CNN asks if women are "saviors of the world's economy," noting increasing earning and spending power:

For companies, the growing economic power of women would seem an obvious market to capture. But according to a global study by the Boston Consulting Group, women feel at best underserved by companies, and at worst ignored.

"The current way companies appeal to women is to take a male product and paint it pink," said Michael Silverstein, a partner at BCG and coauthor of "Women Want More," a book based on the study results.

Shrink it and pink it strikes again! However, the most out of touch industry is also the industry that would most want to take advantage of women's new found wealth:

For women, the worst offender is the financial services industry. The BCG survey of 12,000 women in 40 regions around the world found that financial services — such as providing ibanking, investment and insurance products and advice — are worst at connecting with female consumers.

In doing so, the industries risk alienating the greatest growing spending bloc on the planet, Silverstein argues. Whether in the workforce or not, women are increasingly the drivers of consumer spending. Women globally control $20 trillion in annual consumer spending; by 2014 that could climb to $28 trillion.

The article also discusses trends in China:

The economic story of burgeoning economies such as China is also the story of "factory girls," young women who have found new spending power as a result of new economic opportunities. Despite the financial crisis, domestic spending in the first nine months of this year was up 15 percent, driven in large part by women under the age of 35, said Shaun Rein, managing director of China Market Research Group.

"Women are starting to make as much, if not more, than men, especially in third and fourth-tier cities," Rein said.

Interestingly, the factory girls phenomenon doesn't just discuss changes in the workplace and in domestic spending. It also represents the changing ideas about a woman's worth, particularly in rural areas of China.

In the Women's Review of Books, Xujun Eberlein reviews Leslie T. Chang's Factory Girls:

In an intimate, nonjudgmental voice, Leslie T. Chang's refreshingly rendered Factory Girls opens up the fascinating and gritty world of female migrant workers. While many of the young women find economic improvement, their rudderless lives raise the question of whether this new migration is a progression or regression in Chinese women's emancipation.

Before the free-market economic reforms, China's urban women largely enjoyed equal status in society and the family. This was because, for various political and economic reasons, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) strongly promoted woman's equality, albeit within the larger frame of collectivism, in which individuals were cast as part of a social machine. Meanwhile, in the countryside, the traditional patriarchal system maintained its grip. In the village I was sent to in the 1970s, girls were regarded as nothing but dowry-debt. The birth of a baby girl always made her parents miserable. In one instance, a poor young mother tried to stage a "falling-off-the-cliff accident" to get rid of her infant girl; fortunately the baby survived. Only one young woman in the village had a middle-school diploma; most had not gone beyond the second grade because they were needed for work. Few showed any interest in education.

This kind of sex discrimination in rural areas has a long history; it is not the result of the one-child policy as some Westerners believe. In fact, the policy was not implemented until 1979, after I had left the village, and even then, the enforcement of the policy was often lax in the countryside, as reflected in Factory Girls.

Some of the major shifts in power dynamics were explored through the story of Min, a migrant worker who had recently gotten a factory job and started contributing to the family:

Not education, but money changes Min's status in her family. Two years after going out, Min lands a high paying job. She is able to send back big money and expensive gifts. Her relationship with her parents changes:

Min was able to dictate family affairs from afar. She monitored her father's purchases and rejected his business plans, and the fact that she had sent home $1,300 gave her such authority.

What the government was unable to do in the twentieth century, money may do in the twenty-first. While Chang never heard a single person express anything like a feminist sentiment, one can reasonably guess that the role of young women in the migration may eventually eliminate rural discrimination against girls and women.

Reading through these articles, I wonder how much can be achieved by removing women's dependence on men, either financially or through societal mandate. How much has capitalism helped women seeking equality, and how often has capitalism hindered women's advancement?

Women: Saviors Of the World Economy? [CNN]
Anomie In The New China [Women's Review of Books]

Earlier: "Shrink It And Pink It" Gets Slaughtered By The Femme Den

Aminpour, of Kew Gardens, Queens, NY, is a dentist. While she and husband David Shamash have a joint account with Chase, she never informed him of her own personal account. Here's what happened: A bank employee cold-called Shamash, suggesting he take "his" money out of that account and invest it in other ways. Naturally, he started "harassing" his wife for money, asking for funds to invest in the stock market. According to the law suit, he "alienat[ed]" Aminipour until she gave him $155,000 "to save her marriage and restore order in the marital home."

