Unemployment is a man thing...

[Im The Truth]

The Slump: It's a Guy Thing
By Peter Coy
May 8, 2008

They eat from the same dishes and sleep in the same beds, but they seem to be operating in two different economies. From last November through this April, American women aged 20 and up gained nearly 300,000 jobs, according to the household survey of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). At the same time, American men lost nearly 700,000 jobs. You might even say American men are in recession, and American women are not.

What's going on? Simply put, men have the misfortune of being concentrated in the two sectors that are doing the worst: manufacturing and construction. Women are concentrated in sectors that are still growing, such as education and health care.

This situation is hardly good news for women, though. While they're getting more jobs, their pay is stagnant. Also, most share households -- and bills -- with the men who are losing jobs. And the "female" economy can't stay strong for long if the "male" economy weakens too much.

The troubles for the American male worker, while exacerbated by the current slump, are hardly new. The manufacturing sector is in long-term decline, and construction goes through repeated booms and busts. Meanwhile women are graduating from college at higher rates than men. Some analysts even argue that men are less suited than women to the knowledge economy, which rewards supposedly female traits such as sensitivity, intuition, and a willingness to collaborate. "Men have tended to do better in the hierarchies, following orders and relying on positional power," says Andy Hines, a futurist at the Washington (D.C.) consulting firm Social Technologies, who previously worked for Kellogg (NYSE:K - News) and Dow Chemical (NYSEOW - News).

Problem Industries

Whether you buy that argument or not, it's clear that right now men are in a bad spot. The share of all men aged 20 and over with jobs has fallen since last November, when private-sector employment peaked, going from 72.9% to 72.2% in April. For women the ratio rose, from 58.1% to 58.3%. The adult male unemployment rate has risen twice as much as the female jobless rate since November. Those figures from the BLS' household survey are echoed in its separate survey of employers.

To see why, go sector by sector. Manufacturing is over 70% male and construction is about 88% male. Meanwhile the growing education and health services sector is 77% female. The government sector, which has remained strong, is 57% female. The securities business, which is filled with high-paying jobs, is likely to be the next sector to get whacked -- and more than 60% of its workers are men.

Men are having a harder time than women getting back on track after losing a job. "For a man to move from a $20- or $30-an-hour union job to being a Wal-Mart (NYSE:WMT - News) greeter is devastating," says Claudia Goldin, a Harvard University labor historian. Men also shy away from some of the growing fields, such as nursing. Only about 10% of nursing students nationwide are male, notes Harriet R. Feldman, dean of the Pace University School of Nursing. Some retired nurses are actually going back to work because their husbands have lost jobs, says Lois Cooper, vice-president for employee relations and diversity at staffing firm Adecco Group North America in Melville, N.Y.

The weakness of the male economy is squeezing people such as Brian Day, 45, a union carpenter in Ossian, Ind., who made about $35,000 in construction last year but only $1,500 so far in 2008. The family of five is living off his jobless benefits and the $35,000 salary of his wife, a supermarket supervisor. Says Day: "I feel guilty about it." Jeff Bainter, 53, a railroad worker in Muncie, Ind., has enough seniority to keep his job but sees younger men getting the ax. He says there's more security but lower pay in what his wife, Cynthiana, does for a living: medical billing.

Stubborn Pay Gap

The Presidential candidates haven't figured out how to play the disparity between men and women. In BusinessWeek interviews, advisers for all three said they want to help everyone. Austan Goolsbee, chief economic adviser to Senator Barack Obama, said: "Because the unemployed are disproportionately men, they may especially benefit from Obama's program to get us out of recession. But gender has nothing to do with the policy's design." Senator Hillary Clinton's economic policy director, Brian Deese, said: "The goal is not to appeal to men more than women."

One reason for the candidates to tread lightly is that even though men have done worse on jobs lately, they continue to earn more than women on average. Over three-quarters of people who earned over $100,000 last year were men, says Queens College political scientist Andrew Hacker. In fact, although the pay gap between men and women has been gradually narrowing, it actually widened a bit over the past year. Median usual weekly earnings for men grew 4.6% from the first quarter of 2007 through the first quarter of 2008, vs. 3.1% for women.

