Mancession? Now, Then?

[Kathianne]

I went searching for previous posts on the sex differences in unemployment over time, but can't find any. I guess my posts on that have been at other sites. Suffice it to say, men and women as aggregates are not suffering the same unemployment hits. Some is the nature of jobs, as the following makes clear. Some is bias, as the following also makes clear:

http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/20...american-dream

“Mancession” Threatens American Dream
By Doug McKelway
Created 2010-12-09 15:44

It's a question that riles soldiers on the front lines of the gender wars: Has the economic recession hit men disproportionately to women?

University of Michigan economist Mark Perry says yes, and coined the term, "mancession" as the economic plunge gained momentum. He says that while the recession is a "downturn" for women, it is a "catastrophe" for men.

Some statistics bear that out. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, when the labor market deteriorated in 2009, men felt the brunt of it. Some 3.1 million jobs held by men were lost last year compared to only 1.6 million jobs for women.

Simply put, manufacturing, smokestack, and manual labor jobs are still largely the domain of males, while the "softer" service sector jobs -- like those in education, health or retail -- are more populated by females.

Christina Hoff Sommers of the American Enterprise Institute, who penned controversial books called "The War Against Boys" and "Who Stole Feminism," suggests that there was political motivation behind some of the job losses in traditionally male-dominated fields. She wrote in The Weekly Standard last February that feminist groups pressured the Obama administration to deflect money for "shovel ready" jobs into the softer sectors.

"Christina Romer [1], the highly regarded economist President Obama chose to chair his Council of Economic Advisers," Hoff Sommers writes, "would later say of her entrance on the political stage, ‘The very first email I got . . . was from a women's group saying We don't want this stimulus package to just create jobs for burly men.' "

"No matter that those burly men were the ones who had lost most of the jobs," Hoff Sommers chided.

Others suggest the concept of a "mancession" is simply overblown -- if not short lived. Writing in the liberal Huffington Post, Bryce Covert points out that a U.S. Conference of Mayors study found, "half of the projected new green jobs will be in heavily male dominated areas, such as engineering, consulting, manufacturing, construction and forestry."...

Any thoughts?

[SassyLady]

I went searching for previous posts on the sex differences in unemployment over time, but can't find any. I guess my posts on that have been at other sites. Suffice it to say, men and women as aggregates are not suffering the same unemployment hits. Some is the nature of jobs, as the following makes clear. Some is bias, as the following also makes clear:

http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/20...american-dream




Any thoughts?

Well, the article says three times as many men were laid off ... in numbers. I would like to see what the percentages were .... perhaps there are three times as many men working than women and that a proportionate number of men were laid off....which, to me, wouldn't make for a mancession.

[fj1200]

Any thoughts?

I believe it. For reasons discussed in other threads our competitiveness has been ignored for 30? years and it's going to be those jobs typically done by men which will be hurt the hardest. It seems to me a bunch get lost in a displacement (where core jobs are lost) recession (I just made that term up what do you think?) and do not come back because they can't make up the competitive disadvantage that we've given ourselves. Women working in service type jobs are better off because we are increasingly becoming a service economy.

The lib sniping they discussed is most likely a non-factor overall especially the vaunted green jobs; job growth there will be underwhelming IMO.

[Kathianne]

Well, the article says three times as many men were laid off ... in numbers. I would like to see what the percentages were .... perhaps there are three times as many men working than women and that a proportionate number of men were laid off....which, to me, wouldn't make for a mancession.

I thought of that too. While I didn't incorporate, here's some of what I found:

http://www.dol.gov/wb/factsheets/Qf-laborforce-08.htm

Women in the Labor Force in 2008

*
Of the 121 million women age 16 years and over in the U.S., 72 million, or 59.5 percent, were labor force participants—working or looking for work.

*
Women comprised 46.5 percent of the total U.S. labor force.

*
Women are projected to account for 49 percent of the increase in total labor force growth between 2006 and 2016.

*
A record 68 million women were employed in the U.S.--75 percent of employed women worked on full-time jobs, while 25 percent worked on a part-time basis.

*
The largest percentage of employed women (39.5 percent) worked in management, professional, and related occupations; 33.1 percent worked in sales and office occupations; 20.6 percent in service occupations; 5.9 percent in production, transportation, and material moving occupations; and 0.9 percent in natural resources, construction, and maintenance occupations.

