http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/09/business/economy/recovery-has-brought-more-jobs-for-men-than-women.html?ref=economy&_r=0
This article examines how men have been benefiting from our recovery of the recession over women. According to the Labor Department's monthly survey of households, our economy has increased in jobs by 5.3 million since December 2009 through this past month. Thirty percent of these jobs went to women. When this survey began being taken in 1948, only 28% of employed people were women. Compared to January 2010, women made up of 47.5% of employed people. Also, age groups are being compared. Due to certain cohorts, there are a larger number of 55 year olds and older (the baby boomers) than there are ages 35 to 54. In comparing gendered age groups, as of January, 54.6% of women over the age of 20 had jobs, whereas 67.6% of men over the age of 20 had jobs.
This article also explains that there was a sharp decline in women's employment for both ages 20-24 and 45-54. Society finds it reasonable for 20-24 years old not having jobs due to the difficulty of starting a career fresh out of college or post secondary education. Although, there is not an easy explanation as to why their is a decline in 45-54 year old women. There is still improvement from when this survey was first taken back in 1948 when women only made up 28% of people employed. But there are still gaps between men and women in the work force, as well as gaps between ages.
Is it possible that there could be a decline women's jobs (*age range 35-54) Because they may not have the skill set to compete for big coporate jobs, as say someone who is younger, and grown up around better technology(computers and such). In the Article the survey states that the employment rate was the highest for women in January 2010, at the height of the recession. It also states that this was the lowest hiring point for corporate companies, While small, private sector jobs were doing relatively better.?
ReplyDeleteIs it possible that there could be a decline women's jobs (*age range 35-54) Because they may not have the skill set to compete for big coporate jobs, as say someone who is younger, and grown up around better technology(computers and such). In the Article the survey states that the employment rate was the highest for women in January 2010, at the height of the recession. It also states that this was the lowest hiring point for corporate companies, While small, private sector jobs were doing relatively better.?
ReplyDeleteI feel like it is important to know what makes up this 5.3 million increase in new jobs. As stated towards the end of the article, manufacturers are the ones hiring which is typically a male-dominated area. I'm also curious as to what jobs the 60-64 age demographic has been getting hired for and what skill level these jobs require. These very well could just be cashier type jobs at grocery stores and such now that the US is leaving the recession.
ReplyDeleteThe economy is moving forward and we are seeing more women entering the workforce than ever before, even though not as many people are being hired and the percentage of women being hired is not as high there are still more women employed in the workforce than ever before. Rather than looking at the differences we can see that women are starting to receive more fair treatment that ever before making it easier to see that society is progressing forward, just not as quickly as first seemed.
ReplyDelete