of the gender pay gap
Researchers and government analysts identify occupational segregation—women concentrated in lower‑paying occupations—as a primary contributor to the gender earnings gap. The U.S. Department of Labor states that job type differences explain much of the measurable gap because female‑dominated jobs pay less and often offer fewer benefits [3]. Pew and EPI data show women’s median hourly earnings remain well below men’s (about 85% in 2024), amplifying the economic impact of concentration in low‑pay work [2] [6].
3. Nuance: it’s not only “women choose lower‑paying jobs”
Sources offer competing explanations. Some discussion frames part of the gap as choices around caregiving and part‑time work, but multiple reports also point to structural and discriminatory factors: women face barriers to entry in higher‑paying trades, receive lower pay within the same occupations, and even see average wages fall as female share of an occupation rises [7] [3] [8]. The OECD and IWPR emphasize that firm segregation, compensating differentials and within‑occupation pay deficits also persist [9] [10].
4. Geography and groups: variation matters
The scale of female overrepresentation in low‑wage work varies by state and demographic group. NWLC’s state map shows much higher relative risk in certain states (2.5× likelihood in eight named states) [1]. IWPR, Oxfam and other groups highlight much wider gaps for women of color—Latina and Black women face substantially larger wage shortfalls relative to white men, driven in part by overrepresentation in the lowest‑paying service occupations [10] [4].
5. How the research defines “low‑wage” and why definitions shift the picture
Analysts use different thresholds: NWLC’s prior analysis defined low‑wage jobs as occupations with median hourly wages under $11 (2016 dollars) and also examined thresholds under $10 [5]. Oxfam and more recent studies use higher thresholds (median under $15) to capture contemporary cost‑of‑living realities [4]. These definitional choices change the size of the low‑wage workforce and who is counted, so comparing studies requires attention to methodology [5] [4].
6. Policy and debate: making “bad” jobs better vs. moving workers into “good” jobs
Advocates argue for two complementary paths: upgrade low‑wage sectors (higher pay, benefits, labor protections) and remove barriers that keep women out of higher‑paid fields. EPI and National Partnership call for policy action—better job quality and caregiving supports—to address structural drivers [8] [11]. Some private‑sector analyses (e.g., Payscale) stress controlling for job and life‑cycle factors to understand residual gaps, highlighting that the causes are multi‑factorial and contentious among experts [12].
7. What reporting does not settle (limits of available sources)
Available sources do not present a single, up‑to‑date national percentage point split of “men vs. women in ‘shit jobs’” using a uniform modern cutoff; instead, they offer state maps, sectoral breakdowns and wage‑threshold definitions that vary by study [1] [5] [4]. The sources do not provide a consensus numeric share for men and women in low‑quality jobs under a single, current standard; readers must decide which definition and dataset suits their question [5] [4].
Bottom line: authoritative reporting and research agree that women are overrepresented in low‑paid, low‑benefit work and that occupational segregation is a major, measurable cause of the gender pay gap; the exact percentages depend on definitional choices and the population examined [1] [3] [2].