Gap Between Male and Female Unemployment Reaches Record Level

[The Straight Story]

Gap Between Male and Female Unemployment Reaches Record Level
Monday, January 25, 2010

In more than 60 years of data collecting, the unemployment gap between men and women has never been wider. As of the end of the third quarter in 2009, the jobless rate for men was 10.5% and 8.7% for women, according to the Economic Policy Institute. But the disparity is expected to increase even further by the third quarter of 2010, when the male unemployment rate will climb to 11.7% and the female to 9.7%. In some states the gap is considerably wider. Michigan is the worst, with a projected rate of 20% for men and 13.8% for women by the third quarter of this year.

Some observers have dubbed the current economic situation a “mancession” and attribute it to the fact that industries hardest hit by the economic downturn, like construction and manufacturing, are more male-oriented, while fields with a higher percentage of female workers, like health care and education, have been less vulnerable.

http://www.allgov.com/ViewNews/Gap_Between_Male_and_Female_Unemployment_Reaches_Record_Level_100125

[Hekate]

1. More than ever, families will depend on Mom's earnings to keep them afloat...

Originally, as wages stagnated the surge of women into the workforce masked the fact that their husbands' income wasn't enough to keep them in the middle class any more. Now we're at the point where the lower wages of the wives may be all that's keeping the family from outright destitution. If they can just hold on long enough. If both of them don't lose their jobs at the same time. If nobody in the family gets sick. If just a little bit of luck comes their way. If...

Hekate

[Skidmore]

2. As an unemployed female, my family doesn't need my lost income

less than any males.

[noamnety]

3. some charts

[endless october]

4. 10.5 percent my ass. it's much higher.

[dgibby]

5. I wonder if that's blow back from the practice

of paying men more than women in the first place?

[Robb]

6. Seems a possibility

...Better bang for your buck, so to speak, to lay off a higher-paid worker.

I'd also like to say I'll do about *anything* if I can be assured I never again hear the word "mancession." :eyes:

[Hannah Bell]

7. This is a very bad sign for reasons besides the still-rising general unemployment.

First, manufacturing productivity has tripled since the 70s, yet men's median income has dropped.

Second, combined male-female median income is only $8000 higher than it was in 1974. That's not even enough to make up for the drawbacks in families of having both parents working (extra transportation, clothing & other work-related costs, childcare costs, less time for household work, plus the big drawback for children of not having full-time parenting).

Third, since income has shifted to the top, people in the bottom half are probably actually making less than they were in 1974.

Fourth, higher male v. female unemployment rates is typical of "ghettoization" -- I'm not just talking about stereotypical urban ghettos, but most high-poverty regions. And it's typically concurrent with higher crime, drug use, & family dysfunction.

[undeterred]

8. Doesn't this have something to do with women being paid less?

I have no doubt that women have never caught up to men in terms of being paid the same for the same work. Last I heard, women earned about 70% of what men do. That's not fair. But in a declining economy it makes sense that the employer is going to cut the male employees if he can get a couple of women to do it for less. Women ask for less starting pay and are less inclined to ask for raises.