Who's Losing Their Jobs? Sexism?

[Annie]

FT.com / US & Canada - Men bear the brunt of US jobs lost

Men bear the brunt of US jobs lost
By Sarah O’Connor in Washington
Published: April 19 2009 22:36 | Last updated: April 19 2009 22:36
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 labour force....

 

[jillian]

sexism?

yah...right... because men have thre high-paying jobs that companies want to cut so they can keep less highly paid women.

real sexism, babe.

 

[Annie]

sexism?

yah...right... because men have thre high-paying jobs that companies want to cut so they can keep less highly paid women.

real sexism, babe.

Missed that question mark, eh?

 

[Sarah G]

sexism?

yah...right... because men have thre high-paying jobs that companies want to cut so they can keep less highly paid women.

real sexism, babe.

That's what I was thinking. Too bad they arent as willing to lay off the men who are in the seriously high paying executive positions.

 

[Care4all]

the housing, construction, banking, wall street, insurance, thrift, auto...etc businesses were weighted towards employing more men so more men are being downsized as these businesses shrink or fall....imo!

 

[Sarah G]

the housing, construction, banking, wall street, insurance, thrift, auto...etc businesses were weighted towards employing more men so more men are being downsized as these businesses shrink or fall....imo!

Good point.

 

[Indiana Oracle]

From what my wife and I have seen, she has a high mid-level position in a large software company, white collar corporate layoffs have been gender-neutral.

 

[KittenKoder]

the housing, construction, banking, wall street, insurance, thrift, auto...etc businesses were weighted towards employing more men so more men are being downsized as these businesses shrink or fall....imo!

It's simple mathematics ... fewer women in the work force so of course more men will lose their jobs.

 

[Annie]

the housing, construction, banking, wall street, insurance, thrift, auto...etc businesses were weighted towards employing more men so more men are being downsized as these businesses shrink or fall....imo!

It's simple mathematics ... fewer women in the work force so of course more men will lose their jobs.

You win my take!

 

[alan1]

the housing, construction, banking, wall street, insurance, thrift, auto...etc businesses were weighted towards employing more men so more men are being downsized as these businesses shrink or fall....imo!

It's simple mathematics ... fewer women in the work force so of course more men will lose their jobs.

From the article,

Men have lost almost 80 per cent of the 5.1m jobs that have gone in the US since the recession started,

Men didn't have anywhere near 80% of jobs.

 

[Annie]

the housing, construction, banking, wall street, insurance, thrift, auto...etc businesses were weighted towards employing more men so more men are being downsized as these businesses shrink or fall....imo!

It's simple mathematics ... fewer women in the work force so of course more men will lose their jobs.

From the article,

Men have lost almost 80 per cent of the 5.1m jobs that have gone in the US since the recession started,

Men didn't have anywhere near 80% of jobs.

Expound, please. I think this is worth exploring.

 

[KittenKoder]

the housing, construction, banking, wall street, insurance, thrift, auto...etc businesses were weighted towards employing more men so more men are being downsized as these businesses shrink or fall....imo!

It's simple mathematics ... fewer women in the work force so of course more men will lose their jobs.

From the article,

Men have lost almost 80 per cent of the 5.1m jobs that have gone in the US since the recession started,

Men didn't have anywhere near 80% of jobs.

Here is an article that shows the cause and effect more clearly, it is balancing out because of this recession.

Sociological Images » GENDER, THE U.S. WORKFORCE, AND RECESSION

The simple fact that is also addressed is that the higher paying jobs with less use are lost first, thus the higher rate of men losing their jobs shows that men got paid more for less work in many industries. It's sound math and will ultimately result in a much more balanced workforce when we pull out of it.

 

[editec]

Ever notice that for oppressed people the women continue to work but the men can't?

Notice that pattern in Blacks to this day, for example?

That was the pattern in American to a large extent when the Irish were treated like Eurotrash, too.

First of all women still work cheaper, they're less contentious and in many cases they're better at their jobs than men.

Wild generalizations, I know, but generalizations that can probably be shown to be statistically significant, too.

What most of you White Folks don't yet understand is that most of you are becoming relegated to the "no longer economically viable status".

Your kids will understand though.

 

[KittenKoder]

Ever notice that for oppressed people the women continue to work but the men can't?

Notice that pattern in Blacks to this day, for example?

That was the pattern in American to a large extent when the Irish were treated like Eurotrash, too.

First of all women still work cheaper, they're less contentious and in many cases they're better at their jobs than men.

Wild generalizations, I know, but generalizations that can probably be shown to be statistically significant, too.

