Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 309 posts

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

#291

Post by lsaferite »

magduf wrote: post #235
scarmig wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Men take for granted that we all are roughly the same shape, so most of us can shop at the same stores. As a trim, broad-shouldered 5'2" guy, I had to laugh at your entire comment. I have literally never found a shirt or jacket that fits off the rack from... dozens? Hundreds? of different brands. My bet is that you fall into a conventionally masculine body shape, and you universalize your own experience to all men.

I'm 6' tall and I have trouble many times finding shirts to fit these days, because they seem to be cut for fatter men than myself (I'm rather thin). Most shirts and other tops seem to be really baggy to me.

I'm 6' as well and 75 lbs overweight (working on it). If I find dress shirts that fit my neck they are basically potato sacks on me. And it has always been that way, even when I wasn't overweight. The only option I've ever had if I've wanted to look sharp was to get shirts tailored.

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

#292

Post by magduf »

Ghjklov wrote: post #269
magduf wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm 6' tall and I have trouble many times finding shirts to fit these days, because they seem to be cut for fatter men than myself (I'm rather thin). Most shirts and other tops seem to be really baggy to me.

Your best bet is to find some kind of East Asian brand(Uniqlo or H&M for example but they are fast fashion tier places so I'm not actually recommending those specifically) where smalls are actually small and fit nicely on smaller frames.

I actually do have a bunch of shirts from Uniqlo. The problem, however, is while they mostly fit nicely (i.e., they aren't designed for fat people), they're not quite long enough for me, so they frequently become untucked. Their idea of a "medium" guy is a guy who's 5'7 at the most, I'm guessing, and I'm over 6'. This isn't that much of a problem, though, compared to the long-sleeve shirts: on those the sleeves are an inch or two too short, because again they're not thinking a "medium" is a guy who's over 6' with long arms. I have gotten pretty lucky with some of the short-sleeve shirts though.

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

#293

Post by magduf »

AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #135
edgarvaldes wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Non-american here so pardon my ignorance: Why is "basement" so common in this case? I mean, the whole "living with parents" and the basement thing.

Basements are usually a fairly large single room, usually well away from the commonly traversed areas of the house. These things appeal to grown males living with their parents because they can be louder, have more space, be more private, etc.

Not only that, but in some suburban houses, they even turn the basement into a separate apartment and rent it out after the kids have left the house.

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

#294

Post by Ghjklov »

magduf wrote: post #292
Ghjklov wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your best bet is to find some kind of East Asian brand(Uniqlo or H&M for example but they are fast fashion tier places so I'm not actually recommending those specifically) where smalls are actually small and fit nicely on smaller frames.

I actually do have a bunch of shirts from Uniqlo. The problem, however, is while they mostly fit nicely (i.e., they aren't designed for fat people), they're not quite long enough for me, so they frequently become untucked. Their idea of a "medium" guy is a guy who's 5'7 at the most, I'm guessing, and I'm over 6'. This isn't that much of a problem, though, compared to the long-sleeve shirts: on those the sleeves are a…

Have you looked into Everlane? They're quite more expensive but there's a range of sizing that they provide with exact measurements and from what I read their clothes are designed for more European/Asian bodytypes instead of Americans. I also like the philosophy behind their company/brand which you can read on their website.

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

#295

Post by magduf »

watwut wrote: post #59
bitL wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think US is moving towards Japan? I.e. a significant population of herbivore men (60%?) that get no benefit from associating with women, losing this motivational signal and dropping out of society?

There might be also factor of women not getting benefit from associating with men. You can't assume that all decisions were made by males only.

I've seen a few too many women where they honestly are better off when they don't have a male romantic partner: the men they choose end up being a burden to them. For younger women, it's because they keep choosing men who just cause them problems and can't support themselves. For older women, there's a common pattern where the man dies very quickly when his wife dies, but if the man dies first, the wife can live many years or even decades because now she's free, and doesn't have to take care of him.

Honestly, the whole 2-married-partner relationship thing seems to only work out well in a small minority of cases.

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

#296

Post by magduf »

arkh wrote: post #82
downerending wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm seeing a lot of this in my extended family. If society isn't telling you that you have a primary role in creating and supporting a family, and that you're necessary for the future of society itself, it turns out that you need a lot less money to survive, and you have a lot more time on your hands.

