Interesting article here. What are your thoughts?

LacklustreFriend · 2020-01-12T14:32:34+00:00

Not really that interesting. Title is pretty misleading (probably delibrately so). All it's saying is women hold a majority on names on payrolls. This means part time is counted the same as fulltime. This probably means a women with two part time jobs is counted twice. Women are significantly more likely to hold part time work than men. Also the article has this caveat:

The share of women on payrolls, excluding farmworkers and the self-employed

Guess which gender is more likely to be self-employed? (and also farmers, but they're a tiny demographic).

Men still have a notable majority on actual working hours.

It's basically just a fluff piece meant to showcase an arbitrary "win" for women to generate clicks.

Oncefa2 · 2020-01-12T14:22:07+00:00

I wonder when they will work more total hours in aggregate and at the same difficult jobs that men work. I also wonder if there are men on the other side of this who are having their financial burdens lifted, or if this just represented more discretionary spending for women. In other words, are these women sharing their money with their boyfriends / husbands and children, or are there men in the background who are still taking care of all the bills and childcare costs?

And even if this is the case, I'm not sure if this is progress, or if it just reflects the worsening plight of male laborers. Men were disproportionately effected by the Bush era economic recessions and they never really recovered the way women did. Women may not be chosing to work more but may instead simply have to work more.

Strikester101 · 2020-01-12T14:54:52+00:00

QUESTION: What's the purpose of this article?

Comments