Posted on 06/17/2010 12:48:40 PM PDT by Thebaddog
Three-quarters of the seven million jobs that have vanished in the recession belonged to men. The male unemployment rate is now 9.8%, vs. 8.1% for women. The trend got Larry Summers, the President's top economic adviser, speculating recently, "When the economy recovers five years from now, one in six men who are 25 to 54 will not be working." Ouch. While the decline in construction and manufacturing is hurting men in the workforce, expansion of health care and education is helping women. It also helps women that we are traditionally paid less (earning 78% less than men, on average). It's usually more profitable to keep a woman on the payroll than a man. The upshot is this: For the first time in history, women are neck and neck with men in the labor force. Women held 49.9% of 131 million U.S. jobs in late 2009. Their ranks are expected to rise. And I, as a historian, can tell you that the rising power of women in the workforce will have a long-run impact on institutions, the social contract, and the look and feel of work itself. It helps to realize that this is not the first time that women's presence in the paid labor force has increased markedly. Since the onset of industrialization in the late 19th century, there have been at least three such moments. The first was in the 1880s and 1890s when women -- particularly single women -- poured into factories, stenography pools, hospitals, and retail stores, typically to work as factory hands or clerks. By 1900, 5 million women, or 21% of the eligible female labor pool, worked outside the home. Men still outnumbered women in the workforce by four to one.
(Excerpt) Read more at postcards.blogs.fortune.cnn.com ...
This is the nugget of truth in this drivel. Summers knows this is an eight year recession. Five more to go, y'all! You can do it!
Maybe men who want to work and can’t find a job will get angry...and will go to the polls.
Good catch!
What - does this lady think males will just roll over?
Could be that men (with dependents) cost more per employee
for health insurance?
Could be that companies pay women less for the same job?
Could be that companies are eliminating middle management that are more as a percentage men?
Don’t believe any of this article. The real nugget is the Larry Summers troof slip.
I have never worked anywhere or ever heard of anybody saying, “Oh we hired a woman so let’s pay her less.”
I would like to see the “analysis” that comes up with this BS 77-78% number that is repeated like gospel.
Maybe the Mancession should take a Mancation!
“women that we are traditionally paid less (earning 78% less than men, on average).”
78% less than men? That means the average woman only makes 22%? No wonder they have all the jobs!
What they are leaving out is that women are over-representated in government jobs. Obama has been sending stimulus money to these government jobs.
Jobs the create wealth and help the future of the economy are still mostly dominated by men.
Women may have jobs but their jobs are still a drain on the economy and the future.
The traditional role of the man in our society has been intentionally destroyed. It is infernally inspired and guided.
I agree, that number screams BS
Whe fully weighted the difference between male & female pay is almost undiscernable.
My keyboard needs new batteries.
Jeez.
Everyone caught repeating the word “mancession”, particularly if uttered out loud, should be subject to a serious beatdown.
bump
How is it a so called "authority on leadership and business history" seems to get the date of "onset of industrialzation wrong by several decades, those Northern factories and railroads that helped defeat the CSA did not exist in 1860, and ignores how women were the primary workers in the textile mills during the first Industrial revolution. Embarassment this is a member of the Harvard faculty.
Years ago, when I was in graduate school, our department (economics) was located right next to the then new "Women's Studies" department which posted all this BS on their bulletin boards for all to see.
We decided it would be a nice project to do our own bulletin board to see how much of it really compared. We went to work and got hard data such as the following to account for the discrepancy:
A bunch of touchy-feeley wimpettes were not going to take on numbers crunching economists in that type of venue again. The campus newspaper actually wrote a very flattering article (albeit accurate) on our work. The Women's Studies department moved on to other issues like domestic violence and other touchy-feeley shibboleths where we couldn't decimate them with mere facts and figures.
Idle hands are the devil’s tools.
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.