When you don't have someone to spend your money to keep up with the Joneses you suddenly need a lot less: less space, less home decoration, less clothes, less going out for food, a smaller ride.

Yep, you "need" a lot less money when you don't have someone insisting that you buy her a diamond ring, a BMW, designer clothes, a big house, maid service, give 10% of your income to some church, etc.

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

#297

Post by Bartweiss »

CydeWeys wrote: post #288
occamrazor wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Active duty personnel is counted in labour force and as “participating”, however not as a “payroll” employee.

Why though? They get paid a set amount of money per amount of time. Other federal government employees don't get exempted like this. It seems like an unnecessary distinction to make that "excludes" men from the workforce for no reason.

As far as impact, soldiers (and handymen, etc) aren't counted as "not participating", they're pulled out of the denominator also. But yes, the different pools mean that if men and women have equal LFPR percentages, the in-dataset workforce would be 51.7% female. Even weirder, the "prime-age" and overall labor force participation rates can't simultaneously be equal between genders. All of which contributes to news stories like this one misusing random benchmarks.

Why measure it that way?

The BLS started collecting civilian labor force data in 1948. Participation rates had a gender gap of more than 50 points, so the implications of equal participation weren't very relevant. But 10 million soldiers had been raised during the war, many by conscription, and that same 10 million were decommissioned between 1945 and 1947 - all against an adult population of 100 million. So it was clear that during wartime any military-included statistic would have no real bearing on what potential workers at home were choosing to do.

It's not totally clear to me why government workers were counted at all. They don't get drafted and their numbers don't vary wildly in wartime, so it's less of a data issue, but it would include explicit make-work projects like the CCC. I suppose that if the point is to measure which available workers are choosing to work, CCC employment is more "valid" than conscription?

Why keep the stat that way with a comparatively small, all-volunteer military?

Continuity, pretty much. Changing definitions or abandoning stats ruins change-over-time data, so the BLS almost always adds new stats instead of changing old ones.

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

#298

Post by magduf »

wait_a_minute wrote: post #64
billfruit wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or being in prison.

Men do in fact get more prison time for the same crimes when compared with women!

While that's most likely true, it only accounts for a very small amount of the gender imbalance. In reality, men simply choose to commit violent crimes, or get involved in violent criminal careers, far more often than women.

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

#299

Post by magduf »

kgwgk wrote: post #184
anotherman554 wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the case of a married couple, it's my understanding that if you refuse to share your earnings with a spouse, the spouse has to either put up with it or divorce you and ask the court to give them a share of it. Absent the nuclear option of a divorce, finances can be kept separate.

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/separate-community-p... Common Law States Most states, except those listed as community property states below, use the "common law" system of property ownership. In these states, it's usually easy to tell which spouse owns what. If only your name is on the deed, registration document, or other title paper, it's yours. If you and your spouse both have your name on the title, you…

It is interesting that California, being an extremely "blue" state (along with Washington to a slightly lesser extent), chooses to retain this antiquated artifact of the days when it was a Spanish colony.

And why would Wisconsin choose this, when it never had any connection to Spain?

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

#300

Post by Bartweiss »

occamrazor wrote: post #277
CydeWeys wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Active duty personnel is counted in labour force and as “participating”, however not as a “payroll” employee.

Active duty personnel isn't in the labor force in either status. The full name for the widely quoted BLS stat is "noninstitutionalized civilian labor force".

If I have my numbers right, there are ~120M men ages 20+ and ~125.5M women 20+ in the US. That's basically equal to the BLS female labor force stat, but about ~3M too high for the male labor force stat, with prisoners and military personnel making up the vast majority of the difference. It's not a huge gap in numbers, but both exclusions are overwhelmingly prime-age people and skew the male LFPR towards retirees.

(I should have been clearer, but my first set of bullets are about exclusions from the LFPR, and my second are about data in the LFPR but not in nonfarm payrolls. "Nonfarm payroll" appears to be a strict subset of the labor force "employed" pool. Both measures exclude active military personnel, although nonfarm payrolls uses a slightly broader standard which also covers intelligence agencies.)

Post reply on HN