Male Employment Never Fully Recovers From Recessions

Started by jimmy olsen, July 09, 2012, 04:27:30 AM

Previous topic - Next topic
Print
Go Down Pages 1 2
User actions

Phillip V

#15
July 09, 2012, 04:35:41 PM
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.

Martinus

#16
July 09, 2012, 04:39:33 PM
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:

HVC

#17
July 09, 2012, 04:41:05 PM
Ever wonder why most of the guys you interview wear open toe sandals with their suits? :D
Being lazy is bad; unless you still get what you want, then it's called "patience".
Hubris must be punished. Severely.

Admiral Yi

#18
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.

dps

#19
July 09, 2012, 06:36:41 PM
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?

Martinus

#20
July 10, 2012, 06:09:25 AM
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:

Martinus

#21
July 10, 2012, 06:14:54 AM
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?

Valmy

#22
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
Quote"This is a Russian warship. I propose you lay down arms and surrender to avoid bloodshed & unnecessary victims. Otherwise, you'll be bombed."

Zmiinyi defenders: "Russian warship, go fuck yourself."

HVC

#23
July 10, 2012, 10:18:16 AM
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
Being lazy is bad; unless you still get what you want, then it's called "patience".
Hubris must be punished. Severely.
Print
Go Up Pages 1 2
User actions