What most of you White Folks don't yet understand is that most of you are becoming relegated to the "no longer economically viable status".

Your kids will understand though.

They have been shown true of statistics in some fields, mostly management though. Many corporations will seek out qualified women for these positions of power based solely on the statistical data. I am not for forcing them to hire anyone for any reason, and this is one example of why. Businesses will try to make a profit, and if that means hiring more of one "type" of person then they will. There are some job tasks women are not as capable of men to, due to physical structures, though they can over come these differences most wouldn't want to because it also means sacrificing the figure. Some businesses however do not listen to the statistics and have resisted the idea of hiring based on merit and capability, these are failing as we see, so as I suspected before, no force is needed to dictate how or who they hire. In the long run it will make or break the company naturally, as long as we stop bailing them out all the time that is.

 

[alan1]

It's simple mathematics ... fewer women in the work force so of course more men will lose their jobs.

From the article,

Men have lost almost 80 per cent of the 5.1m jobs that have gone in the US since the recession started,

Men didn't have anywhere near 80% of jobs.

Here is an article that shows the cause and effect more clearly, it is balancing out because of this recession.

Sociological Images » GENDER, THE U.S. WORKFORCE, AND RECESSION

The simple fact that is also addressed is that the higher paying jobs with less use are lost first, thus the higher rate of men losing their jobs shows that men got paid more for less work in many industries. It's sound math and will ultimately result in a much more balanced workforce when we pull out of it.

Your article exactly shows my point, Women held 47% of the jobs, yet 80% of the jobs lost were lost by men.
To simply be flippant and say "It's simple mathematics ... fewer women in the work force so of course more men will lose their jobs", isn't the entire story.

 

[jillian]

sexism?

yah...right... because men have thre high-paying jobs that companies want to cut so they can keep less highly paid women.

real sexism, babe.

Missed that question mark, eh?

no. i didn't. but there's no reason for a question mark because it ISN'T sexism.... at least not in the way you set the thread up for.

 

[KittenKoder]

From the article,


Men didn't have anywhere near 80% of jobs.

Here is an article that shows the cause and effect more clearly, it is balancing out because of this recession.

Sociological Images » GENDER, THE U.S. WORKFORCE, AND RECESSION

The simple fact that is also addressed is that the higher paying jobs with less use are lost first, thus the higher rate of men losing their jobs shows that men got paid more for less work in many industries. It's sound math and will ultimately result in a much more balanced workforce when we pull out of it.

Your article exactly shows my point, Women held 47% of the jobs, yet 80% of the jobs lost were lost by men.
To simply be flippant and say "It's simple mathematics ... fewer women in the work force so of course more men will lose their jobs", isn't the entire story.

Yet if you look at the graph on the right you can see that the amount who are keeping their jobs draws closer because of it, and it is just simple mathematics, when there is a majority of one gender having jobs then it's only simple logic that more of those jobs lost would be from that majority.

 

[editec]

I know more women with honest work than men, now.

They don't have great jobs and they're underpaid and overworked, but they're working and their men aren't.

And you know?

I'll bet the same can be said in many other nations in the world, too.

The corporate world LIKES women working in lower positions because they expect less money, they're easier to get along with, and they're just as competent (if not more competent in many cases).

Now in the top positions that might not be the case, but it's fairly obvious in the lower skilled positions.

 

[KittenKoder]

I know more women with honest work than men, now.

They don't have great jobs and they're underpaid and overworked, but they're working and their men aren't.

And you know?

I'll bet the same can be said in many other nations in the world, too.

The corporate world LIKES women working in lower positions because they expect less money, they're easier to get along with, and they're just as competent (if not more competent in many cases).

Now in the top positions that might not be the case, but it's fairly obvious in the lower skilled positions.

I guess something good came from us expecting less from the bosses huh ...

 

[alan1]

I know more women with honest work than men, now.

They don't have great jobs and they're underpaid and overworked, but they're working and their men aren't.

And you know?

I'll bet the same can be said in many other nations in the world, too.

The corporate world LIKES women working in lower positions because they expect less money, they're easier to get along with, and they're just as competent (if not more competent in many cases).

Now in the top positions that might not be the case, but it's fairly obvious in the lower skilled positions.

Interesting, I worked in management for warehouses and distribution centers for 20 years. Women got paid the same as men. See, a forklift works exactly the same when the operator is a 110 lb woman as it does when the operator is a 200 lb man. A big part of that 20 years was in inventory control and quality control, the women that worked for me got paid the same as the men. And that goes for both the hourly workers and the supervisors I had working for me.