Women accounted for 158,000 — or around 98% — of the 162,000 jobs added in the month, according to a CNBC analysis of data released Friday by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Men represent the remaining 4,000 net positions added, meaning their contribution to overall payroll growth was nearly 40 times smaller.
The first article I read on this had it as the headline, “low wage and low quality jobs drive surprise hiring growth”, whereas this spins it as some empowerment angle and then buries this in the last two paragraphs:
"Because women tend to earn less than men, Ullrich said winning a higher share of jobs could mean companies are focusing hiring on lower-wage roles. Given that women are more likely to have multiple jobs, Ullrich said some of the gains could stem from workers who are stretching themselves thin.
“You could look at it and say, ‘Yay, women,’” Ullrich said. But, “I don’t think it’s necessarily a positive story for women overall.”
They mentioned industries that are women dominated are the ones that are hiring. Like in healthcare 4 in 5 are women, and in education 3 in 4. That explains 75 or 80 percent. How are we getting to 98 percent?
The logical option is that, since these are net gains, there were massive job losses in men-dominated fields?
IT is male dominated and they all seem like they’re being downsized right now. Microsoft alone has cut a ton of jobs.
A quick google says men dominate: construction, piloting, CEOs, engineering.
Computer science and math push to 58% of degrees granted.
Because part time jobs tyou take up to make ends meet can be held multiple at a time.
That’s also why pay is low. They just aren’t weighted for (real) hours worked.
Whenever I see a “x amount of jobs created” headline, in my head it translates to “Yeah, but how many of those are actual decent full time positions with benefits?”
