Unemployment hits men harder: Why?
January 22, 2009 by Jim GiulianoPosted in: Hiring, In this week's e-newsletter, Latest News & Views, Retention and turnover
The latest data shows the unemployment rate is higher for men than for women. Why?
At the beginning of 2008, the unemployment rate for the two groups was almost the same. However, a breakdown of U.S. Labor Department statistics indicates that from December 2007 to December 2008, the unemployment rate for men went from 4.4% to 7.2%. For women. though, the rate rose from 4.3% to only 5.9%.
Why the difference? Some possible explanations:
- Women are more likely to work part time than men, and part-time workers — who often don’t get benefits — tend to hang onto their jobs in a economy where employers are cutting full-time jobs and benefits.
- According to most estimates, about 75% of the workers in the health care and education are women. Those two sectors have been the least hard-hit by the downturn.
- The same estimates show that men make up 93% of the workers in construction and 72% in manufacturing. Those two sectors have taken a pounding in the last year. For instance, construction jobs dropped by 8.5% in 2008.
Tags: labor department, unemployment
Are the Benefits of Automatic Enrollment Worth the Cost?
January 26th, 2009 at 9:58 am
This shows that they are cutting men because they are the higher paid jobs. Companies are looking at the dollars right now and keeping the lower paid doers of the companies.
January 26th, 2009 at 10:55 am
I disagree with Kathy’s comments. I think the article explains why it’s hitting men harder and that is because the sectors that are being hardest hit are dominated by male employees. The 2 sectors that are being affected the least (health care and education) are dominated by female employees. Now is the time to be a teacher or a nurse!
January 26th, 2009 at 11:39 am
I agree with Phyllis. I have a daughter who has been an RN for 16 years. She just received a pay raise while everyone else I talk to are being subjected to pay cuts, reduced work hours, lay-offs, terminations, business closings etc.
January 26th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
60% of the economist in this country are predicting the unemployment numbers are going to go up in 2009 and most of it will be in the manufacturing sector. The primary cause-lack of consumer confidence and on going negative reports. The alarming statistic is that small businesses in this country are taking a pounding and closing. Given the number of people that were/are employed by small businesses we need to be aware that their closing further reduces the places people will be able to return to when the economy turns around….
January 26th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
This news will please Robert Reich, Clinton’s former Labor Secy., as long as it is white men being laid off the most. In testimony he gave last week before Congress, he advocated ensuring that white men in constructions jobs be excluded by some litmus test or set-asides from stimulus projects so that others could be employed more fully.
He did say he didn’t have anything against white male construction workers. I guess for myself some of his best friends are white male construction workers.
His comments were met with nods at his wisdom, not rebuffed.
It would appear the disparity of unemployment will continue, white males leading the pack.
Love this post-racial, post-sexist America.
January 26th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
Oh, please, Harry. Dollars and cents (or sense) decisions are hardly a matter of equality issues.
Our manufacturing company is dominated and owned by white males, so true to the article, any manufacturing jobs cut here are likely to be white males. And, in a bittersweet nod to the ariticle, the few women in our production jobs have been spared because they make less than the males being cut.
One female, laid off at the same time as 3 men, was recalled after a month. The males (each having significantly more seniority) were not. Why? Well, mgmt acknowledged that her productivity and willing attitude were better than her male counterparts .. AND she was making less money than a part-time high-school drop-out male hired to pick up some of the slack of higher-paid lay-offs.
I’d be raising a stink about her uneven pay level if I didn’t know it kept her employed right now. It didn’t seem like such a “post-sexist” utopia now, does it?
January 26th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
I think it’s very simple. The economy runs on people’s emotions. When people are secure, they spend money, buy expnsive homes and invest in the stock market, so prices rise and the economy is strong. With all the doom and gloom talk, how can we ever get out of this? Let’s start thinking positive and getting back on track. Does it really matter if men or women get laid off and why we believe that one is higher than the other?
When government and economists say it’s going to get worse before it gets better, it will. Why, because people believe that and start putting their money under the mattress instead of investing or spending. Will someone please say something positive????!!!!
January 26th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
Allise,
AMEN! Our new Vice President recently said: “It’s going to get worse before it gets better”. Yikes, what a thing for our VP to say. People feed on the drama. Remember the term “yellow journalism”? It’s all “yellow” these days, and I’m not talking about sunshine.
January 27th, 2009 at 11:23 am
Our new government wants people to be miserable because as long as we are all miserable, we will be more willing to put our faith and trust in them to lead us out of it. In addition, we will be less likely to question them when they spend more or tax more and God help us…when they start taking more control of our lives and finances. Get used to it people. For the next four years at least, we will continue to see more and more of our civil rights taken away. We will have fewer options with what to do with our money. The government will continue to grow in size and power to the point that we will be reliant on them for everything. After all, we aren’t capable of making those decisions on our own. We need them to guide us. They are already telling the banking industry, the auto industry, and the real estate industry how to operate. We will be next.
