The male unemployment rate: 10.5%
The female unemployment rate: 8%
The difference (2.5%) is the largest differential since the data has been kept — since WWII.


http://www.economistblog.com/2009/06/06/...n-cession/


never had this happen before....fruits of Liberal Favoritism

GGniner you are better then this. I used to respect you as one of the more informed posters on this board, but you just lost it with this post. Where are the jobs being lost? Manufacturing. Guess who works in those jobs, men.

Who would you rather higher for a service job?

we've had recessions in these segments before, the point is there are more Govt. protected jobs than there use to be, which women tend to get. but your right, construction and manufacturing are male dominated, teaching and government jobs are female dominated though, today.

its an interesting video and here is another post by the Economist cited:

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/06/more...-2009.html

Quote:The chart above (click to enlarge) shows May unemployment rates by industry from the current BLS employment report (Table A-11), and employment by gender in selected industries. The chart helps explain the Great Mancession of 2008-2009 and the historically unprecedented male (10.5%) - female (8%) jobless rate gap of 2.5%.

Two of the hardest hit sectors in the current recession are construction (19.2% unemployment rate) and manufacturing (12.6% unemployment rate), both far above the 9.1% average jobless rate (from Table A-11), and those sectors are predominantly male industries: 90% of construction jobs in 2008 were held by males, and males held 71% of the manufacturing jobs.

On the other hand, the growing education and health services sector is 77% female, and the government sector is 57% female; and those two industries have jobless rates far below average. The unemployment rate for education and health services workers (4.9%) is about half the average rate of 9.1%, and government workers enjoy a jobless rate (3.1%) that is about 1/3 of the average rate.

(06-09-2009 04:06 PM)egoboss407 Wrote:  Who would you rather higher for a service job?

If I need service, a woman will do it.

(06-09-2009 04:07 PM)GGniner Wrote:  we've had recessions in these segments before, the point is there are more Govt. protected jobs than there use to be, which women tend to get. but your right, construction and manufacturing are male dominated, teaching and government jobs are female dominated though, today.

its an interesting video and here is another post by the Economist cited:

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/06/more...-2009.html

Quote:The chart above (click to enlarge) shows May unemployment rates by industry from the current BLS employment report (Table A-11), and employment by gender in selected industries. The chart helps explain the Great Mancession of 2008-2009 and the historically unprecedented male (10.5%) - female (8%) jobless rate gap of 2.5%.

Two of the hardest hit sectors in the current recession are construction (19.2% unemployment rate) and manufacturing (12.6% unemployment rate), both far above the 9.1% average jobless rate (from Table A-11), and those sectors are predominantly male industries: 90% of construction jobs in 2008 were held by males, and males held 71% of the manufacturing jobs.

On the other hand, the growing education and health services sector is 77% female, and the government sector is 57% female; and those two industries have jobless rates far below average. The unemployment rate for education and health services workers (4.9%) is about half the average rate of 9.1%, and government workers enjoy a jobless rate (3.1%) that is about 1/3 of the average rate.

You said this was the fruit of "liberal favoritism" which in not correct. This is the fruit of historically conservative gender work practices which usually dictate that women become teachers and nurses. Two areas where that the recession is not currently effecting.

(06-09-2009 04:03 PM)uhmump95 Wrote:  GGniner you are better then this. I used to respect you as one of the more informed posters on this board, but you just lost it with this post. Where are the jobs being lost? Manufacturing. Guess who works in those jobs, men.

I do think he has a point to the extent that manufacturing is the sector most negatively impacted by all of the changes that have been brought on, primarily by the liberal side of the political spectrum.

More stringent environmental rules hit manufacturing hard.
So do higher minimum wages.
And higher "jackpot" personal injury judgements.
And a number of other things that come from the left wing.

Not saying that they are bad, per se. In particular, I would strongly support stringent--but logical--environmental rules. But we should never make the mistake of implementing a policy which may be good on its face, without considering the unintended side effects, and figuring out how to mitigate the harmful ones.

(06-09-2009 04:06 PM)egoboss407 Wrote:  Who would you rather higher for a service job?

Gee, which one would I "higher"?

(06-09-2009 10:00 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(06-09-2009 04:06 PM)egoboss407 Wrote:  Who would you rather higher for a service job?

Gee, which one would I "higher"?

Now that's a friggin' joint.