Posted on 04/19/2009 3:02:37 PM PDT by VinL
The US recession has opened up the biggest gap between male and female unemployment rates since records began in 1948, as men bear the brunt of the economy’s contraction.
Men have lost almost 80 per cent of the 5.1m jobs that have gone in the US since the recession started, pushing the male unemployment rate to 8.8 per cent. The female jobless rate has hit 7 per cent.
This a dramatic reversal of the trend over the past few years, where the rates of male and female unemployment barely differed, at about 5 per cent. It also means that women could soon overtake men as the majority of the US labour force.
“It’s almost like a snow globe, the economy’s been turned over and we’re watching it settle in different ways,” said Gary Field, founder of Career Gear, a non-profit organisation that helps low-income men apply for jobs. He has seen referrals rise 35 per cent.
Men have been disproportionately hurt because they dominate those industries that have been crushed: nine in every 10 construction workers are male, as are seven in every 10 manufacturing workers. These two sectors alone have lost almost 2.5m jobs. Women, in contrast, tend to hold more cyclically stable jobs and make up 75 per cent of the most insulated sectors of all: education and healthcare.
“It shields them a little bit and softens the blow,” said Francine Blau, a labour market economist at Cornell University. “I think we are going to see this pattern until the recovery.”
The widening gap between male and female joblessness means many US families are solely reliant on the income the woman brings in. Since women earn on average 20 per cent less than men, that is putting extra strain on many households.
But we’ve now had 40 years of affirmative action, wherein white males, through no transgression of their own, have been denied career and other opportunities (unconstitutionally, I believe) in order to satisfy a social agenda.
Are we done?
Vin
Yet another arena where women are discriminated against, falling behind men!
What does this trend have to do with affirmative action? It sounds to me like it is more the result of a decline in the number of jobs that men have traditionally chosen.
Notice that there has been no net loss of government jobs.
However, women and minorities are hurt most! (/NYT)
What does this trend have to do with affirmative action?
*****************
Nothing, as to the passage you reference.
But, if affirmative action was intended, in part, to place females into the work place, then where females now occupy “75%” of the health care and education jobs- and are on the verge of having superior numbers in the work place, I merely make the point that even to the statist planners, females have achieved at leat 50%.
Hasn’t then the aim of affirmative action been realized, or must another generation of white men be sacrificed for harms, real or perceived, that that generation did not cause?
hey, quit ruining a good opportunity for an unrelated rant! =)
Look at the job loss dynamically and geographically.
Link here:
Job loss/gain in U.S. in 2007-2009
http://www.slate.com/id/2216238/
This map will blow you away. It will show the dynamics of where the hurt will be, and most of it is in the Dem’s stronghold. That is why they will ultimately tax the rest of us heavily, if we still have jobs.
TRAIN WRECK dead-ahead!
“Are we done? “
They haven’t even started yet.
I think the idea behind affirmative action was that white men have historically disproportionately dominated high-paying “traditionally male” jobs. For instance, nobody said “hey, women have 98% of secretary positions! problem solved!” in the 1950’s.
For instance, I am an engineer and my wife is a teacher. My job is ~95% male, and hers is mostly female, and I also 3X her salary. Now I’ve met extremely smart female engineers, but they are few and far between, and even today women face a strongly discouraging environment in engineering schools (i.e. “if a guy misses a problem, it’s because the problem was hard, if a girl misses it, it’s because she’s a dumb girl” type of attitude is prevalent. Many men are discouraged from becoming teachers (or nurses, etc.) since they see those jobs as “typically female.”
The interesting affect of widespread outsourcing of many of these traditionally high-paying jobs (manufacturing, engineering, etc.) is that it has narrowed the gender pay-gap in recent years, not because women have been earning more, but because men have been earning less.
That was good. -:)
My sister-in-law was a top grad in Computer Science and was snatched up by the FBI right out of school. She decided to be a stay-at-home-mom five years into her career and has never worked again.
My brother-in-laws daughter was a top grad in nuclear engineering on a full boat academic scholarship. She worked four years before becoming a stay-at-home-mom and she has never worked since.
Maybe anecdotal. Maybe genetic. I dunno.
I think the idea behind affirmative action was that white men have historically disproportionately dominated high-paying “traditionally male” jobs. For instance, nobody said “hey, women have 98% of secretary positions! problem solved!” in the 1950’s.
****************
OH4, I think I understand the intent. But, I believe the historical pattern was societal or cultural, not legal. And I believe to deny one person his/her rights, in order to advance another person, is improper.
But, be that as it may, I’m merely saying that no one can now argue that there’s an underrepresentation of females in college or the work place (in significant positions). Wharton recently released a study that demonstrated that female executives actually earn more than their male counterparts.
So, shouldn’t affirmative action be ended- or at least, phased out?
My view is not anti-female or anti-minority, it’s anti- statist planning. If we are to end big government, we have to end big government “think”.
There definitely *are* female engineers (and quite brilliant ones), and it varies heavily based on which major. There are far more chemical and civil female engineers, for instance, than there are mechanical, electrical or aerospace engineers. I think whether or not they choose to become permanent stay-at-home moms depends a lot on cultural issues, and what types of jobs they go into. Some careers are much more conducive to taking a few months to a few years off and then restarting (i.e. they don’t change very rapidly), and some women are much more expected to give up their careers to take care of their kids. My mother worked at home as a consultant when I was young, but managed to get a PhD in Math (while having 3 kids in the process!).
Are you looking for a job?
This thread is updated on a regular basis:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2136635/posts
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.