The End of the Man-Cession
With men accounting for three-quarters of recent layoffs, there's been some talk of a "Man-cession." Christopher Swann of Reuters has a great column explaining the phenomenon:
[R]ecessions are almost always man-cessions. In 2001, the most recent downturn, women accounted for just 14 percent of job losses, U.S. government figures show. The picture was even clearer in the recession of the early 1990s. Of the 1.2 million positions that disappeared, females accounted for just 22,000 — slightly less than 2 percent.
Nor can this be explained by the fact that there were fewer women working. Even in the early 1990s women accounted for 47 percent of the workforce.
The reason that men are more sensitive — to recessions at least — is that they are overrepresented in highly cyclical sectors. Nine out of 10 workers in construction, and seven out of 10 in manufacturing, are male. These sectors generally take the biggest tumble when the economy declines. Women, meanwhile, dominate the most cosseted portions of the economy: healthcare, education and government.
As his numbers show, this recession is actually less male-focused than recent recessions. That's probably a function of greater diversity across job sectors: Vulnerable professions are no longer as overwhelmingly male, and "cosseted" professions are less overwhelmingly female. As what was once "man's work" becomes everybody's work, the "man-cessions" of yesteryear give way to recessions that hit workers more equally. Except for children. Those little twerps just sit around in their unionized classrooms, looking so intolerably smug ...
October 8, 2009; 10:48 AM ET
Save & Share: Previous: Is Mitch McConnell Afraid of the Senate Finance Committee's Bill?
Next: Meat Facts
Posted by: HerooftheBeach | October 8, 2009 11:24 AM | Report abuse
Posted by: paul314 | October 8, 2009 12:27 PM | Report abuse
Posted by: zosima | October 8, 2009 7:24 PM | Report abuse
The comments to this entry are closed.