Friday, October 02, 2009

Mancession Continues: Male-Female Jobless Rate Gap at Record Level, Higher Than Last 2 Recessions

According to Table A-1 of today's Employment Situation report, male unemployment increased in September from 10.9% to 11% and female unemployment increased from 8.2% to 8.4%, and the male-female jobless rate gap fell from 2.7% in September from the all-time record gap of 2.7% in August. The current male-female jobless rate gap of 2.6% is three times higher than the maximum gap during the last recession and more than two times higher than the peak gap of 1.1% following the 1990-1991 recession. These facts about the male-female jobless rate gap are not only incontrovertible, they are truly unprecedented and historic.

And yet a new
St. Louis Fed research report released today claims to: "debunk the popular notion that the current recession is predominantly a “man-cession”—a recession hurting American males proportionately more than women and other demographic groups.

The “man-cession” catchphrase is misleading and fails to reveal the full consequences of the recession across different demographic groups, according to author Howard J. Wall, a St. Louis Fed vice president and economist. “While it is true men are affected more than women during recessions, this recession is nothing out of the ordinary,” Wall said. “By some measures, the difference between men and women is smaller than in past recessions.”

A quick search of the
full report shows that the term "unemployment rate" appears only once, but only in reference to the overall rate and not in reference to either men or women, and the terms "male unemployment" and "female unemployment" never appear. I'll read through more carefully later and make some additional comments, but I'm skeptical on first impression.


At 10/02/2009 4:06 PM, Anonymous Benny "Tell It Like It Is" Man said...

I just want to know this: Does anybody know a woman out there who can support me?
They have the jobs, they don;t get killed on the job, they don;t go to prison, they go to college.
I say it is Miller time, dudes. Let's form a "beer clatch" club somewhere, and let the women support us for a few generations. We have done the heavy lifting.
Time for a few zzzz's on the couch, a football game or two, and some serious fishing after that.

At 10/03/2009 10:58 AM, Anonymous TheDude said...

Dude, you are now abiding but maybe no beer for an hour before you post -- can you abide by that?

At 10/03/2009 11:02 AM, Anonymous TheDude said...

Clarification: The Dude referenced was Benny........., not our esteemed host.

At 10/04/2009 11:55 AM, Blogger misterjosh said...

There are 15% more men working than there are women. I find this interesting considering the fact that the majority of degrees are being granted to women.

At 10/04/2009 12:01 PM, Blogger misterjosh said...

I just read the St. Louis Fed guy's comments.

Foregone employment - huh? A brief internet search reveals this phrase most often being used to determine how much employment people aren't getting based on having children. I don't understand Wall's usage. I think he's making stuff up.

At 10/05/2009 12:56 AM, Blogger Fabius Maximus said...

The relative losses by men tend to vary with the severity of the recession. Just as this is the most severe recession since the 1930's by most metrics (esp employment), so are the relative losses by men the worst since the 1930's.

But they are not historical or unprecedented. The Great Depression was a worse "mancession."

For details see "Yes, it is a “mancession”." Just like all recessions." It has the relevant excerpts from a Congressional Research Service report on this subject.

Any comments or corrections are appreciated.


Post a Comment

<< Home