Pages

Sunday, December 07, 2008

Men are losing jobs at a higher rate than women

Job loss is affecting more men than women according to a recent Boston Globe article (via Newsalert).

Men are losing jobs at far greater rates than women as the industries they dominate, such as manufacturing, construction, and investment services, are hardest hit by the downturn. Some 1.1 million fewer men are working in the United States than there were a year ago, according to the Labor Department. By contrast, 12,000 more women are working.

This gender gap is the product of both the nature of the current recession and the long-term shift in the US economy from making goods, traditionally the province of men, to providing services, in which women play much larger roles, economists said. For example, men account for 70 percent of workers in manufacturing, which shed more than 500,000 jobs over the past year. Healthcare, in which nearly 80 percent of the workers are women, added more than 400,000 jobs.


The article states that 1,069,000 fewer men are working than a year ago. 12,000 more women are working. Yet, I am sure that all we will hear about in the MSM is how the recession is affecting women.

18 comments:

  1. I am unsure why you make the remark about women being affected and men not noted in MSM. In fact, every ref to job loss I have thus far seen refers to job loss, not by gender but by companies, geographical locations, etc. Gender never enters into the new items...seems gender is mostly on your mind and not of concern to MSM.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Nathan: For job loss by gender, concluding of course that women are hurt more than men, see CNN.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Nathan,

    Or try the New York Times, they have run several such articles:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/22/business/22jobs.html?scp=2&sq=Louis%20Uchitelle&st=cse

    ReplyDelete
  4. GAKK!! More patriarchal discrimination against the sisterhood! Equalize the job loss rates NOW!

    ReplyDelete
  5. "It is neccessary to be slightly underemployed if you are to do something significant." -- James D. Watson (Nobel Laureate).

    ReplyDelete
  6. Since women spend most of the discretionary income in this country, I'm sure that the MSM will start to spin this as women having less spending money.


    So, the question I have is:

    How long until we see the numbers of divorces rise, since money is one of the primary causes of divorce?



    Francis W. Porretto.....hilarious. Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  7. wolfboy69: The current trend seems to be in the direction of decreased divorce. e.g. this MSNBC article entitled Wanting to divorce, but unable to afford it.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Rotundus....Thanks for the link. Not to cherry pick, but there isn't any real numbers shown in there...

    quoted from the article:

    The evidence for a decline in divorces is primarily anecdotal, because national marriage and divorce statistics for 2008 aren’t available.


    I hope the trend is for a decline...but usually during economic slowdowns, it increases....this occurred during the late 70's as well as the great depression.

    Again, I hope I'm wrong, but as it get's worse, I imagine the numbers will rise.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Of course fewer men have jobs, as your previous post showed, there are fewer of us around.

    :-)

    What does James Taranto, like to quote: World to end, women, minorities hardest hit.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Wives won't immediately leave newly unemployed men.

    But in the right circles (i.e. the parasite-off-men crowd), you better eventually get a job, because OTHER men certainly still have jobs, and good ones. You better not be unemployed for long.

    One tactic in the NY financial circles (which are getting a VERY good workout lately) is for the woman to have another high-earning finance guy "on deck" (so to speak) when the husband loses his job. She can be with the new guy, with a divorce already lodged against the old guy, in 3 months.

    You also want to try to hit a divorce filing in the "sweet spot" - meaning that there are still a ton of assets to get and even high monthly "maintenance" payments. The best time to file is with just enough lead time so that the guy barely has his job at the time a decision is made on maintenance payments. That is obviously difficult to hit exactly, but some skilled (ex-)wives achieve it.

    They are the best in the business, and you other women could learn from them.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Since last March, the company for which I work has downsized four times. In each case, the majority of those booted have been male.

    The purpose for the layoffs has been to save money. Fair or not, men make more money than women. To maximize dollar savings and minimize resource loss, men lose their jobs and women are retained.

    On the bright side, this may be the opportunity women have been looking for to achieve wage parity.

    ReplyDelete
  12. It would also stand to reason. Women work more in service-oriented industries (nursing, teaching, etc) and those industries are hard to outsource to India.

    IT geeks, on the other hand, tend to be male, and quickly flushed.

    Lamont

    ReplyDelete
  13. @Target
    Toxic wives
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/recession/3527803/Recession-When-the-money-goes-so-does-the-toxic-wife.html

    ReplyDelete
  14. funny this was posted. I saw a recent topic post on a men's board with a link to an article claiming "women hardest hit by economic downturn". I suppose the two don't necessarily conflict (not that I agree with the latter). After all, "women are the primary victims of war!" - H. Clinton.

    ReplyDelete
  15. what I'm alluding to in the above is that the mentality is often, when something bad happens to men we as a society become more concerned with the effects of it on their spouses or other women, than the effects on the men themselves.

    ReplyDelete