5 ms·

This story really needs another graph showing "NOT-IN-LABOR FORCE RATES FOR WOMEN AGES 25-54; 1965 TO 2019". See https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2016/images/hippl

This story really needs another graph showing "NOT-IN-LABOR FORCE RATES FOR WOMEN AGES 25-54; 1965 TO 2019". See https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2016/images/hipple-fig6.png https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2016/images/hipple-fig6.png It appears that the non-participation rate for women is about twice as high as for men.

andonisus 7y ago
What does this have to do with men?
- Miner49er 7y ago
  It provides some missing context.
- downerending 7y ago
  One should always ask "compared to what?". Is this a male-specific phenomenon, or is it actually happening to all? (perhaps with females lagging by a few years) The answer matters if you're trying to solve the problem.
  - ameister14 7y ago
    >One should always ask "compared to what?". Is this a male-specific phenomenon, or is it actually happening to all? (perhaps with females lagging by a few years) The linked article does ask this - it's less helpful to use women as a counter though, as for a very long time they have had drastically different labor participation rates. The article uses men in different circumstances to illustrate their points
scarejunba 7y ago
So the current prevailing theory is that the guys are getting high and playing video games? What's the current prevailing theory for the girls? Doing unformalized work that doesn't show up in the stats? Also playing games and doing drugs?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- Erik816 7y ago
  Look at the chart. There are now a lot more women in the labor force than there were in the 1940s. Back then, they were staying home with the kids. Now, women are having children later and often working (at least part time) once they have them.
  - watwut 7y ago
    1940 was wwii. That is when men went to war (on all sides - many to commit genocide) and women went to work either to feed themselves or cause economy needed it (yes some to support that genocide on home front).
  - scarejunba 7y ago
    Sure, I'm talking about the 25% of women and what the theory is for them that's analogous to the 10% of men that aren't working.
Mirioron 7y ago
The trend is completely different for women though as is the way people view women that are not participating in the labour force.
- Merrill 7y ago
  Since the participation rate for women peaked around 2000, the participation rate for men and women both declined a few percent. The curves are essentially parallel. The graph is from "Labor force participation: what has happened since the peak?" by the Bureau of Labor Statistics at https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2016/article/labor-force-participation-what-has-happened-since-the-peak.htm https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2016/article/labor-force-partic...
  - Mirioron 7y ago
    I stand corrected. I saw the graph earlier but it was difficult to tell either the reduction in both groups was similar or not. Looking at the numbers though does paint a similar picture. The rate for men from 2000 to 2016 fell from 92.1% to 88.5% (3.6% drop) and for women from 77% to 74% (3% drop).
commandlinefan 7y ago
But that’s not really anything new or unusual, is it? Women have always stayed home to look after children more often than men.
- altoidaltoid 7y ago
  not just looking after children, also as caregivers for elderly parents
Mikeb85 7y ago
The traditional role for women has been to stay at home and take care of children, and while it's not the majority anymore, a significant amount still choose this path. Also, there's no stigmatisation of women who choose not to work.
- humanrebar 7y ago
  > Also, there's no stigmatisation of women who choose not to work. Eh... ideally not. It's not uniform, but many treat female homemakers as less sophisticated.

andonisus 7y ago

What does this have to do with men?

Miner49er 7y ago
It provides some missing context.
downerending 7y ago
One should always ask "compared to what?". Is this a male-specific phenomenon, or is it actually happening to all? (perhaps with females lagging by a few years) The answer matters if you're trying to solve the problem.
- ameister14 7y ago
  >One should always ask "compared to what?". Is this a male-specific phenomenon, or is it actually happening to all? (perhaps with females lagging by a few years) The linked article does ask this - it's less helpful to use women as a counter though, as for a very long time they have had drastically different labor participation rates. The article uses men in different circumstances to illustrate their points

scarejunba 7y ago

So the current prevailing theory is that the guys are getting high and playing video games? What's the current prevailing theory for the girls? Doing unformalized work that doesn't show up in the stats? Also playing games and doing drugs?

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
Erik816 7y ago
Look at the chart. There are now a lot more women in the labor force than there were in the 1940s. Back then, they were staying home with the kids. Now, women are having children later and often working (at least part time) once they have them.
- watwut 7y ago
  1940 was wwii. That is when men went to war (on all sides - many to commit genocide) and women went to work either to feed themselves or cause economy needed it (yes some to support that genocide on home front).
- scarejunba 7y ago
  Sure, I'm talking about the 25% of women and what the theory is for them that's analogous to the 10% of men that aren't working.

Mirioron 7y ago

The trend is completely different for women though as is the way people view women that are not participating in the labour force.

Merrill 7y ago
Since the participation rate for women peaked around 2000, the participation rate for men and women both declined a few percent. The curves are essentially parallel. The graph is from "Labor force participation: what has happened since the peak?" by the Bureau of Labor Statistics at https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2016/article/labor-force-participation-what-has-happened-since-the-peak.htm https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2016/article/labor-force-partic...
- Mirioron 7y ago
  I stand corrected. I saw the graph earlier but it was difficult to tell either the reduction in both groups was similar or not. Looking at the numbers though does paint a similar picture. The rate for men from 2000 to 2016 fell from 92.1% to 88.5% (3.6% drop) and for women from 77% to 74% (3% drop).

commandlinefan 7y ago

But that’s not really anything new or unusual, is it? Women have always stayed home to look after children more often than men.

altoidaltoid 7y ago
not just looking after children, also as caregivers for elderly parents

Mikeb85 7y ago

The traditional role for women has been to stay at home and take care of children, and while it's not the majority anymore, a significant amount still choose this path. Also, there's no stigmatisation of women who choose not to work.

humanrebar 7y ago
> Also, there's no stigmatisation of women who choose not to work. Eh... ideally not. It's not uniform, but many treat female homemakers as less sophisticated.