Live data from Hacker News

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

bloomberg.com

301–309 of 309 posts

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

#301
post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about marriage? If a man makes more money and he is married is HE talking more? Isn't that income split (or in reality spent by the women)? I have never understood why data on married men is treated as if the men are single and it's their money alone.

This is anecdotal, but men I know have more expensive hobbies then women. Men are more eager to buy what they want while women save money more and feel bad about unnecessary purchases. Think gaming equipment, steam sales for games they will never play, flying, cars, tech, 3d printer and what not. Compared to that, feminine hobbies are few bucks once in a while.

Wow, this is some really biased observation on your part.

This is anecdotal too, but in my experience women spend FAR more money on unnecessary stuff than men. Here's many examples: - donations to churches - designer clothes - luxury SUVs - jewelry (the conflict diamond trade wouldn't exist without women) - eating at expensive restaurants - McMansions - stuff for those McMansions (e.g., custom-made "window treatments": my Mom just spent $15K on "window treatments" for her new house!) - luxurious vacations (as opposed to, for instance, staying in hostels)

Of course, I'm generalizing, and probably mostly describing the Gen-X to Boomer white American woman demographic, but it's what I've seen the most.

As for men, I work with a bunch of Millennial and younger men, and they spend money on Magic cards and video games, and that's about it. That stuff costs hundreds of dollars, and that's about it usually unless you go really nuts. A woman can easily spend a few hundred dollars on a single article of designer clothing. Meanwhile, these younger men don't seem to really give a shit about cars the way men in older generations did.

And of course the things on my list aren't all exclusive to women; some men like eating at nice restaurants too, some men have BMW SUVs, etc., but in my observation, most of those purchases are either done by women directly, or insisted on by them if they're married.

I can see why you think that women tend not to have "expensive hobbies" the way some men do, but even here you're actually wrong. Here in my metro area, the single women all seem to be members of some kind of exercise class (like Zumba, Barre, Orange Theory, etc.). Those memberships are quite expensive, and easily comparable to men spending money on Steam games. Single women also almost all have dogs, and those can be really expensive too when you account for fancy food, grooming, dog-walking, dog-sitting, etc. The problem is that you're not looking at where people are actually spending money, and you're not counting women's purchases as "hobbies". My most recent ex-girlfriend had two big "hobbies" before I met her: one was her Barre class, which was hundreds of dollars per month. The other was going out to eat: she basically had a hobby of going out every weekend with her girlfriends to some new super-fancy restaurant in DC. That too would amount to hundreds of dollars per month. The other thing I've seen with single professional women is they spend a LOT of money on alcohol: they like to go "out for drinks" a lot, and of course a single drink at a nice DC restaurant will probably run $15. That really adds up over a month. So no, not a lot of women buy 3D printers or fix up old cars, but they do have luxurious things they like to spend $$$$ on.

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

#302
post #284
post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is anecdotal, but men I know have more expensive hobbies then women. Men are more eager to buy what they want while women save money more and feel bad about unnecessary purchases. Think gaming equipment, steam sales for games they will never play, flying, cars, tech, 3d printer and what not. Compared to that, feminine hobbies are few bucks once in a while.

> Compared to that, feminine hobbies are few bucks once in a while. Hahah. Sorry, but there's just no way. The entire McMansion industry, the furnishing industry, IKEA, fast fashion brands and high fashion are all driven by women's business.

I'd have to disagree about IKEA actually; IKEA is where you go if you want to get the most bang for your buck with furniture without buying it used. So I imagine it's probably the one part of the furniture industry that has the most balanced gender stats in their customers. How many men want to spend tens of thousands of dollars on furniture or home decorations?

I agree about the rest though, and I think the McMansion industry bit is an insightful comment. I'll also add giant luxury SUVs to this list.

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

#303
post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Women can be just as athletic as men, and can easily beat them in many sports. It just depends on the sport. If the sport requires upper-body strength, forget it: men will always have a huge advantage here. But if upper-body strength is no help, and lower-body strength and endurance are important, women can do better. Off the top of my head, I'd point to endurance running: women have longer legs proportionally, and more fat reserves, and don't have to waste a lot of energy carrying around a lot of chest/arm muscles and bigger upper-body bones. They can also do well in downhill skiing, bicycling, etc.