That might be evidence that the jobs women are landing aren't necessarily good ones. Says Eileen Appelbaum, director of Rutgers University's Center for Women & Work: "We had an expansion of jobs for home health aides, retail clerks, child-care workers. They're low-wage, they're dead-end, and they don't have any benefits."

Another reason politicians aren't making hay of the plight of males is that they are well aware that women are in no mood for it. Working-class and lower-middle-class women in particular, whether or not their men have jobs, are feeling economically stressed, says Bill McInturff, a pollster for Senator John McCain. He adds, "In focus groups they talk about how 'I'm taking care of my parents, his parents, buying groceries, taking kids to the doctor.' These women are tired."

There's no easy remedy for what ails the male economy. Edward J. O'Boyle, senior research associate at the Mayo Research Institute in West Monroe, La., says part of the solution is reviving manufacturing -- a gargantuan task. On construction, he favors financial reforms to even out the booms and busts.

Economists are debating whether the overall economy is in a recession. For men, the evidence is clear.

With Maggie Gilmour and Jing Zhou in Chicago and Jane Sasseen in Washington, D.C.

Copyright © 2008 BusinessWeek Online. All rights reserved.

[w.i.s.e.]

Originally Posted by Im The Truth

The Slump: It's a Guy Thing
By Peter Coy
May 8, 2008

They eat from the same dishes and sleep in the same beds, but they seem to be operating in two different economies. From last November through this April, American women aged 20 and up gained nearly 300,000 jobs, according to the household survey of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). At the same time, American men lost nearly 700,000 jobs. You might even say American men are in recession, and American women are not.

What's going on? Simply put, men have the misfortune of being concentrated in the two sectors that are doing the worst: manufacturing and construction. Women are concentrated in sectors that are still growing, such as education and health care.

This situation is hardly good news for women, though. While they're getting more jobs, their pay is stagnant. Also, most share households -- and bills -- with the men who are losing jobs. And the "female" economy can't stay strong for long if the "male" economy weakens too much.

The troubles for the American male worker, while exacerbated by the current slump, are hardly new. The manufacturing sector is in long-term decline, and construction goes through repeated booms and busts. Meanwhile women are graduating from college at higher rates than men. Some analysts even argue that men are less suited than women to the knowledge economy, which rewards supposedly female traits such as sensitivity, intuition, and a willingness to collaborate. "Men have tended to do better in the hierarchies, following orders and relying on positional power," says Andy Hines, a futurist at the Washington (D.C.) consulting firm Social Technologies, who previously worked for Kellogg (NYSE:K - News) and Dow Chemical (NYSEOW - News).

Problem Industries

Whether you buy that argument or not, it's clear that right now men are in a bad spot. The share of all men aged 20 and over with jobs has fallen since last November, when private-sector employment peaked, going from 72.9% to 72.2% in April. For women the ratio rose, from 58.1% to 58.3%. The adult male unemployment rate has risen twice as much as the female jobless rate since November. Those figures from the BLS' household survey are echoed in its separate survey of employers.

To see why, go sector by sector. Manufacturing is over 70% male and construction is about 88% male. Meanwhile the growing education and health services sector is 77% female. The government sector, which has remained strong, is 57% female. The securities business, which is filled with high-paying jobs, is likely to be the next sector to get whacked -- and more than 60% of its workers are men.

Men are having a harder time than women getting back on track after losing a job. "For a man to move from a $20- or $30-an-hour union job to being a Wal-Mart (NYSE:WMT - News) greeter is devastating," says Claudia Goldin, a Harvard University labor historian. Men also shy away from some of the growing fields, such as nursing. Only about 10% of nursing students nationwide are male, notes Harriet R. Feldman, dean of the Pace University School of Nursing. Some retired nurses are actually going back to work because their husbands have lost jobs, says Lois Cooper, vice-president for employee relations and diversity at staffing firm Adecco Group North America in Melville, N.Y.

The weakness of the male economy is squeezing people such as Brian Day, 45, a union carpenter in Ossian, Ind., who made about $35,000 in construction last year but only $1,500 so far in 2008. The family of five is living off his jobless benefits and the $35,000 salary of his wife, a supermarket supervisor. Says Day: "I feel guilty about it." Jeff Bainter, 53, a railroad worker in Muncie, Ind., has enough seniority to keep his job but sees younger men getting the ax. He says there's more security but lower pay in what his wife, Cynthiana, does for a living: medical billing.

