USA Today: Recession's unemployment takes bigger toll on singles.
posted by Helen at 8:06 AM
Friday, October 02, 2009
Contributors
Previous Posts
- Fit for Combat
- New York Post: The dead end kids:The unemployment ...
- Mark Steyn on Obama: "His principal interest in th...
- Would you fight in the aisle over a $10 hamster?
- "All Men are Pigs!"
- PJTV: Interviewing the Founders of Smart Girl Poli...
- "I think I know a lot of men who deserve to be bea...
- "...they're more focused on their own worries, suc...
- Melanie Phillips has a good article at The Spectat...
- PJTV: Interviewing Michelle Malkin
9 Comments:
It would be very interesting to see how this is affecting single men versus single women. Does anyone have any data on that?
I don't have information specifically about single men verses single women. However, it was reported a couple months ago that something like 70+% of the people losing their jobs were men. That percentage likely applies to single men as well.
Eh? Do labels even still release singles? If they do, I'd think that in a rough economy, people would just buy the single they like and skip the album. This sounds like it wasn't well researched.
"However, it was reported a couple months ago that something like 70+% of the people losing their jobs were men."
-------
Well, then it's absolutely clear that this impacts women more. Women are getting money out of these men, and if they aren't working and producing, they aren't throwing off money.
That is just clear as day to me.
These men better start working again.
While I noted the author suggests through a quote that experience and education really pay off, they miss one part of the picture completely (and obviously). Marriage pays off in troubled times.
I cannot say it is a purposeful deceit, if it is a glaring one to me. Perhaps the author's education completely precludes thoughts in that direction. That is part of the reason I refuse to watch television, view typical news, or read news papers. I do not want to have to view every single article so completely. Yet if one doesn't, they become a party to that view by 'osmosis'.
Just grumbling.
Gordon Freece,
Ha! Now you sound like me most of the time. I hope your interjection was in jest? Mine rarely are, but I mean every darn word of what I say anyway. Ha!
This shouldn't really be surprising--it's always going to be easier to go from 2 incomes to 1 than from 1 income to 0.
I am not saying it was a surprise. I am saying that the elephant in the room, while inventory was being taken, seems not to have been noticed. Experience, check; education, check; man and wife; huh? What does that have to do with anything?
In spite of the article being about the difference between single and married people as the main target regarding employment woes currently and in the past. The author couldn't or wouldn't give any credit to the simple fact that marriage might be a good thing. And, yes, I see it as bias.
The nature of the current economy seems to be less that lots of people are being fired and more that nobody is being hired. Businesses are all pulling their heads into their shells like turtles and trying to survive while waiting to see just what kind of craziness is going to be imposed before this whole "Hope and Change" storm runs its course.
What that means is that recent graduates are not getting hired. Most of the time recent graduates are not married. Until they have jobs, they are not likely to get married.
Don't forget the simple bias embedded in this quote: "He/She has a family to support".
Post a Comment
<< Home