Pretty depressing. Why do you guys think this is?
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/07/08/male_employment_never_recovers_from_recessions.html
Quote
Male Employment Never Recovers From Recessions
By Matthew Yglesias
|
Posted Sunday, July 8, 2012, at 10:25 AM ET
Here's the broadest labor market indicator around—the ratio of employed people to total people—broken down by gender over the past fifty years. One striking thing that pops out is that the labor market for men never recovers from recessions. Each trough is followed by a new peak, but the new peak is lower than the previous peak.
The situation for women is different. For a long time there's a clear upward underlying trend. Whether that trend ended recently or we're simply in an incredibly severe local trough is hard to say.
But for men, in the past full recovery has never happened.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slate.com%2Fcontent%2Fdam%2Fslate%2Fblogs%2Fmoneybox%2F2012%2F07%2F08%2Fmale_employment_never_recovers_from_recessions%2F1341757531175.png.CROP.article568-large.png&hash=3f48a5b139d942fbbdf2f2b0b6d079f0f7f18bc5)
I would expect employment-population ratio to drop due to society getting older. More and more Americans are 60+ and simply can't or don't need to work anymore. It could be that peak employment-population ratio trends downward longterm.
Reminds me of German "Sockelarbeitslosigkeit", i.e. where at the end of each recession a certain level of unemployment would persist.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.forextotal.de%2Ffiles%2F2010%2F12%2Farbeitslosenquote-deutschland.jpg&hash=b0bec3f07e3e4d246cdc4e5212b516282ceb3fee)
Quote from: Zanza on July 09, 2012, 05:47:23 AM
I would expect employment-population ratio to drop due to society getting older. More and more Americans are 60+ and simply can't or don't need to work anymore. It could be that peak employment-population ratio trends downward longterm.
The figures have to be referring to working age population. Otherwise they don't make sense. 80% of *all* males of any age working?
This seems like an idiotic conclusion - what these graphs seem to illustrate to me is that the percentage of working women has been increasing steadily between 1960 and 1990s, as this was the period of the greatest social revolution when it comes to female employment rates - and then it has been pretty much following the same trends as the male employment.
Also, it seems to me that the overal employment rate would be similar, it's just that in some jobs women are replacing men. The fact that women go to work does not, in itself, create more jobs so it is to be expected. In fact if you look at 1962 and now, then assuming that the female and the male populace is broadly speaking 1:1 (or whereabouts), there is a slightly larger percentage of the overall populace working today than it did in 1962, so the joblessness rate is lower.
Why would intelligent women replacing useless men be "pretty depressing"?
Quote from: Martinus on July 09, 2012, 06:04:59 AM
The fact that women go to work does not, in itself, create more jobs so it is to be expected.
Unless you make the outlandish assumption that they spend their pay on something.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 09, 2012, 06:09:34 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 09, 2012, 06:04:59 AM
The fact that women go to work does not, in itself, create more jobs so it is to be expected.
Unless you make the outlandish assumption that they spend their pay on something.
Not if they replace the men - since then the ousted men would have less money to spend on stuff. Besides, not all women who work are single or DINKs. It could be very well that a lot of working women correspond to an increased number of "stay at home dads". Which would be a reasonable assumption to make.
Here's a hypothesis why this could be the case - women are apparently more willing to accept worse-paid jobs in exchange for work stability; they could also be more willing to re-train for a different job at a later age.
This means that women may be more attractive employees during recession periods - and consequently when the recession ends, they may already be in the job market whereas a less flexible male worker who was laid out, after being out of work for 2-3 years, becomes unemployable.
This could explain why the spread between employed women and employed men seems to close after each recession.
The vast majority of men, at the pinnacle of their earning power, are the ones that companies eliminate first when shedding labor costs to stop corporate hemorrhaging during economic downturns.
When they're inserted back into the recovery, they're at lesser salary points.
That, and the mortality rate of men goes up in times of economic severity.
I just made all that up, but it sounds plausible.
Quote from: Syt on July 09, 2012, 05:54:48 AM
Reminds me of German "Sockelarbeitslosigkeit", i.e. where at the end of each recession a certain level of unemployment would persist.