Stubborn Pay Gap

The Presidential candidates haven't figured out how to play the disparity between men and women. In BusinessWeek interviews, advisers for all three said they want to help everyone. Austan Goolsbee, chief economic adviser to Senator Barack Obama, said: "Because the unemployed are disproportionately men, they may especially benefit from Obama's program to get us out of recession. But gender has nothing to do with the policy's design." Senator Hillary Clinton's economic policy director, Brian Deese, said: "The goal is not to appeal to men more than women."

One reason for the candidates to tread lightly is that even though men have done worse on jobs lately, they continue to earn more than women on average. Over three-quarters of people who earned over $100,000 last year were men, says Queens College political scientist Andrew Hacker. In fact, although the pay gap between men and women has been gradually narrowing, it actually widened a bit over the past year. Median usual weekly earnings for men grew 4.6% from the first quarter of 2007 through the first quarter of 2008, vs. 3.1% for women.

That might be evidence that the jobs women are landing aren't necessarily good ones. Says Eileen Appelbaum, director of Rutgers University's Center for Women & Work: "We had an expansion of jobs for home health aides, retail clerks, child-care workers. They're low-wage, they're dead-end, and they don't have any benefits."

Another reason politicians aren't making hay of the plight of males is that they are well aware that women are in no mood for it. Working-class and lower-middle-class women in particular, whether or not their men have jobs, are feeling economically stressed, says Bill McInturff, a pollster for Senator John McCain. He adds, "In focus groups they talk about how 'I'm taking care of my parents, his parents, buying groceries, taking kids to the doctor.' These women are tired."

There's no easy remedy for what ails the male economy. Edward J. O'Boyle, senior research associate at the Mayo Research Institute in West Monroe, La., says part of the solution is reviving manufacturing -- a gargantuan task. On construction, he favors financial reforms to even out the booms and busts.

Economists are debating whether the overall economy is in a recession. For men, the evidence is clear.

With Maggie Gilmour and Jing Zhou in Chicago and Jane Sasseen in Washington, D.C.

Copyright © 2008 BusinessWeek Online. All rights reserved.

This article sounds completely off. Where does it mention Afrikan people? If we go by the statistics, we can say that Afrikan men might have low numbers of unemployment, but then there is also the fact that in this capitalist economy, Afrikan womyn have the highest access to the lowest paying jobs. Also, isn't there an increase of unemployed womyn of color who are in low-income in this country?

[Sun Ship]

Originally Posted by w.i.s.e.

This article sounds completely off. Where does it mention Afrikan people? If we go by the statistics, we can say that Afrikan men might have low numbers of unemployment, but then there is also the fact that in this capitalist economy, Afrikan womyn have the highest access to the lowest paying jobs. Also, isn't there an increase of unemployed womyn of color who are in low-income in this country?

First of all, it is proven that there is no way to properly calculate how many Black men are out of work using the standards that are usually applied to the gathering of statistics. Hundreds of thousands of Black men have fallen of the demographic map years ago, especially as compared to Black women.

And in all honesty, in this economy, we as Africans both male and female are being screwed so hard, it’s ridiculous to sit around and compare who is being screwed the hardest, and hopefully we will understand that whatever differences there are statistically between us, they are only minor as compared to what has historically moved us towards this struggle amongst ourselves to begin with.

[w.i.s.e.]

Originally Posted by Sun Ship

First of all, it is proven that there is no way to properly calculate how many Black men are out of work using the standards that are usually applied to the gathering of statistics. Hundreds of thousands of Black men have fallen of the demographic map years ago, especially as compared to Black women.

And in all honesty, in this economy, we as Africans both male and female are being screwed so hard, it’s ridiculous to sit around and compare who is being screwed the hardest, and hopefully we will understand that whatever differences there are statistically between us, they are only minor as compared to what has historically moved us towards this struggle amongst ourselves to begin with.