Soon, it won’t matter whether you are a white male, female or even whether you are having an affair with your boss, because the government will control what happens. Right now is the time that the citizens of this country need to wake up and take back our freedoms. As long as our country is ran from the extreme left, our basic freedoms are in peril and especially our economy is in extreme danger.
January 28th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
My, DD, aren’t those grapes sour?
I guess you must have been on extended holiday for the last 8 years while right-wingnuts were lying to us, waging wars that filled their own (oil company) pockets, and running up an unprecedent deficit. And now that you’re back, how’s your 401K doing, by the way?
And how ’bout the $350B already shelled out to Wall Street without oversight — the brainchild of the “conservative” darlings in the last administration? Gee, if they had been less conservative, they could have spent less by actually writting million-dollar checks for every man, woman, and child in this country.
And one final thought: You might want to look up the definition of “civil rights.” Left-wing activists shun government interference with any personal freedoms. Thus, the terms “liberal” and to a more extreme, “anarchist.” In recent years, however, the Religious Right has tried to tie taxes and strict conservative societal standards into one bundle (great marketing, but not necessarily great economics).
So-called conservatives sell an idea of small government and personal independence, but their idea of small goverment and independence has nothing to do with your civil rights. In fact, it tends to be the opposite. Historically, they’ve expanded government spending, especially with military spending, often against the will of the American population. Check out the historical analysis of deficits and surpluses as well as other market indicators compared to “liberal” versus “conservative” administrations.
“Conservatives” are the ones trying to limit your choices in who you can marry, what you can do in your bedroom, your choices in reproduction (or not), or anything else that doesn’t fit their narrow view of the world. How is that small government?
But more importantly, how is that good economics? This is a business-related site, not a poli-sci class. Let’s all agree that any agenda that advances the country is going to advance American business, and if it is done responsibility — with an eye towards the “general welfare,” as the founding fathers phrased it — it will bring long-term financial benefits.
January 28th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
DD, get another cup of coffee and take two aspirins – life will look better 20 minutes later. Seriousily, I agree with some of your comments. The Government is to large and out of control but, we the people let it happen. We stopped being vigilent, stopped reminding Congress they work for the people and not themselves. We allowed them to put themselves on peddlestills and ignored it when they did. In reality, we have control if we demand, as a people, control. We have not done that …we continue sending lawyers to Washington who lack common sense. We need to demand they respresent the interest of the whole country and not sectors of the same. When we stop electing people based on popularity and grasp that the activities of Congress actually impact everyones life we might then get more involved and return control to the people. In the mean time can we agree that this forum was not intended to be a medium for politcal debate but rather a place to discuss Human Resource issues.
January 29th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
All have made some valid points
While we keep debating with each other, we are not focused on what really is happening. If we put all of the comments together and work together, we may be able to save this thing and save our economy and maybe even some of our liberties.
It is only when we all work together and not against each othe that we will be able to accomplish great things for this country.
Our EEO policies state we will treat folks without regard to race, creed, etc. It seems that the media is now reporting with Extreme regard to race, creed, etc.
The issues are serious enough no matter who is involved. A lost job is a lost job, everyone’s welfare is important.
February 2nd, 2009 at 12:42 pm
Way to go Lisa. DD does need to look at the numbers and stop thinking republican vs. democrats. We are so beyond that.
We all need to think wiser and work together.
February 3rd, 2009 at 2:52 pm
DD, you are just so out of touch. It is the Righteous Right that tries to run our lives and forgets about why they were elected. The Dems just wants to run the government, which is what we want them to do. I have a hard time with any group that tries to push their religious beliefs down my throat. I would rather they spent their time dealing with the greedy idiots that have destroyed our economy. Deregulation, what a great “Republican” concept!! I would like to see our government get out of our “private” lives and fix government. Obviously, someone needs to watch the store.
February 3rd, 2009 at 3:16 pm
The comments made by the lefters in this thread are perfect examples of what liberalism is all about. Basically, if you can’t prove them wrong or aren’t as smart as they are, then just attack them and try to make them look bad. Comments like, “you are so out of touch” and “take some aspirins” are exactly the way the media goes after people. Well, I won’t stoop to those depths, because my points are valid and I don’t have to attack people to make them real. Right is “right.” The right is for our rights and the libs know it. Baby genocide is not OK. Now, wake up and help people take back our freedom before we have no rights left. You can all start by paying your taxes and getting your public representatives to do the same.