Also, over in Tennessee, the UT women's basketball team has been much, much more popular for decades now than the men's team ever was.

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

#304
post #189
post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>the bias in the divorce process That one you can probably place the blame squarely on the conservatives for. That bias made some sense back in the old days when women couldn't possibly hope to get a job that paid anywhere near what her (now ex-)husband earned. But things are completely different now, but the court system is still stuck in the 1950s. Meanwhile, the men who complain about this bias continue to vote fo…

> but the court system is still stuck in the 1950s Somehow, I don't think that there are many conservative judges in family courts. Family court judges heavily lean female and liberal.

Well, let's look at examples from other countries. Do liberal western European nations have this same kind of bias in their family courts, or not?

Many "liberals" in America really aren't that liberal, and women in America generally lean conservative from what I've seen, despite their claims of being liberal. For instance, the number of single women attending church is much higher than the number of single men (find a single woman who identifies as active Christian and ask her if she has any luck finding single guys at church).

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

#305
post #302
post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Compared to that, feminine hobbies are few bucks once in a while. Hahah. Sorry, but there's just no way. The entire McMansion industry, the furnishing industry, IKEA, fast fashion brands and high fashion are all driven by women's business.

I'd have to disagree about IKEA actually; IKEA is where you go if you want to get the most bang for your buck with furniture without buying it used. So I imagine it's probably the one part of the furniture industry that has the most balanced gender stats in their customers. How many men want to spend tens of thousands of dollars on furniture or home decorations? I agree about the rest though, and I think the McMansio…

By IKEA I mean especially the idea of disposable fashion applied to home furnishings. That you would update your bedsheets, curtains, napkins, kitchen utensils for the new season every year.

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

#306
post #305
post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd have to disagree about IKEA actually; IKEA is where you go if you want to get the most bang for your buck with furniture without buying it used. So I imagine it's probably the one part of the furniture industry that has the most balanced gender stats in their customers. How many men want to spend tens of thousands of dollars on furniture or home decorations? I agree about the rest though, and I think the McMansio…

By IKEA I mean especially the idea of disposable fashion applied to home furnishings. That you would update your bedsheets, curtains, napkins, kitchen utensils for the new season every year.

Hmm, I see. Yeah, I can see those sections of the IKEA store getting more sales from women perhaps.

But I'm thinking that someplace like Bed, Bath & Beyond probably gets more female customers, and would be a preferred place to go for the items you list. That store has fancier stuff than IKEA, and is seriously overpriced; it's not a place you shop at to get a good value. I'd also suggest various mall shops or department stores.

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

#307
post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Thanks, I'll check it out!

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

#308
post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

Women have a choice of what they want to wear. If they want to wear leggings with no pockets, they can. If they want to wear "boyfriend" cut jeans with exactly the same pockets as men, they can. If they want to wear a dress with pockets, they can. A trip to a women's clothing store would disprove the notion that women don't have choices very quickly.

Exactly. If a woman wants to wear jeans, it's OK. Or slacks, or a skirt, or a dress, or shorts, or leggings/yoga pants these days.

What choices for bottoms do men have that aren't trousers? There's shorts if the weather's warm enough (though there seem to be a bunch of weird men out there wearing shorts in freezing weather for some reason), but that's it.

Don't forget the colors. Dress too colorfully as a man, and people think you're gay. So we usually end up sticking with darker, solid colors.

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

#309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One does not need to refute the position that woman are less interested in computer science than nursing or teaching because asserting the personal interest of a hundred million people you've never met is nothing more than made up nonsense. There is of a course a lot of information out there about how societal expectations, existing power structures, gendered use of language, workplace dynamics and many other factors…

I was more addressing the habit of colonial power structures to use violence and intimidation to push women and minorities out of positions of economic prosperity. "Violence and intimidation" in a modern context is exactly what #MeToo was about, so it didn't stop just because women have equal rights under the law. Frankly, a lot of women don't want to put up with that kind of crap and so choose careers in industries…

Social studies degree..?
Post reply on HN