(Source: CNNMoney)
Mancession? He-covery?
(Update: I hadn't heard the term "he-covery" but a little Googling finds a good early source in the NYT.)
(Update: I hadn't heard the term "he-covery" but a little Googling finds a good early source in the NYT.)
During the peak of the Great Recession many economists and labor experts commented on the gendered nature of job losses. Some coined it the "mancession" because men were losing jobs much faster, so fast that at one point the number of working men and women in the American economy was equal. The graph above illustrates that well. There is more behind it though. Newsweek pointed out in July 2009 that it didn't mean it was all roses and daffodils for working women.
The basic gist: women on average hold more part time jobs and are paid less and the Recession hit hardest on "male" jobs, full time jobs, and higher paying jobs.
So men are recovering faster in the job market? I am sure with more research I would understand it better, but I am more interested in the "what it means" rather than the "why." The new jobs created in the "he-covery" tend to be lower paid than the jobs that were lost. If it is the case that men are taking these jobs then as whole we should see the income of men lowered. Does this mean the gap between average pay for men and women will shrink, but not because women have increased towards parity? Just a thought.
