The Mancession Continues: Men Have Lost 192 Jobs for Every 100 Jobs Lost by Women Since Jan. 2008

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 01, 2011 11:23 PM GMT
    http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2011/07/mancession-continues-men-have-lost-192.html

    "Although the latest trends in employment are working in favor of men, the full period of the recession and the recovery has set men back more than women. From December 2007 to May 2011, the employment of men has decreased from 70.7 million to 66.1 million, or by 4.6 million. For women, employment has fallen from 67.3 million to 64.9 million, or by 2.4 million. Thus, while men have taken an early lead in the recovery, they still have far more ground to cover than women to return to pre-recession employment levels."


    mancession.jpg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 01, 2011 11:30 PM GMT
    Unsurprising and, frankly, it's a bit sexist that you keep harping on men not finding work.

    Are you this upset about women of color getting axed and/or their benefits being cuts since they are disproportionately represented in state and municipal government jobs, often a path our of poverty for them? icon_rolleyes.gif

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 02, 2011 12:48 AM GMT
    What are the studies demonstrating that women earn lesser wages than men? If cutting workforce is a cost-cutting measure (in theory), cutting those with the larger wage will cut the largest cost. I suspect this is why a woman is more likely to keep her job--same skills, less pay.

    It's not true sexism. It's ironic sexism.
  • NerdLifter

    Posts: 1509

    Aug 02, 2011 12:56 AM GMT
    mickeytopogigio saidWhat are the studies demonstrating that women earn lesser wages than men? If cutting workforce is a cost-cutting measure (in theory), cutting those with the larger wage will cut the largest cost. I suspect this is why a woman is more likely to keep her job--same skills, less pay.

    It's not true sexism. It's ironic sexism.

    +1.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 02, 2011 1:03 AM GMT
    Looking at that graph I see the trendline for men rising at a steady pace while the trendline for women remains stable...

    So if it continues as it suggests the situation will soon reverse no?
  • calibro

    Posts: 8888

    Aug 02, 2011 1:06 AM GMT
    so what you're saying is that we need to worry that the system in which women couldn't land a job isn't returning fast enough? how about you look at the comparative salaries of the two genders and tell me that women are equal even with more jobs.
  • JonPk

    Posts: 132

    Aug 02, 2011 1:50 AM GMT
    riddler78 saidhttp://mjperry.blogspot.com/2011/07/mancession-continues-men-have-lost-192.html

    "Although the latest trends in employment are working in favor of men, the full period of the recession and the recovery has set men back more than women. From December 2007 to May 2011, the employment of men has decreased from 70.7 million to 66.1 million, or by 4.6 million. For women, employment has fallen from 67.3 million to 64.9 million, or by 2.4 million. Thus, while men have taken an early lead in the recovery, they still have far more ground to cover than women to return to pre-recession employment levels."


    mancession.jpg
    . It has to do with the types of work that men and women do. Some fields are doing much better than others
  • omatix

    Posts: 89

    Aug 02, 2011 2:03 AM GMT
    riddler78 saidhttp://mjperry.blogspot.com/2011/07/mancession-continues-men-have-lost-192.html

    "Although the latest trends in employment are working in favor of men, the full period of the recession and the recovery has set men back more than women. From December 2007 to May 2011, the employment of men has decreased from 70.7 million to 66.1 million, or by 4.6 million. For women, employment has fallen from 67.3 million to 64.9 million, or by 2.4 million. Thus, while men have taken an early lead in the recovery, they still have far more ground to cover than women to return to pre-recession employment levels."


    mancession.jpg


    Let me get this straight: you're saying that men are being discriminated against/somehow getting a raw deal when it comes to employment? If not, what *are* you saying?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 02, 2011 2:17 AM GMT
    Christian73 saidUnsurprising and, frankly, it's a bit sexist that you keep harping on men not finding work.

    Are you this upset about women of color getting axed and/or their benefits being cuts since they are disproportionately represented in state and municipal government jobs, often a path our of poverty for them? icon_rolleyes.gif



    I think it's an interesting data point. I am not sure what it means but I'm certainly not upset. I think it's clear that part of this is because of the types of work men and women do. It's probably also quite remarkable how far we've come in terms of gender equity and jobs. It's odd though that so many guys here seem upset that I even posted the datapoint.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 02, 2011 5:28 AM GMT
    Isnt this only because women tend to have jobs like health care more often, which stays stable... whereas men have jobs like construction... which is more economy-dependent?
  • calibro

    Posts: 8888

    Aug 02, 2011 5:32 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidUnsurprising and, frankly, it's a bit sexist that you keep harping on men not finding work.

    Are you this upset about women of color getting axed and/or their benefits being cuts since they are disproportionately represented in state and municipal government jobs, often a path our of poverty for them? icon_rolleyes.gif



    I think it's an interesting data point. I am not sure what it means but I'm certainly not upset. I think it's clear that part of this is because of the types of work men and women do. It's probably also quite remarkable how far we've come in terms of gender equity and jobs. It's odd though that so many guys here seem upset that I even posted the datapoint.


    it's funny how you think there's gender equity in the work force based upon this one statistic taken in isolation
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 02, 2011 11:33 AM GMT
    calibro said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidUnsurprising and, frankly, it's a bit sexist that you keep harping on men not finding work.

