On the same day that the Washington Post breaks the news that US unemployment has risen to 9.7%, the NCPA has run a piece about the growth of female employment;
Women held 49.83 percent of the nation's 132 million jobs in June and they're gaining the vast majority of jobs in the few sectors of the economy that are growing, according to the most recent numbers available from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, says reporter Dennis Cauchon.
That's a record high for a measure that's been growing steadily for decades and accelerating during the recession. At the current pace, women will become a majority of workers in October or November.
From December 2007 to June 2009:
* Men have lost 74 percent of the 6.4 million jobs erased since the recession began in December 2007.
* Men have lost more than 3 million jobs in construction and manufacturing alone.
The only parts of the economy still growing -- health care, education and government -- have traditionally hired mostly women, says Cauchon. That dominance has increased in part because federal stimulus funding directed money to education, health care and state and local governments.
How does that compare to NZ?
Obviously our unemployment rate is much lower at 6 percent.
Over the last three June quarters (2007 - 2009) the numbers (millions) employed have looked like this;
Males 1.163 1.166 1.159
Females 1.009 1.023 1.011
So although when unemployment information was last released it was noted that females were taking the brunt, over two years they have actually fared better.
Looking at which sectors have continued to grow over the same period they are, as in the US, health and community services, and education. The only other sector to grow was business and financial services.
The sectors that actually generate wealth - construction, manufacturing, agriculture, forestry and fishing all shrank.
It's a worry.
(David has just objected that health indirectly creates wealth. Can't generate wealth without a healthy workforce he says. Can't pay for health without any wealth generation, I counter. I don't think it's a chicken and egg scenario. The wealth comes first. That is observable historically.)
The real IRS argument
1 hour ago