Women now make up the majority of the U.S. labor force • Hacker News Board

Re: Women now make up the majority of the U.S. labor force

#251

Post by Bartweiss » Fri, Jan 10, 2020, 11:53 PM UTC

lopmotr wrote: post #10

deeg wrote: post #3

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?

Some are being "proprietors, private household employees, unpaid volunteers, farm employees and the unincorporated self-employed." From a link somebody else posted https://www.stlouisfed.org/open-vault/2019/july/nonfarm-payr... Unincorporated self-employed sounds like tradesmen, laborers, and some kinds of professionals which is a lot of men.

I went looking, and found that "unincorporated self-employed" is exactly as you say, and is 2/3 male. Farm employees are roughly 3/4 male. Soldiers (~90% male) are also excluded.

"Nonfarm payrolls" was never meant to be a gender-balanced stat, it just excludes the hardest to track jobs. Which is fine for comparison over time, but makes 50% a meaningless metric.

Re: Women now make up the majority of the U.S. labor force

#252

Post by Bartweiss » Fri, Jan 10, 2020, 11:56 PM UTC

Sharlin wrote: post #61

russdill wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Lifespans are the reason for that, and births are majority-male, so the adult stats are actually even more heavily female. But the 25–54 cohort is gender balanced, and women are the majority starting from 55–64, so the effect kicks in well before retirement.

(This also screws with the labor force participation stats, since unless you check "prime age" there's no upper age boundary.)

Re: Women now make up the majority of the U.S. labor force

#253

Post by Bartweiss » Fri, Jan 10, 2020, 11:59 PM UTC

xenihn wrote: post #9

deeg wrote: post #3

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?

The article specifies payroll positions. I don't know what that means exactly, but I assume it would discount sharing-economy jobs (are we still calling them that?).

It excludes "unincorporated self-employed" people, which I think covers much of the gig economy. Even more relevantly, it means many construction workers, most painters, etc. are excluded.

Re: Women now make up the majority of the U.S. labor force

#254

Post by amishadowbanned » Sat, Jan 11, 2020, 12:09 AM UTC

mffnbs wrote: post #66

nkkollaw wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

the sexist history is that people prefer watching better athletes.

Re: Women now make up the majority of the U.S. labor force

#255

Post by outime » Sat, Jan 11, 2020, 12:31 AM UTC

deeg wrote: post #3

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?

From what I anecdotally see (outside US) some men got frustrated with society and just don’t want to work. Everything they need seem to be found at home, similar to the hikimori in Japan albeit not so extreme. It’s sometimes (so not always) related to dating failures. I could argue that dating is getting increasingly difficult for the heterosexual male and that paired with bad jobs would make some men think twice about participating in the society game. Some other people linked articles/studies talking about this so my non-scientific observation can be supported somewhat.

Re: Women now make up the majority of the U.S. labor force

#256

Post by downerending » Sat, Jan 11, 2020, 12:46 AM UTC

wayoutthere wrote: post #72

nkkollaw wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ignoring everything else wrong with your post, I'll just point out that most software developers were originally women before about 1960 -- it was seen as "woman's work" because it didn't require physical labor. Women were significant contributors to the development of computing from the very beginning -- in fact, "software" as a concept was invented by a woman [1]. The profession didn't become high-status or highly-…

The story is far more complex than this, and the history makes interesting reading. As one might imagine, what we call software development today was really split into an array of roles: some more like mathematicians, some like engineers, some typists, etc.

The idea that women were somehow shut out of the industry doesn't really hold up. My programming classes in the 80s, for example, were about 50-50, and in my early career, I worked under several senior women programmers/technologists.

Re: Women now make up the majority of the U.S. labor force

#257

Post by anon9001 » Sat, Jan 11, 2020, 12:50 AM UTC

shard972 wrote: post #126

anon9001 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Some are living in their parents basement until they're 30 to 40. I understand this is considered a bad thing, and it makes sense at a societal level, but honestly it sounds like a pretty amazing life. Maybe that would have been boring and depressing pre-internet, but it seems pretty good now. I know one dude who essentially grifted his way into the disability system, and I've watched him go from an anxious mess to…

You think a life where the only people who really know you and care about you actually kind of just loathe you? Contriubting nothing back to the scioety that created you? Leaving nothing on this earth after your gone then a collection of garbage? > Maybe we need an acceptable way for people who can't mentally handle work to be able to exist in society. What does mentally can't handle work even mean. Animals can work,…

> You think a life where the only people who really know you and care about you actually kind of just loathe you?