No, I just remember Manning Marable talking about globalization and the growing number of unemployment in the 90s because of it. The reason that I brought it up was because in Harlem alone in 2004, half of the Afrikan male population was unemployed according to his findings. And what's all this talk abotu me sitting around and saying who has it screwed the hardest? I'm not talking about any oppression Olympics. What I am talking about is sexism within the capitalist economy as well as racism and that while Afrikan womyn may have more jobs than Afrikan men, there is the nature of them being despicable in wages and in terms of survival. So the entire article is absolutely ridiculous to me when it talks about unemployment being a man than when I witness it growing increasingly with Afrikan womyn.

[Sun Ship]

Sister what I’m trying to get you to understand is that there is no way to determine how unemployed, sick, or debilitated African men truly are in this society, for when it comes to being counted and socially serviced through the system (where no doubt those Harlem statistics are being garnered from) besides being enumerated or tracked through incarceration, too many Black men have fell off the charts years ago, whereas Black women and especially those with children are more counted and served (poorly served at that) thorough social services and clinics on a more regular basis.

I’m not so focused on this report as I am your response, for regardless if you intended to or not, your approach to this was with a sort of comparative analysis between Black men and women in your rebuttal.

When Black men are being seditiously removed from the work force in this patriarchally controlled society (which is strongly supported by white women) it is to compromise the survival of the Black family and give Black women not alternative to either take a job at a lower pay once given to her man, or to become absolutely destitute. Even if the job was not traditionally held by a man in this society, it is still the unemployment of Black men that has opened the broader downhill path towards the under paying of Black women.

This is why I tell Sisters, that you are being bamboozled when you see these new low-income houses being built for you, and Habitat for Humanity (mostly white folks of goodwill) constructing these cracker box houses in your community, for these are homes that your men are not being employed to build.

Every ribbon cutting keeps a "white" man employed and a "white" woman fed!

You can only have these social programs building homes for mostly poor Black women, for if these types of construction projects moved past these "ghetto" neighborhoods and a few other charitable situations, these white controlled unions would burn them down to the ground with the white woman lighting the match, and it will be viewed as some form of socialism...These hypocritical white women will only go so far when it comes to challenging their men's way of life, which they depend on, while they have our women hoodwinked to think their men are the problem and not part of the solution...

And as we see the removal of African women from the work force it is in lockstep with a grander plan…for just as this article may not speak to racism and employment practices as related to our community, sexism as generally practiced and exemplified in this country cannot fully speak to the plight of Black women exclusive from the Black experience in America in general.

Originally Posted by w.i.s.e.

No, I just remember Manning Marable talking about globalization and the growing number of unemployment in the 90s because of it. The reason that I brought it up was because in Harlem alone in 2004, half of the Afrikan male population was unemployed according to his findings. And what's all this talk abotu me sitting around and saying who has it screwed the hardest? I'm not talking about any oppression Olympics. What I am talking about is sexism within the capitalist economy as well as racism and that while Afrikan womyn may have more jobs than Afrikan men, there is the nature of them being despicable in wages and in terms of survival. So the entire article is absolutely ridiculous to me when it talks about unemployment being a man than when I witness it growing increasingly with Afrikan womyn.

[Im The Truth]

I agree 100% all these social programs give money, insurance, diapers, jobs, homes, child support, etc are for mostly poor Black women to further separate our families and they've done an great job of it and nobody seems to be complaining and drawing up solutions to fix these family problems. We seem to look too further to solve the most dauting and obvious problems in our communities. When will we learn? Can anyone talk about solving practical relationship problems, gaining employment, maintaining a family, gaining useable skills? All vital skills that supercede racism and oppression.

[w.i.s.e.]

Originally Posted by Sun Ship

Sister what I’m trying to get you to understand is that there is no way to determine how unemployed, sick, or debilitated African men truly are in this society, for when it comes to being counted and socially serviced through the system (where no doubt those Harlem statistics are being garnered from) besides being enumerated or tracked through incarceration, too many Black men have fell off the charts years ago, whereas Black women and especially those with children are more counted and served (poorly served at that) thorough social services and clinics on a more regular basis.

I’m not so focused on this report as I am your response, for regardless if you intended to or not, your approach to this was with a sort of comparative analysis between Black men and women in your rebuttal.

When Black men are being seditiously removed from the work force in this patriarchally controlled society (which is strongly supported by white women) it is to compromise the survival of the Black family and give Black women not alternative to either take a job at a lower pay once given to her man, or to become absolutely destitute. Even if the job was not traditionally held by a man in this society, it is still the unemployment of Black men that has opened the broader downhill path towards the under paying of Black women.

