Men bear the brunt of US jobs lost
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 is 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 labor force.
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.
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.
Another report says — So the men of corporate America created the financial mess. Big surprise. Can the growing ranks of female CEOs help clean up the mess? The latest Fortune 500 rankings show a record number of women are running top companies. And while many of these women pull in relatively modest salaries, some of their companies are weathering the economic storm with relative ease.
Will this economic storm result in women proving themselves and finally attaining equality in the work force?
fnord
PrairiePopulistsAndProgressives.net 
Interesting topic….. I wonder what social impact this will have on our society?
I wonder if the Social Conservative Republicans will try to make it fashionable for women to step aside and let the men take their jobs? This would be one way they could come out for those family values.
But most couples I know, they both work because it takes both their checks to pay to live and/or the wife will work because she can get health insurance for the family.
As for the female CEOs cleaning up the economic mess made by their male counterparts. The one blazing difference the article pointed out between them is the fact the women are making more ‘modest’ salaries. I wonder if the overpaid male CEOs will ever figure that out?
It will depend on the women, Wal-Mart has something like 73 percent of the associates are female.
One of the reasons for that is the character of women in the work place. They take more abuse, generally work harder for less compensation and are more dedicated to the job. I had witnessed women lose spouses and fall out of relationships with their children in favor of working for Wal-Mart.
These traits are not solely those of women in the work place but are more in generally true of women then men in the work place. But it is true that often it does fall to the women when the men become unemployed in the family. The first time my dad was laid-off at Cessna he came home and informed my mother she would have to go to work. As he found that after the men would find a new job is when the company would call them back.
Right now my wife is the only one working in this household, so far the only job openings I have found have been low paying and having no future. Unemployment is enough there is no rush and it would be idiotic to take a job that pays less then unemployment.
It maybe chances for women to expend on how valuable they are to the work place. Most I think will not as they would be concerned that they could be fired in bad economic times.
I found this interesting too, lilac.
I’m retired and will never be part of the group that finally brings women equality in the work place. It’s long overdue. I have great hope that maybe my two granddaughters will be valued for their talents, experience and education while their gender plays a back-seat role.
Everything I read indicated that with more men than women losing their jobs, families were still struggling. Struggling because the higher wage earner was the one who lost the job, struggling because they’ve depended on two salaries — the higher one to pay the bills, the lower one to get ahead. Needing two salaries isn’t just greed. The nicer homes in the nicer (more expensive) neighborhoods also have the nicer schools, parks, day care facilities…
If women contribute to ‘cleaning up the messes,’ I hope they aren’t given some pat on the back and told to get back in their ‘place,’ because the men are back, when the economy is recovered. I suspect that is what will happen all too often. To the extent that a woman who may save a company could lose her job if she expects her rightful recognition.
I would like to live to see the day when equal pay and equal respect for abilities is a given, I wonder if I will.
Is it still true that in a man aggression is a positive trait, but not so in a woman? An aggressive business man admired, an aggressive business woman a b*tch? Is it still true that getting things accomplished in a kinder gentler way is frowned on? Almost like the criticisms President Obama is getting because he is a diplomat and not a warmonger? Maybe if a kinder, gentler man who uses diplomacy succeeds he will help open doors for women.
Well, fnord, look at Hillary Clinton. She has been doing the exact same job as the male politicians for years and she is called a b*tch all the time.
Sometimes I think women get labeled because of some level of fear in the men doing the name calling. Deep down, they all know Hillary could run circles around them.
But I remember Barbara Bush talking about Hillary Clinton on some talk show and she said Hillary was a certain name that rhymed with ‘witch’. At the time Barbara Bush was the
First Lady and the Republicans talk about how Michelle Obama is an embarrassment?
Give me a break…
Republicans are trying to paint Obama as a weak person because he doesn’t bellow and bluff the ‘bring it on’ crap.
What I see in Obama’s approach is a very smart, intelligent way to fight. He seems to size up his opponent, let’s his opponent have their say, and then hits them with his silent velvet glove. The opponent has no idea he was just beat down.
For example – Obama painted Rush as the GOP leader early on and the GOP and Rush are still fighting that label. But in the public’s perception, Rush will ALWAYS be the GOP leader. Obama knows Rush is just an entertainer and one day he will give himself just enough rope to hang himself. Obama is very good at that – just letting his opponents hang themselves.
I would rather have a quiet man like Obama who can outsmart his opponent at their own game than a George W. Bush sawed-off little gun spewing the ‘bring it on’ crap and cannot back it up.
What’s the male / female numbers as far as percent of the adult population? Is it close to equal, or lop-sided? I’ll need to look that one up.
Females are more emotional, isn’t that a proven? But what’s the drawback if a woman knows she needs to wait through the emotion and work toward using that as part of the info that needs to be processed in making the decision? Isn’t the emotional impact and understanding that, a good part of seeing how the world or at least the others in the work place will react?
@fnord
“What’s the male / female numbers as far as percent of the adult population? Is it close to equal, or lop-sided? I’ll need to look that one up.”
Men are about 49% of the population; but, I don’t know the specific numbers for each age group. The reason women outnumber men is because men have more dangerous jobs, the government doesn’t spend as much on male health problems as it spends on female health prblems, and are drafted in wartime and forced to fight and die. For example there are 50,000 less men right now because of the Vietnamese War.
Click to access tab01.pdf