*
The largest percentage of employed Asian and white women (46.0 percent and 40.6 percent, respectively) worked in management, professional, and related occupations. The largest percentage of employed black women was split among management, professional, and related occupations at 31.3 percent and sales and office occupations at 31.9 percent. Hispanic women showed their strongest attachment to sales and office occupations at 32.9 percent.

*
The unemployment rate for all women was 5.4 percent and for men it was 6.1 percent. Among female race/ethnic groups, Asian women continue to display the lowest unemployment rate of 3.7 percent. For white women, it was 4.9 percent; Hispanic women, 7.7 percent; and black women, 8.9 percent.
...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/business/06women.html

February 6, 2009
As Layoffs Surge, Women May Pass Men in Job Force
By CATHERINE RAMPELL

With the recession on the brink of becoming the longest in the postwar era, a milestone may be at hand: Women are poised to surpass men on the nation’s payrolls, taking the majority for the first time in American history.

The reason has less to do with gender equality than with where the ax is falling.

The proportion of women who are working has changed very little since the recession started. But a full 82 percent of the job losses have befallen men, who are heavily represented in distressed industries like manufacturing and construction. Women tend to be employed in areas like education and health care, which are less sensitive to economic ups and downs, and in jobs that allow more time for child care and other domestic work.

“Given how stark and concentrated the job losses are among men, and that women represented a high proportion of the labor force in the beginning of this recession, women are now bearing the burden — or the opportunity, one could say — of being breadwinners,” says Heather Boushey, a senior economist at the Center for American Progress.

Economists have predicted before that women would one day dominate the labor force as more ventured outside the home. The number of women entering the work force slowed and even dipped during the boom years earlier this decade, though, prompting a debate about whether women truly wanted to be both breadwinners and caregivers. ...

[SassyLady]

I thought of that too. While I didn't incorporate, here's some of what I found:

http://www.dol.gov/wb/factsheets/Qf-laborforce-08.htm



http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/business/06women.html

Well, this information supports a "mancession". Helpful to know where we need to focus job creation.

[Kathianne]

Well, this information supports a "mancession". Helpful to know where we need to focus job creation.

What seems to be happening is the areas hit were male dominated, but the 'help' given were female dominated, even though it was the male dominated sectors hit.

[SassyLady]

What seems to be happening is the areas hit were male dominated, but the 'help' given were female dominated, even though it was the male dominated sectors hit.

Perhaps. That might be why there were less women laid off in 2009. Or, it could be that more women were laid off in 2008 and in 2009 the male side caught up. Hard to make judgments based on numbers from one year. It would be interesting to see where all the stimulus money ended up ... did it go to the more female dominated industries?

[Kathianne]

Perhaps. That might be why there were less women laid off in 2009. Or, it could be that more women were laid off in 2008 and in 2009 the male side caught up. Hard to make judgments based on numbers from one year. It would be interesting to see where all the stimulus money ended up ... did it go to the more female dominated industries?

Agree. I think I covered 2008 and 09, did you find more?

[SassyLady]

Agree. I think I covered 2008 and 09, did you find more?

No.

Another thing to look at is industries like personal care ... hairdressers, manicurists, house cleaners, child care, ....... who can't apply for unemployment just because their clientele falls off. I wonder how these numbers are tracked .... and they are typically female dominated positions.

[Kathianne]

No.

Another thing to look at is industries like personal care ... hairdressers, manicurists, house cleaners, child care, ....... who can't apply for unemployment just because their clientele falls off. I wonder how these numbers are tracked .... and they are typically female dominated positions.

Which only makes the stats worse for all.

[SassyLady]

Which only makes the stats worse for all.

Yep ..... but less support for the "mancession" concept, I would believe.

[Trigg]

It makes sense that more men were affected.

When the housing bubble burst it caused builders to stop building additional houses and people stopped updating their existing homes. A field dominated by men.

When the BIG 3 laid off their workers that also hit men since that is another field dominated by men.

[Said1]

Mancession, I thought this thread was going to be about a shortag eof men, and I was going to say I was sooo glad we don't have that problem up here. Woop.