This is why I tell Sisters, that you are being bamboozled when you see these new low-income houses being built for you, and Habitat for Humanity (mostly white folks of goodwill) constructing these cracker box houses in your community, for these are homes that your men are not being employed to build.

Every ribbon cutting keeps a "white" man employed and a "white" woman fed!

You can only have these social programs building homes for mostly poor Black women, for if these types of construction projects moved past these "ghetto" neighborhoods and a few other charitable situations, these white controlled unions would burn them down to the ground with the white woman lighting the match, and it will be viewed as some form of socialism...These hypocritical white women will only go so far when it comes to challenging their men's way of life, which they depend on, while they have our women hoodwinked to think their men are the problem and not part of the solution...

And as we see the removal of African women from the work force it is in lockstep with a grander plan…for just as this article may not speak to racism and employment practices as related to our community, sexism as generally practiced and exemplified in this country cannot fully speak to the plight of Black women exclusive from the Black experience in America in general.

I'm not understanding how what you were saying had a lot to do with my posts. If you want to call is comparative, you may do so, but I do not mean for it to be as I said "oppression Olympics" to see who has it harder. On the contrary: I am trying to say that the article is extremely flawed in describing economic hardship in unemployment as a man thing. The title of the article is that "Unemployment is a man thing." That right there is comparative politics as it is. I simply stated that unemployment is not simply a man thing. I brought up the point that unemployment on our community affects Black men as well as Black womyn. While people say that Black womyn are given more programs simply because they happen to be of the female sex, it is problematic to me. It is problematic to me in the sense because the majority of Black womyn are being cut off from social programs with the increasing cuts on health care, welfare, housing programs and other services that people say that the benefit from. That's why I stated that there is a rise in unemployment for Black womyn and why is it raising to the rate of brothers. I said nothing of Habitat for Humanity or low-income housing newly built or needing to praise them because it is a pacification ploy used by the government to avoid real changes in socio-economics. This is in by no means to be a competition. What I am trying to say that economic hardship in unemployment is not strictly a man thing and I am using Black womyn as an example of why the article has little logic to it for me.

The unemployment of Black men has not, in my opinion, led to the downpayment of Black womyn. You can take a Black household with an employed man and an employed womyn. The brother is paid more than the sister is. Black womyn are not being downpayed because of the unemployment of Black men. It is because of the combination of race and gender that makes them receive incredibly low wages. Which is why a critique of sexism and how it specifically affects Black womyn and socioeconomics has to be discussed when talking about unemployment.

The entire point of my post was to demonstrate that umenployment is not simply a man thing, because it is not taking into effect how sisters are effecting by the combination of racism and sexism as double oppression in the capitalist crisis that we face in this country.

[Sun Ship]

Originally Posted by w.i.s.e.

....That's why I stated that there is a rise in unemployment for Black womyn and why is it raising to the rate of brothers.

The brother is paid more than the sister is.

This statement I don’t believe is factual when applied to lower middle and the lower economic class within the Black community. I don’t think most low paying jobs are making any large discrepancies in pay between Black men and women, and this is the income strata of concern as it relates especially or more so contextually to those who are caught up in the dysfunctional societal loop of unemployment and social services.

Also, like I said, statistics are only useful in part when it comes to tracking Black men (this is well founded) and is much better (not nowhere near perfect) when it comes to tracking Black women who have been dealing with social services and clinics from child birth to their children going to school, for so many Black men are not on the social economic radar at all…you seem to not be able to comprehend this. So as far as you talking about Black women catching up as far as unemployment, based on what statistical analysis? Government collected data?

Also, you cannot look at the plight of Black women in isolation away from the plight of Black men, no more than you can make an analysis of white women plight apart from the plight of white men…for if this white male ran economic system totally tanks it will directly effect all interpretations and analysis of a white woman’s rights and advancement…please don’t be so naive to think anything less.

[w.i.s.e.]

Originally Posted by Sun Ship

This statement I don’t believe is factual when applied to lower middle and the lower economic class within the Black community. I don’t think most low paying jobs are making any large discrepancies in pay between Black men and women, and this is the income strata of concern as it relates especially or more so contextually to those who are caught up in the dysfunctional societal loop of unemployment and social services.

