I find this fairly astounding. The typical stay-at-home parent is the mother and while it's getting closer to parity I don't think it's anywhere near even. For that reason alone I would expect more men in the work force. What are men doing if not working? On disability? Homeless? Retiring earlier?
Keep in mind, the US population is 51% female. So there is still a higher percentage of employed males vs employed females.
However that may be simply because there are more retired women than retired men (the former living longer than the latter).
Women tend to choose jobs that pay less. They're on average more interested in people, so they tend to choose to become nurses, teachers, etc., while men are interested in things and become software developers, engineers, etc. I have no idea why income HAS TO be distributed equally. Unless you want to force women to become software developers..? But why.
I would assume if someone did gap analysis they would factor that in. It isn't about the wholistic are women making more or less than men. Rather it's the equality of are women who are the same role of men making the same. There shouldn't be a difference there.
This analysis is continuously being done. You can find it for your country easily. In most developed countries a ~5% gap exists. This is usually attributed to men being more aggressive in negotiations.
"Perhaps one should not dwell too long, however, on the question of what type of leisure low-skill young men are engaging in. The more important fact remains that leisure is slowly replacing work in their lives, as immigrants replace them in the labor force."
That is probably the one part of the article they really should've made more prominent. Yet they didn't. They hammered it home that videogames and young men not getting married and having 12 kids is the problem. Maybe culturally getting married is incredibly more time consuming and difficult than it used to be? I mean I'm reading George Orwell's Burmese days and the main character was trying to propose (and the girl…
It did used to be normal to marry after extremely short time from our point of view. And divorce was harder.
There were consequences for that through - partner who hate each other, violence, abuse (verbal, emotional, physical). Alcoholism.
I agree with Esther Perel's thinking[1] that the next century is going to involve a broadening on what society deems a positive life is for straight, cis men. In the same way that we consider it acceptable for women to express themselves or live differently than the gender roles of the past, I think we'll start to do the same for men. I already see this with my millennial or genZ peers. It's not uncommon to read comm…
I admit that I haven't read much on the subject, but it feels to me that, at least in American society, it has long been considered more acceptable for men to have various social arrangements than for women. My impression is that it's considered far more acceptable for a man to be working and unmarried well past the average marriage age than for a woman. Compare the words "bachelor" and "spinster."
I think that comes from biology, many men can have children in their 70s, most women have problems past 35 (my piano teacher almost died in the age of 41 while giving birth, 3 years ago). Maybe medicine in the future would allow it, but as far as nature goes, there are different limits.
I would assume if someone did gap analysis they would factor that in. It isn't about the wholistic are women making more or less than men. Rather it's the equality of are women who are the same role of men making the same. There shouldn't be a difference there.
Maybe. Aren't there laws that prevent discrimination on gender and race pretty much in every first-world country? That would make it illegal to pay a woman less for the same job. If you consider jobs where the title is the same but the professional works B2B, maybe women are less likely to ask for a better pay? That's why pink razors cost more, after all. Female soccer players make less money because less people watc…
> Female soccer players make less money because less people watch and there is less money
I think this is a great example! The US women's soccer team is better than the men's but they make a fraction of the money. It's not their fault that sports have a sexist history that influences viewership, ad revenue, and ultimately their salaries.
Interesting. Will there be a nationwide push to hire more men to make up for all of this inequality?
Not sure what inequality you're talking about, given that the US population is right at a 50/50 split between men and women. Then again, I'm not sure how genuine you're being here.
The more interesting thing is the distribution of income. I would happily bet that there still is a considerable gap between women on average and men on average and that the total amount taken home by that majority is significantly less than the total amount for the men.
Women tend to choose jobs that pay less. They're on average more interested in people, so they tend to choose to become nurses, teachers, etc., while men are interested in things and become software developers, engineers, etc. I have no idea why income HAS TO be distributed equally. Unless you want to force women to become software developers..? But why.
Here are a couple sides of the arguments:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcDrE5YvqTs -- According to the DOL there is a much smaller than typically quoted wage gap, and there are additional variables not accounted for.
No one knows exactly why this is happening, though declining demand for low-skill work seems to be a factor. What happens as this continues to decline?
Not sure, but historically large numbers of unemployed young men has not been a good thing for societal stability.