You mean my coworkers?

> Contriubting nothing back to the scioety that created you?

Sorry, I'll get right back to selling ads.

> Leaving nothing on this earth after your gone then a collection of garbage?

Don't forget a pile of proprietary code.

> What does mentally can't handle work even mean.

It means that some people feel cornered and constant anxiety and occasional panic attacks due to their work obligations. Those people can't handle work.

Re: Women now make up the majority of the U.S. labor force

#258

Post by natechols » Sat, Jan 11, 2020, 12:54 AM UTC

anon9001 wrote: post #237

cmdshiftf4 wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Maybe we need an acceptable way for people who can't mentally handle work to be able to exist in society. I initially felt on-the-fence about this but upon further thought I absolutely disagree with the idea. Society works and thrives when we've a common goal (all working to make things slightly better for everyone one bit at a time) and honest reciprocal agreements as one. I am happy to partake in a society where t…

I used to have your view about this too, but I've lost confidence in your premise that "society works and thrives when we've a common goal". I don't think we can really know what makes society thrive, and some of the traditional measures like unemployment and productivity may not be the right ones to use. I think the answer is in some sort of UBI, where everyone can have a base level of existence for "free", but if y…

Status symbols and shiny toys aren't the only reason to want a job, unless you consider wanting a house large enough for each kid to have their own room a status symbol (rather than a basic improvement in living conditions). Or living in a big city with lots of cultural events (and compatible mates) but an expensive housing market. The biggest reason is that as long as you're dependent on UBI or other forms of welfare, you are dependent on the goodwill of the government and your fellow citizens, none of which are guaranteed indefinitely even in a liberal democracy. To be truly and completely "free", you need economic freedom too.

That's not an argument against UBI - I mostly agree with your analysis and solution - but I wouldn't be so dismissive of individuals' desire to improve their lives directly. It's not "greed" to want some control over your living standards and situation.

Re: Women now make up the majority of the U.S. labor force

#259

Post by lidHanteyk » Sat, Jan 11, 2020, 1:14 AM UTC

shantly wrote: post #211

magduf wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>perhaps in ways that men are expected to seem "confident" or "strong" or "independent" which I think can be stiffing. Yep, and women demand this too: many women's dating profiles talk about how they want a guy who's "confident but not cocky", who "makes a plan" for dates, who "takes the lead", etc. Basically, American women want hyper-masculine men who look like George Clooney (when younger), but then they sit aroun…

> Men's fashion is truly horrible compared to women's fashion. Men basically have the choice of either a stuffy suit that look like it hasn't changed in a century and is completely impractical, or baggy pants and a baggy hoody. Women get all kinds of choices in clothes, including lots which show off their bodies, while men's clothes are basically designed to hide our bodies completely and look as boring as possible.…

Sure. Women are limited to painted-on pockets for pants, while men get the entire gamut from painted-on leghuggers to many-small-knapsacks cargo pants.

Right now, most men's fashion is terrible in terms of how it models the waist. Put on anything that you consider to be fashionable, and then see how well your hip-hinge and thighs-parallel squats do. No wonder the Scottish loved their kilts!

Re: Women now make up the majority of the U.S. labor force

#260

Post by CydeWeys » Sat, Jan 11, 2020, 1:31 AM UTC

Bartweiss wrote: post #247

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, so women make up the majority of the non-farm labor force, but the labor force participation rate is 12% higher for men? How does that work? Are 12% of men either in the military or on disability? Or what?

Great question, I just went digging. I found three big factors. First, the "labor force" has no age cap, so there are lots more women alive than men. Second, lots of adult men are in the military or prison, so equal numbers of jobs would mean higher male labor force participation. Third, "nonfarm payrolls" doesn't just mean nonfarm, and excludes more employed men than women. But there's one big issue with nonprofit l…

Why does being in the military matter? Why would men in the military not count as being part of the labor force? It's a job, that you get paid for. There are plenty of other government jobs that count as being in the labor force.