Why do you not think there are any discrepancies? If you look at the examples of lower middle and lower economic classes, there are more womyn who suffer unemployment to the extent of men with the coming recession and the outsourcing of female labor that Black womyn used to occupy in employment positions. And if you look at who occupies the most low paying jobs, it is Black womyn. This indeed creates a great discrepancy. Even in low paying jobs, next to brothers, sisters get the lower paying wage. This also applies to corporate job markets as well, aside from the lowest sectors. It has more to do with gender and racism combined for Black womyn rather than anti-poverty tools that are being taken away.

Also, like I said, statistics are only useful in part when it comes to tracking Black men (this is well founded) and is much better (not nowhere near perfect) when it comes to tracking Black women who have been dealing with social services and clinics from child birth to their children going to school, for so many Black men are not on the social economic radar at all…you seem to not be able to comprehend this. So as far as you talking about Black women catching up as far as unemployment, based on what statistical analysis? Government collected data?

Of course I've comprehended it. You might have not been paying attention to my posts when I stated that while Black men are unemployed, Black womyn have the best access to the worst paying jobs. You have also failed to acknowledge that most services that 'register' Black womyn are being cut by the government. I receive all statistical evidence from studies given by economists and political scientists. The theory has merit to it with the cutting of the lowest paying services jobs that are occupied mostly by Black womyn and the cutting of social services.

Also, you cannot look at the plight of Black women in isolation away from the plight of Black men, no more than you can make an analysis of white women plight apart from the plight of white men…for if this white male ran economic system totally tanks it will directly effect all interpretations and analysis of a white woman’s rights and advancement…please don’t be so naive to think anything less.

I'm not looking at the plight of Black womyn in isolation away from Black men. It has to do with taking sexism into account as to why Black womyn face economic hardship and rising unemployment in part because of their gender. Also, I'd appreciate it if you didn't patronize me by suggesting that I am naive. Speaking about sexism in a white male patriarchy that has constantly degraded Black womyn for their race and sex was never apart of any white womyn's movement. It was always part of a Black feminist socialist perspective that was separate and integrated into the experience of oppressed womyn of color. Why when sexism is talked about in Black womyn's experiences, it is considered isolationist, when it is simply experessing another element of our experience is beyond me and seems naive as well as unrealistic to the sum of what sisters experience. Nor do I understand why the white womyn's movement is brought up when I've previously stated that I detest it nor did it have anything to do with my initial point. Gender isn't separate from the Black community and it isn't isolating anything, since Black womyn share racism with Black men. Oppression comes in different packages, other than the racism we experience.

[Sun Ship]

Sister w.i.s.e., I have known too many people working the lowest of the low end and minimum wage jobs, never have I heard of any noteworthy difference in minimal wages between the sexes, and the more important fact that both impoverished Black men and women are struggling to make ends meet should give them some sense of solidarity, instead of being influenced and stymied by the needs of those who have to have a statistically-based, analytical, and rhetorical debate over this, those who in some cases scour the given data and research to find instances whereas poor Black men are making $0.02 more a hour than poor Black women.

And based on your answer, you don’t understand what it means to be a Black man not counted by the system at all and haven’t been counted statistically for decades! This is the untold story of Black men, which has only been alluded to in probably a few books and possibly a documentary. And I don’t expect a Black feminist to be sensitive to this social anomaly because it’s not on your radar of concerns either academically, intuitively, or based on experience. You keep comparing the known data concerning lower-income Black women and their unemployment with data concerning the employment of impoverished Black men which is impossible to verify as it relates to the Black male populations as a whole. Though Black women are now being slowly removed from various social services, there are very large numbers of Black men who plight has never, if ever been included, monitored, or properly documented even within that same failed system, outside of what I mentioned previously as cited, the judicial and penal system (and at best, Veterans Administration).

When the unemployment rate of Black men is erroneously determined, it is usually by using statistical data garnered mostly from social services, i.e., the unemployment office. Men who lives that have been socio-psychologically imploded from drug abuse, alcoholism, unemployable prison records, and other social-ills not readily defined as it relates to m