So many questions here, the first of which is this: Is it cool to keep a "secret" account your husband knows nothing about? On the one hand, if you've pledged to be with this person until death, surely you trust them enough to say, hey, listen, I have another cash stash? On the other hand, obviously this woman knew her husband very well: Keeping her finances hush-hush was wise, considering the minute he found out about the cash, he started "harassing" her. Who knows? Maybe she was saving to buy them both a house or vacation and knew he'd be risky and irresponsible with the money. Then again, as the famous quote goes, "Secrets are made to be found out with time."

In general, nothing comes between people like money woes. But is it better to be honest, no matter what? Or is it okay to hide a "secret" bank account from your husband (or wife)? And what is up with Chase spilling the beans in a cold call?!?!

Woman Sues Chase For Telling Hubby About Secret Cash [Gothamist]

Square-jawed heirs to fortunes and self-made moguls are a staple of the romance novels, but recent shenanigans have tarnished the tycoon's image. Says one Mills & Boon editor, "The hero has to own the company, build it up themselves through strength and integrity. They are not answerable to anybody. The key to their success is they made it themselves. You never see characters who've got something for nothing." Although writers will probably take a hiatus from captains of industry, she adds that after a time, there may be an opportunity for redemption stories: "They can lose everything but they have to get everything back."

Romantic heroes have always been subject to trends; apparently ER's popularity launched a generation of dashing doctors. The latest leading men? Rugby players. In fact, Mills & Boon has partnered with the Rugby Football Union for a series of officially-sanctioned rugby romances. As The FT points out, "this is a sport untainted so far by the sex scandals that have plagued the football scene." To say nothing of Wall Street!

Romatic Heroes [Financial Times]

Buy Cheap Shit: Buying less expensive stuff seems to have come as a revelation to a lot of people. Like, surprise! There are generics! And bulk prices! And cheap stores like Target! And they make stuff! And you can buy it! And it's kind of like expensive stuff but it's cheaper!

Buy Old Shit:Did you realize that there are actually places where you can buy things that aren't new? I know, this is Big. It may gross you out - this is a recurring meme - but sometimes you can find really awesome things at places like "thrift stores." And "consignment stores." And on "eBay." And via "swaps." (Swaps are very big right now.) And sometimes the old things? Are different from the things you can find in new stores!

You Don't Need To Own Everything! Okay, brace yourselves. There are these things called libraries where you can get books for free. They even have music! And movies! You know what else you can do? Borrow stuff from other people and then give it back.

Don't Buy Stuff You Don't Need: Hard to grasp, I know. But if you think about what to buy, you apparently spend less.

Make StuffThere are many earnest tips about cooking your own food instead of going to restaurants. It is cheaper, you see. Apparently you can also sew on your own buttons and iron stuff instead of getting it dry-cleaned.

Do Less of Expensive Stuff:We know, we know: it's really hard to not take cabs everywhere and not get weekly pedicures and facials and buy high heels. Because we want to, and we don't like to not get stuff we want! But the thing is, that stuff is apparently very expensive and - wait for it - not essential.

Get Crappy, Small Amounts of Expensive Stuff :This kind of thing is really big on these lists. Like, going to expensive restaurants but then just ordering an appetizer or something. Or not ordering wine. Half of the alleged "cheap eats" issues are just this kind of crumminess, which sounds like a recipe for a)hunger and b)depression. Also big: getting free services from, like, massage schools and beauty academies. As someone who has done this a lot, it's seriously no substitute for the real thing.

Be Crafty:Suddenly everybody's really into the novelty of coupon-clipping, and getting airfare deals and early bird specials and various other schemes that seem to take a lot of time and sound like awesome ideas to various rich editors who don't need to do them.

Pretend Being Broke Is Really Fun: Swaps, various at-home functions and girls' nights in are another popular bromide. For those of us who don't go out, sure. I'm guessing the Cosmo brigade whose weekends consist of some SATC club marathon aren't going to really find an evening of Scrabble and Netflix an acceptable substitute. Wait, what am I saying? Those dames don't buy their own drinks!

Don't Be A Moron: Basically, all of these tips can fit under this heading. "Live the way most of us do already" would be another good one. But since we all really enjoy frugality tips from rich people, please, keep patronizing us. It's a form of free entertainment we've been onto for years!

Jezebel: Why is this happening now? I know Lehman has been showing signs of weakness for a while now — what was the trigger?
Katharine Parker: Similar to Bear Stearns, LEH had a great deal of exposure to sub-prime mortgage-backed securities. Because of this, they were forced to “write down” nearly $700M last year (devalue their assets), which included commercial property and mortgage exposure. One year later, the economy has not improved, housing prices have not gone back to “hey-day” levels, we have plunged further into a recession and the value of these assets had to be written down again by ~$7.8B, which is the largest net loss in the history of the bank. The bank still continues to have a large amount of exposure to these devalued securities. Wall Street, knowing the impact of this write-down and realizing that LEH would have severe liquidity issues forced the shares of LEH to plunge, resulting in the lack of capital to cover these losses.

