My new post at the Nightly Business Report blog is up. Here's a snippet:
One of the most noted aspects of the ongoing Great Recession is that it has taken a larger toll on male employment than female employment. An interesting consequence of that difference has been an overturning of the "breadwinner" and "homemaker" roles in a number of families. A good number of unemployed men are finding themselves in the position of managing the household while their wives attempt, often by working overtime, to keep the family going on one income. The longer-run effects this might have on gender roles and the structure of the family remain to be seen.
We might learn a little by a comparison to the Great Depression.
Why do you think this has taken a bigger toll on men than women? Is it structural, i.e., relating to the loss of certain types of jobs for which men are more likely employed? May it be related to the discretion of employers? Of course, all employment decisions--except those backed by the threat of enforcement by some third party--are discretionary, but what I mean to ask is do you think there is evidence that employers are less likely to lay off women than men?
Posted by: geoffrey | January 05, 2010 at 02:41 PM
It's structural in the sense that it's about industries not discrimination etc.. Men are more likely to be in industries hit hard by the recession, esp. construction, but to a lesser extent white collar ones like finance and real estate. In general, men are disproportionately in industries more likely to be affected by the business cycle.
Posted by: Steve Horwitz | January 05, 2010 at 04:37 PM
Steve, do you think this at least partly reflects greater willingness of men to take risks compared to women?
Posted by: David Hillary | January 06, 2010 at 12:45 AM
Nope, I think it reflects the fact that we've now had a long period of time with women being more likely to attend college than men, and women being disproportionately likely to be in service sector jobs that are less affected by cyclical changes. Women are more tightly clustered in jobs that require college and are services, both of which make them less cyclical. This is esp. true when the boom was in housing, where construction jobs are crucial and predominantly male, for a variety of reasons.
Posted by: Steve Horwitz | January 06, 2010 at 08:29 AM