April 15th, 2009 at 8:19 am
Kathy and others: Men do tend to make a little more but you miss the facts:
As a percentage: more men hold employment than women (i.e. stay-home moms – note I avoided the word “work”) and more men work full-time jobs and more men put in more years of overall work (women take more time off to have kids and care for them).
It’s just the way it is. So yes, men in general, hold more experience, hence get more pay.
Experience typically equates to higher pay. The statement “equal work for equal pay” only seems to apply to women, and it is wrong. A 5-years-experienced male employee working with a female 15-years-experienced employee would make less money as well, even if his production output is higher.
So, does it make sense that more men are being laid off?
Yes, men make up more of the work force, statistically.
Furthermore, more men are experienced and make more pay, but sometimes you don’t need that much experience, so it then makes sense to lay off the older men.
Beyond this, “replacing” the older workers makes more sense as well.
Computers is a good example. I can have a tenured IT person, making $70K, and I want to implement some new equipment he does not know, to replace existing equipment he has supported for us over the last 10 years. I could train this tenured IT person for the transition, spending, say, $5K (not accounting for his time away in training). OR, I could hire a guy who is almost fresh out of college with the experience learned in university, for only perhaps $45K…. oh, and he would not have family (save on healthcare) and usually is willing to work more hours, and because a new employee is more apt to work harder to make an impression. So, I’ll hang onto this new guy for perhaps 5 years, then get another college-grad to replace him.
October 27th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
As an ‘older’ worker – I’m certainly glad that not everyone thinks like John and replaces me just because “younger is cheaper”. I hope you are not a victum of your own philosophy one day John – you too will get older and in the mind of someone ‘obsolete’. I believe I have proved my worth to my employer and learning new things will always be on the top of my list – I don’t like to be bored.
October 27th, 2009 at 5:48 pm
I agree with Julie in many ways. My field is HR and during the first 20 years I had safety, HR, quality, and communications, and in my department. Today, HR is a stand alone department but newer HR folks don’t have the indepth experience with these other areas. I will always remember a guy who was older at one facility who would often state at meetings, “its not going to work, we tried that years ago” He was never wrong. Although he was seen as not wanting to do anything “new” the concept was not new to him. When he heard a truly new idea and said “that could work” it usually did. The money we saved because of his knowledge alone made a big difference. It seems that we need a mixture of both young and old to balance the workforce and give the best we can to our customers. The older higher paid employee probably has a way of communicating that can save the employer money that the younger employee may not yet have developed. Maybe the more highly paid employee would consider paying for the training himself if given the option. There is much to be said for the employee who has been loyal and can be counted on to perform. There is more than salary cost to be considered when replacing one more highly paid employee with another lesser paid employee.
October 27th, 2009 at 6:03 pm
Julie, Karen:
It is not that I am a staunch supporter of replacing older employees with youner ones. As you both pointed out, experience (not just raw practical skills) can be, and sometimes is, beneficial. The fact is, however, that older workers do hit a ceiling as far as pay scale. Sadly, most employers are unwilling to spend much money to train these people further… I don’t understand the psychological block in this. I suppose they’d rather invest money in younger workers. Particularly because the elders are so good at what they do that the employer probably doesn’t want them to get out of the position they are in. So, hire youngings at low pay, make them higher skilled, and port work away from the old methods so you can lay off the high payed elder….
If you look at it like a machine, it makes sense. The problem is, you may have that old refridgerator from the 1960’s that is still working, never needing repairs, and you get the new “efficient model” and find it breaks down in 5 or 8 years time, and needs service 8 times before you throw it out and get another one. So, was it really efficient, saving you money? Or did it just come with promises of efficencies and good appearances. Many times we can come up with example after example of “newer isn’t always better.” And, in fact, people are tools of the organization. How many men have tools that are 30 years old and still working, then you get the new tool and it breaks quickly.
Older people tend to take “ownership” of the comany, have pride in what they do… perhaps it was the generation of post WWII.. the people who had to struggle, the people who believed in a cause. Now, everyone tries to be out for themselves, including the employers. It’s not about nationalism nor company pride anymore. The employers have kicked employees to the curb so many times that employees don’t really want to put in too much more effort than is required, required to try to retain their jobs, and sadly most employers hang the threat of termination over people’s heads to get them to work more and more hours. I guess you can see why people are dragging their feet on company pride and quality… why bother, they’re just going to fire you anyways…
So, we replaced quality with flare. Shortsightedness sums it all up for employers.
October 31st, 2009 at 9:42 pm
yea right, go to any business and you will find woman out # men 40 to 1. Thanks A.A.