    Are you this upset about women of color getting axed and/or their benefits being cuts since they are disproportionately represented in state and municipal government jobs, often a path our of poverty for them? icon_rolleyes.gif



    I think it's an interesting data point. I am not sure what it means but I'm certainly not upset. I think it's clear that part of this is because of the types of work men and women do. It's probably also quite remarkable how far we've come in terms of gender equity and jobs. It's odd though that so many guys here seem upset that I even posted the datapoint.


    it's funny how you think there's gender equity in the work force based upon this one statistic taken in isolation


    Sorry, I missed the part that I said there is gender equity - but that's because I didn't say that there is. What I said was it's remarkable in how far we've come in gender equity but as noted, there are a variety of reasons for this including the types of industries that have suffered most like construction.

    That said, this is hardly in isolation either. This has been a trend for a while now. It's remarkable how hostile you seem to be at how disproportionately this recession has been affecting men. Again, I don't know that anything should or can be done about it.
  • calibro

    Posts: 8888

    Aug 02, 2011 12:41 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    calibro said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidUnsurprising and, frankly, it's a bit sexist that you keep harping on men not finding work.

    Are you this upset about women of color getting axed and/or their benefits being cuts since they are disproportionately represented in state and municipal government jobs, often a path our of poverty for them? icon_rolleyes.gif



    I think it's an interesting data point. I am not sure what it means but I'm certainly not upset. I think it's clear that part of this is because of the types of work men and women do. It's probably also quite remarkable how far we've come in terms of gender equity and jobs. It's odd though that so many guys here seem upset that I even posted the datapoint.


    it's funny how you think there's gender equity in the work force based upon this one statistic taken in isolation


    Sorry, I missed the part that I said there is gender equity - but that's because I didn't say that there is. What I said was it's remarkable in how far we've come in gender equity but as noted, there are a variety of reasons for this including the types of industries that have suffered most like construction.

    That said, this is hardly in isolation either. This has been a trend for a while now. It's remarkable how hostile you seem to be at how disproportionately this recession has been affecting men. Again, I don't know that anything should or can be done about it.


    because you're comparing apples and oranges to make a straw man point, and as someone who has deep sympathy for the shit women in our society deal with, it's logic like yours that allows that to happen. though women only lost one out of every three jobs in the recession, they account for only one out of every ten new hires. they are still paid ridiculously less for the same work. and your chart doesn't delineate fields of work. you can't take about equity when the job losses occurred in male-dominated fields where only men were getting the ax as opposed to an industry where both men and women were both considered on equal terms. so no, it's not about men because the fact that the construction industry took a dive is not indicative of anything except that construction took a dive and that industry is disproportionately male.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 02, 2011 12:48 PM GMT
    calibro said
    riddler78 said
    calibro said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidUnsurprising and, frankly, it's a bit sexist that you keep harping on men not finding work.

    Are you this upset about women of color getting axed and/or their benefits being cuts since they are disproportionately represented in state and municipal government jobs, often a path our of poverty for them? icon_rolleyes.gif



    I think it's an interesting data point. I am not sure what it means but I'm certainly not upset. I think it's clear that part of this is because of the types of work men and women do. It's probably also quite remarkable how far we've come in terms of gender equity and jobs. It's odd though that so many guys here seem upset that I even posted the datapoint.


    it's funny how you think there's gender equity in the work force based upon this one statistic taken in isolation


    Sorry, I missed the part that I said there is gender equity - but that's because I didn't say that there is. What I said was it's remarkable in how far we've come in gender equity but as noted, there are a variety of reasons for this including the types of industries that have suffered most like construction.

    That said, this is hardly in isolation either. This has been a trend for a while now. It's remarkable how hostile you seem to be at how disproportionately this recession has been affecting men. Again, I don't know that anything should or can be done about it.


    because you're comparing apples and oranges to make a straw man point, and as someone who has deep sympathy for the shit women in our society deal with, it's logic like yours that allows that to happen. though women only lost one out of every three jobs in the recession, they account for only one out of every ten new hires. they are still paid ridiculously less for the same work. and your chart doesn't delineate fields of work. you can't take about equity when the job losses occurred in male-dominated fields where only men were getting the ax as opposed to an industry where both men and women were both considered on equal terms. so no, it's not about men because the fact that the construction industry took a dive is not indicative of anything except that construction took a dive and that industry is disproportionately male.


    Not sure how it's a straw man point - do you even know what that means? If you look at the professions, women have made substantial inroads and this at least appears to be part of the evidence for this. In many universities, women already outnumber men - particularly in law, the sciences, engineering and commerce. It's a fact that fewer men are being hired than women and this is likely to continue to be the case given the collapse of construction as one industry and that there really hasn't been as much of a recession for those with higher levels of education which is disproportionately represented now by women. I consider this to be generally a good thing considering how unsustainable construction was. I fail to understand your silly level of hostility.