Men are the biggest losers in the recession

From the American Spectator.

Excerpt:

Over the past decade, the total number of jobs for women went up by close to a million. Meanwhile, men lost more than 3 million jobs. From 1960 to 2008, the average unemployment rate for men 25 years and older was 4.2 percent. In the last two years, it has more than doubled, shooting up to 8.9 percent. By contrast, unemployment for women of the same age and for the same period of time went from 4.7 percent to 7.2 percent, an increase of 52 percent. The disparity is more striking if one considers that women’s rate of participation in the workforce has risen sharply since 1960 while the percentage of men in the job market has been shrinking.

One reason that men’s employment rate lags behind is that there has been negative growth in the types of jobs men historically have occupied. In the last 10 years, 5.5 million manufacturing jobs were lost. That’s one-third of our manufacturing base in an industry where men make up 70 percent of the workforce. In construction, where 87 percent of positions are filled by men, more than 1.4 million jobs went away during that time frame. Approximately 4.4 million jobs have been added in the education and health care sectors, but women dominate this growing field as they make up 77 percent of the work force.

It’s working-class men, not those who occupy elite positions in finance and government, who are suffering. The hemorrhaging of manufacturing and other well-paying jobs in America means that a rising number of young American men face dwindling prospects for earning a middle-class wage in the future. Young male unemployment is at 19 percent. More than 15 percent of Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans (most of whom are male) were unemployed in January 2011. African-American males also have been hit hard. Ten years ago, both African-American men and women had the same unemployment rate of 8.2 percent. Since then, the men’s rate has more than doubled and now is almost four points higher than the unemployment rate for women. Similarly, Hispanic men now have a 1.7 percent higher unemployment rate than Hispanic women, whom they historically have outperformed.

With growing numbers of out-of-work young men comes a volatile mix of negative social outcomes: they are less likely to marry, less likely to be a stable parental force for the children they father, and more likely to engage in violent behavior.

One would think that Washington policymakers would see these developments as a cause for concern. Nonetheless, for more than a decade, they have looked the other way as good American jobs have been shipped overseas, outsourced or have simply gone away. Ironically, our business tax system incentivizes our companies to export jobs and prosperity overseas. Also, our government welfare system all but discourages an intact family of a father and mother by the way it distributes money.

Men are not going to be able to fulfill their roles of protector, provider and moral/spiritual leader if they do not have the authority that comes from being the principle/sole breadwinner in the family. Right now, we have a situation where the schools are discriminating against men by having a tiny minority of male teachers, as well as co-ed classrooms. Men cannot learn as well when they are taught primarily by women and are distracted by female peers and do not have a separate male-focused curriculum. And that is why men now earn 40% of bachelor degrees on many campuses. Government’s massive spending and job-killing policies leave the few men who can graduate in an unstable employment situation where marriage becomes too risky. De-valuing a man’s savings with inflation doesn’t help, either.

One thought on “Men are the biggest losers in the recession”

  1. I think that your assertion that schools discriminate against employing men is wrong. It does not take into account what men themselves are choosing to do with their lives, nor does it take into account that I could turn that around and say post-secondary institutions seem to be discriminating against women in the exact same fashion.

    Culturally speaking, there is an undertone convincing a lot of people that teaching is a “woman’s job”. Furthermore, becoming a secondary school teacher is incredibly unattractive when you consider how little they actually get paid versus how much they actually do. ((If you think that teaching is just a nine-month-long job where the only work you do is between 8am and 2pm, you have another thing coming.)) Getting work as a male teacher, especially for the “sole provider” that you think all men should be, is also incredibly tedious, and involves uprooting your family each time you get a new position. As a result, MOST male educators that I know CHOOSE to teach at the professor level — indeed, they REFUSE to even consider teaching secondary, or dealing with elementary.

    There is good science that backs the idea that ‘boys and girls’ should not be taught together — however, this is due to learning methodology, not gender. There are many boys who learn better in “girl-styled” classrooms, and many girls who learn better in situations geared for boys. I also question “gender-focused curricula” and how that might manifest: as someone who was FORCED into home economics due to gender (males were given the choice of shop, mechanics, math, science, or history), gender-enforced curricula are demeaning, unhelpful, and stiffling. I fear that segregating boys completely may also foster a superiority complex over women, leading to lowered wage ratios and unfair college admissions.

    Like

Leave a reply to Sarah Bonner Cancel reply