J: Why did the fed agree to bail out Bear Stearns and not Lehman?
KP: Bear Stearns was the first to go down and they had a first mover advantage in this case. As this continues and the markets worsen, the Fed cannot continue to use tax payer’s dollars to support investment banks that made huge mistakes and that didn’t take the necessary corrective actions. They are addressing the moral hazard issue. John Thain at Merrill Lynch was smart. As soon as he realized that there were going to be liquidity problems, he began selling assets and raising capital. The government is helping the economy in other ways, i.e., making sure there is available liquidity for regional banks. If we continue to operate in an environment where the Fed bails out every investment bank that fails, we set ourselves up to take risk without consequence.

J:: I know the fed is considering lowering interest rates. Is this a bad call?
KP: No. Although some think a cut will signal panic (like we’re not already in a PANIC???), the facts remain clear: we are in a recession, fears of inflation have abated (due to lower commodity prices and labor costs) and financial stresses have intensified.

J: Beyond the employees at Lehman and the other struggling firms, how does it affect people in finance? And how will affect the rest of us — those who don't work in finance or industries directly dependent on finance?
KP: It affects pension funds, banks (domestic and international, all those that have exposure to the credit default swap market), hedge funds, private equity firms and every entity that has business ties to LEH. It affects institutions that have put their money in LEH because they will now have liquidity issues and it is an opportunity cost of their capital. The credit crunch will tighten, which will not only affect lending to buyout firms and companies for acquisitions, but it will affect the average joe who needs a loan to start his own small business. The fundamentals for entrepreneurship and risk are seriously threatened.

It affects EVERY industry, because we need capital to do business and continue operations. In the current environment, access to capital will continue to be difficult for companies that need even a minimal amount of leverage (debt) to operate. Without the growth of new businesses and the expansion or even continuation of existing businesses, we will inevitably enter a depression.

Consumer confidence overall has plummeted leading to less demand for consumer goods / durables and decreasing discretionary spending. The best companies will be those that sell the fundamentals, those that experience inelastic demand and / or have lower-priced substitutions.

The real estate markets will drop even further. With the flooding of unemployed professionals, supply will come on-stream and people will be forced to move out of high-cost urban centers. Additionally, the constrained amount of capital available to homebuyers will prevent any short-term recovery of real estate values to further fuel the economy. We are in a state of devastation across all areas of finance and business.

Last, but not least. This affects the families, friends and colleagues (at other institutions) of the employees at LEH. We are all saddened by the demise of a really talented group of people.

J:: Is there any hope that things will turn around in the near future, or should we start stuffing our 401K's under our mattresses? What can we do to keep ourselves financially solvent?
KP: Never put money under your mattress. Believe it or not, this is a losing proposition because you can always earn a modest rate of return in very liquid investments and your money will be worth less just by the basic rules of time value. Money markets are still safe. I am mostly in cash right now and have done better than most of my friends who have been trading in and out of their PAs (personal accounts) on a daily basis.

The only thing I am going to do with my money right now besides keeping substantial liquidity is invest in U.S. and European fixed income.

To stay financially solvent, make an investment in yourself and your career through education and hard work. I know it sounds old school, but it’s a great hedge. I don’t know what other advice to give when the world is blowing up.

Related: Wall St. In Worst Loss Since ’01 Despite Reassurances By Bush [NY Times]

But most importantly, how low do housing prices have to sink before these guys start mixing with, god forbid, female lawyers? And who will they hit up if it truly is the next Depression? Teach for America? God I love this country.

Fashion Meets Finance

• Yeah, how do we know when the this fucking nomination process has gone on too long? When the candidates' lives have not only been covered breathlessly in US Weekly, ostensibly dignified magazines like The New Republic have started co-opting their "if they mated" feature. [TNR]
  
• The Hillary campaign is now pinning its future on an "Electoral vote" strategy, basing her appeal to the conventioneers on the notion that she should win the nomination because she managed to win big states important to winning the electoral vote. Because California is in grave danger of voting for McCain over Obama? [NYT]
  
• Will her concession to Sinbad re the "sniper fire" mess up her chances? [NY Times]
  
• Speaking of comedians who are not Sinbad, this little Q&A with Tracey Ullman reminded me how much I missed Dave Chappelle. What's he up to? No performances I can find. [WSJ]
  
