Saturday, 4/6/13, Public Square

harry reid


by | April 6, 2013 · 6:00 am

4 responses to “Saturday, 4/6/13, Public Square

  1. Robert Reich asks some questions on his Facebook Page:

    Buried in yesterday’s jobs report was the fact that only 85.3 percent of men aged 45 to 54 are now working. This is the lowest percentage of working men in that prime age group since 1948. It’s 2 percent below the lowest level of their labor participation during the Great Recession. Why are so many of these men without jobs? Presumably, they lost them starting in 2008 and haven’t been able to find new ones. Many have stopped looking altogether. So how are they getting by? Some got extended unemployment benefits, which are now running out. Others qualified for disability insurance. But it’s undoubtedly also true that many men not in the workforce are now dependent on their wives’ earnings. This marks a completion of a trend that began in the late 1970s, when male earnings first began stagnating or declining, and wives and mothers streamed into paid work in order to prop up family incomes. The two-income middle-class family represented the largest social revolution in modern American history. It gave women more economic independence, altered traditional parenting roles, and caused new stresses and adjustments in families. Now, in many cases, we’re back to a single breadwinner — but instead of it being the man it’s the woman of the family. If the trend continues, what can we expect of the future? When will men become obsolete?

    • Gee, I wonder why employers find women more attractive than men? No pun intended. I suppose it has something to do with the fact they get away with paying women less than men for doing the same job. What is that figure now? Women make 70 cents on the dollar that men make? So…if an employer has a choice between laying off a man and laying off a woman, they’ll lay off the higher paid man, knowing the woman will work twice as hard and pick up the slack for both jobs for 30 percent less pay. Ditto on the choice of hiring a woman or a man. They’ll hire the woman who will work for less and do the same, or more, work than the man. ‘Cause ya know, girls, we have to work harder to get the same rewards.

      Cold hard facts. Why should anyone be surprised that this would be the logical outcome of paying women less and encouraging them to work harder to get the same rewards?

      Chickens coming home to roost I’d say. I wonder how many of those men who can’t find a job once were managers who made the decision to pay women less than men.

      Karma. She’s a biotch.

  2. Totally interesting! Could this episode of a television show be based around facts? I’ve never heard of this … controversy? question? thesis? Is there something to it? Anyone know?