Kind of like my argument where, once employers contract due to economic downturns and remain viable, they are loathe to expand labor. Hence why the private sector that survived 2008 are sitting on 2 trillion of capital, and not hiring for shit.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 09, 2012, 05:58:27 AM
Quote from: Zanza on July 09, 2012, 05:47:23 AM
I would expect employment-population ratio to drop due to society getting older. More and more Americans are 60+ and simply can't or don't need to work anymore. It could be that peak employment-population ratio trends downward longterm.
The figures have to be referring to working age population. Otherwise they don't make sense. 80% of *all* males of any age working?
Wouldn't that mean about 37% unemployment and underemployment for males and 45% for females right now? That can't be correct as it is higher than even during the depression, no?
Quote from: Syt on July 09, 2012, 05:54:48 AM
Reminds me of German "Sockelarbeitslosigkeit", i.e. where at the end of each recession a certain level of unemployment would persist.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.forextotal.de%2Ffiles%2F2010%2F12%2Farbeitslosenquote-deutschland.jpg&hash=b0bec3f07e3e4d246cdc4e5212b516282ceb3fee)
If that graph would go to 2012, it would no longer hold true though. Right now, unemployment in West Germany is about 5.7%, which is lower than in the 30 years before. Unemployment in East Germany is at its 1991 level.
Looks like we are recovering from the latest one better than the ladies...not that that says much.
Quote from: Martinus on July 09, 2012, 06:18:14 AM
Here's a hypothesis why this could be the case - women are apparently more willing to accept worse-paid jobs in exchange for work stability; they could also be more willing to re-train for a different job at a later age.
I saw a study about that. It showed men being better at negotiating better salaries because they were more willing to take the risk than the women were. I guess the female strategy is better in recessionary times.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 09, 2012, 11:59:13 AM
I saw a study about that. It showed men being better at negotiating better salaries because they were more willing to take the risk than the women were.
We have to be; we don't have cleavage to offer during the interview.
Men don't need to work as much since women work more.
Nobody beats you if you live in your parent's basement and play video games until age 29.
More men stopped working and claim disability payments.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 09, 2012, 01:05:18 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 09, 2012, 11:59:13 AM
I saw a study about that. It showed men being better at negotiating better salaries because they were more willing to take the risk than the women were.
We have to be; we don't have cleavage to offer during the interview.
That never managed to sway me when I was conducting job interviews. But did some of them try. Oh did they try. :lol:
Ever wonder why most of the guys you interview wear open toe sandals with their suits? :D
Quote from: Zanza on July 09, 2012, 11:00:58 AM
Wouldn't that mean about 37% unemployment and underemployment for males and 45% for females right now? That can't be correct as it is higher than even during the depression, no?
That does lead to a (much) lower labor force participation rate for men then I would have expected, but it still is more reasonable than 80% of all men aged 0-infinity holding a job.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 09, 2012, 06:05:12 PM
Quote from: Zanza on July 09, 2012, 11:00:58 AM
Wouldn't that mean about 37% unemployment and underemployment for males and 45% for females right now? That can't be correct as it is higher than even during the depression, no?
That does lead to a (much) lower labor force participation rate for men then I would have expected, but it still is more reasonable than 80% of all men aged 0-infinity holding a job.
Maybe it only counts adults (men and women, not including boys and girls). Since the graph itself doesn't tell us, who knows?
If this graph includes all adult males/females then (besides the fact that using such metrics would be pretty idiotic and make an even bigger idiot out of Timmay), the decreasing levels of employment among men would be easily explained by the aging population. :huh:
According to the comments under the article, apparently, the total population in these graphs is all males and females, respectively, aged 18 or more.
:frusty:
What a way to totally misinterpret the data with an alarmistic headline. What is this slate.com website? Some sort of blog for retards?
Quote from: Martinus on July 10, 2012, 06:14:54 AM
What a way to totally misinterpret the data with an alarmistic headline.
The headline should have been: MEN ARE ALL DOOOOOMED!!11
Quote from: Valmy on July 10, 2012, 08:24:04 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 10, 2012, 06:14:54 AM
What a way to totally misinterpret the data with an alarmistic headline.
The headline should have been: MEN ARE ALL DOOOOOMED!!11
so you do read slate, huh? :P