• New York risks losing as many as 20,000 finance jobs. I would be sad, but it's also sort of a "And at long freaking last they came for the bankers, and I didn't say anything because I had already spend much of my twenties unemployed kthanxbai" situation. Also, no industry finds fresh liquidity faster than finance, so, you know, they'll be back. [Reuters]

• Puerto Rico is switching from a caucus to a primary. I suppose this would ordinarily be bad for Obama, since the caucuses tend to favor him, except that no one expected him to win Puerto Rico? [NY Times]
• Dr. Phil hasn't given shit to Barack Obama despite the fact that he owes Oprah his life. Typical white person. [World Of Wonder]
• Will Hillary ever be "one of the cool kids"? Will this election ever move past high school? [Huffington Post]
• Black feminists try to sort out whether racism is harder for them than sexism and just when they find themselves leaning toward thinking it is, the sexism shows rears its pretty head again; it probably won't surprise you that this story is depressing. [Wash Post]
• Indicted Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick. Sent text messages on a beeper? [Detroit Free-Press]
• A few brave Han Chinese dissidents are getting jailed for openly calling for their government to open a dialogue with the Dalai Lama. [Wash Post]
• "November's election could be, for the first time in a very long time, a choice between two radically different visions of U.S. global engagement. "We want to have this debate with John McCain," a close Obama adviser says. "[Obama] will offer this clear contrast." [Prospect]
• Gene Weingarten discussed his epic piece on the 24-hour blogpundittalkradio culture we discussed in today's Crappy Hour in an online chat this morning and he agrees with that Ann Coulter is not for real and that the copy editors made a grave mistake in changing it to "douche bag." [Wash Post]

Seillier seems to subscribe to the Linda Hirshman school of feminist achievement — the idea that women will only achieve social equality when they achieve economic equality. But it's not as if these women actually get to spend any time with the children and husbands they support. Of her children, Seillier says: "I wasn't there for every dinner when they were younger - I work until 10pm - but I think it was worth it. They're proud of me now." Maybe I'm hopelessly naive, but I think BOTH parents should try to be home for dinner at least a majority of the time. What's the point of having children if they're going to be exclusively cared for by the help? "I have a woman who does my hair, a woman who does the shopping, a woman who helps find nice clothes. The key is to be very, very organized," Seillier informs us. And rich, we might add!

Perhaps the desire to be home for dinner is what's leading the march of women away from the highest ranks of Wall Street. With the firing of Zoe Cruz, a top executive at Morgan Stanley, the number of powerful women on Wall Street continues to dwindle. An article about Cruz in the Saturday NY Times intimates that she was axed because she was personally disliked by a number of other executives, all male. It remains to be seen whether their dislike for her had anything to do with her gender.

All Hail The Superfemme [Times of London]
Top Ranks of Women on Wall Street are Shrinking [New York Times]
Homeward Bound [American Prospect]

According to author Susan Gregory Thomas, whose new book is titled Buy Buy Baby, young children are learning how to recognize the main character of TV shows at a very young age, preparing them to yearn for all the toys and products being sold with that character's face on them.

These characters are brands, so what we have is the creation of the very youngest consumers in the history of the United States. That's the thesis of the book. Under the auspices of education value and development, there is a very broadly gauged marketing effort being leveled at infants and toddlers.

"Dividends are a girl's best friend" and "Something old, something new, something borrowed, something blue chip," are headlines launching in print ads this month.

What of emerging markets? High-margin growth stocks? High profile stocks that have taken a beating recently? What are they, afraid we'll be as stupid as all the men who invested in securities backed by the no-down-payment mortgages of indebted Americans? Don't worry, we've TOTALLY cut up too many credit cards to make that mistake!!

No Quick Riches for New York's Twentysomethings (June, 2007) Overall, today's recent college graduates in New York are not making as much money as their parent's (sic) generation did, with men's wages falling substantially and earnings for women increasing slightly.

In terms adjusted for the fact that signing a lease on a tiny one-bedroom in this town costs more than the down payment on your parents' house, twentysomethings' salaries in New York have actually decreased since the seventies. WHEN THE CITY WAS ON THE VERGE OF BANKRUPTCY AND TIMES SQUARE WAS A HEROIN-ADDLED PROSTITUTION DEN. Take that and put it on your most-emailed list.

For Young Earners in Big City, A Gap In Women's Favor [New York Times]

According to this survey, women save less money than men.

No shit, Sherlock.

This could have something to do with the fact that men pay $10 for a haircut, while we spend a week's rent money on getting a hairstyle. And if we're going to die, we want to be buried in Manolos.

Oh, and equal pay would help too, boys.