
Women now make up the majority of the U.S. labor force - hhs
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-01-10/women-stand-out-in-otherwise-middling-u-s-december-jobs-report
======
samspenc
My key takeaways from the article:

* "Women held 50.04% of nonfarm payroll positions in December, the highest share since 2010."

* "Over the past year alone, they’ve taken on a greater share of positions traditionally held by men: they make up 13.8% of mining and logging jobs, up from 12.6% a year earlier, as well as a growing share of manufacturing work..."

* "Women have the biggest presence in education and health services -- holding more than three-quarters of those positions -- and government services with about 58%. They account for 56% of positions in financial activities."

------
shiado
The labor force participation rates for men and women are currently at 69.2%
and 57.7% respectively. They arbitrarily exclude farming positions but cite
mining, logging, manufacturing, transportation, and warehouse roles
traditionally occupied by men. This article doesn't really seem to paint a
full or accurate picture.

~~~
boomboomsubban
I doubt the exclusion of farming positions is arbitrary, the area is full of
self/family employment and illegal employment that probably caused the
exclusion. It does paint a false narrative though.

~~~
dooglius
I think it has more to do with the fact that farm employment is seasonal.

~~~
washadjeffmad
Seasonal, migratory, undocumented, and not representative of the populations
or markets this data is intended to be used to serve.

------
deeg
I find this fairly astounding. The typical stay-at-home parent is the mother
and while it's getting closer to parity I don't think it's anywhere near even.
For that reason alone I would expect more men in the work force. What are men
doing if not working? On disability? Homeless? Retiring earlier?

~~~
phkahler
>> What are men doing if not working? On disability? Homeless? Retiring
earlier?

Some are living in their parents basement until they're 30 to 40. It has been
hypothesized that with the breakdown of families in the US, men are giving up,
and that includes efforts to build a stable foundation for their family. See
MGTOW but dont read too much, it can be kind of depressing.

~~~
anon9001
> Some are living in their parents basement until they're 30 to 40.

I understand this is considered a bad thing, and it makes sense at a societal
level, but honestly it sounds like a pretty amazing life. Maybe that would
have been boring and depressing pre-internet, but it seems pretty good now.

I know one dude who essentially grifted his way into the disability system,
and I've watched him go from an anxious mess to a budding artist, literally
living in his mom's basement. All he does is read the internet, take classes,
and paint. His art keeps getting better. If he lives in his parent's basement
for another decade, he might emerge as a great artist. Frankly, I'm kind of
jealous.

The obvious down side is that he has a hard time finding a date, and family
interaction is not optional. IMO those are both relatively minor penalties for
a lifetime of freedom.

The real inexplicable thing here is how parents are letting this happen? I was
never under any illusion that I'd be able to receive indefinite support from
my parents, and society has given me every possible indication that this isn't
an acceptable strategy.

Maybe we need an acceptable way for people who can't mentally handle work to
be able to exist in society.

~~~
cmdshiftf4
>Maybe we need an acceptable way for people who can't mentally handle work to
be able to exist in society.

I initially felt on-the-fence about this but upon further thought I absolutely
disagree with the idea.

Society works and thrives when we've a common goal (all working to make things
slightly better for everyone one bit at a time) and honest reciprocal
agreements as one.

I am happy to partake in a society where the majority are trying their best
for themselves and others, to support them when they fall down and want to get
back up, or to step out of the workforce to procreate or retrain, to provide
healthcare for all, access to housing, education etc.

I don't mind paying a little more if everyone who's willing to try their best
to lean in to society and contribute gets the support and opportunity to do
so, even if there's a disproportionate difference in outcome i.e. if all
you're capable of doing is flipping burgers, parking cars, collecting trash,
etc. then that's fine, just do your best at it.

I absolutely _will not_ support those who just want to opt-out, unless
safeguards were put in place to ensure their malignant genes stopped with them
at the end of their days. I would also _absolutely not_ support extending the
right to vote to such people.

You get out what you put in. It's ok to try and fail, or fall ill, or struggle
with a mental illness. It's good for a society to be there to help you pick
yourself back up, to become well, and try again. It's the intent that counts.
If you (the rhetorical you) merely want to sit on the sidelines because
"life's too tough" then I'm sorry but you won't be doing it on my dime, or
trying to sway the direction of my society with voter rights.

~~~
riversflow
Holy privilege Batman!

> unless safeguards were put in place to ensure their malignant genes stopped
> with them at the end of their days.

As if it’s their genetics and not their disenfranchisement from society that
makes them want to drop out. We allow cheap foreign labor to displace these
people, if we had stricter immigration I can guarantee that there would be
less people in poverty, business would have to pay more to incentivize people
to work there.

And we hardly help men “pick themselves back up”.

>you get what you put in.

lol, that’s a good one, I’m sure the Koch brothers would agree.

Plenty of people put in a lot and don’t get much back. Just because life
worked out great for you—you put in effort and saw a return—doesn’t mean it
works that way for everyone. I personally worked my ass off for 5 years and
then got screwed out of my work by people with more money.

>voter rights

Am I getting trolled? You seriously want to associate voting rights with
employment? Here I thought we left those sorts of attitudes in the last
century.

~~~
cmdshiftf4
Is this intended shallow provocation or is it an earnest attempt at
discussion? You seem to have, intentionally or not, taken a discussion about a
hypothetical direction for the generic future and plastered the shortcomings
of modern America onto it, and took offense for it.

>As if it’s their genetics and not their disenfranchisement from society that
makes them want to drop out

Some traits are heritable. We know intelligence certainly is. The "highly
intelligent, just not driven" thing is a trope. I've lived and spent
considerable time in European countries, particularly the British Isles, where
they not only have a working class but also a welfare class made up of multi-
generational families on welfare and have no intent on giving it up. It's not
a significant amount of welfare recipients, but there are many and it's not
something that should be encouraged.

Again, society is give and take. Fostering a sub-society of people who merely
want to take and not reciprocate is unfair on the rest of society supporting
them.

>And we hardly help men “pick themselves back up”.

I don't disagree with that. I'd argue that instead of enabling them to
comfortably check-out, do nothing and live off others that the money would be
better spent helping them become productive contributors to the society
they've asked to be a part of.

>lol, that’s a good one, I’m sure the Koch brothers would agree.

Finding edge cases to point at does nothing for an argument talking about
society (and the economy) in general. What I said holds true for the majority
of the people.

Even if you want to self-select for an outlier like the Kochs, they're the
beneficiaries of the hard work that came before them and whose lineage has
both managed their work-earned money well, and taught their descendants to do
the same.

 _Even then_ , the Koch's provide employment to roughly 100,000 people, 60,000
in the US alone[0], and give billions towards charity.[1]

Charles Koch's monetary charitable contributions alone top a $1bn, or ~2% of
his fiscal net worth. How much of yours are handing over in the name of good?

I'm not even advocating for that kind of wealth, but simply pointing at the
outlier you've chosen to show that my point actually does hold true - the
Koch's employ and pay 100,000 people, people who use that pay to undoubtedly
support countless others, while also giving large sums of effort and indeed
cash to good causes. They are reaping the benefits from participating in
society in an outlandish manner, but they're also contributing in one,
environmental issues aside.

>Plenty of people put in a lot and don’t get much back. Just because life
worked out great for you—you put in effort and saw a return—doesn’t mean it
works that way for everyone. I personally worked my ass off for 5 years and
then got screwed out of my work by people with more money.

What you've said is _in support of my points_ , not against it. As I said,
_trying_ is what matters. Yes, some people work harder than others. Some
people work smarter than others. Some people work harder and smarter. What's
important is that everyone is giving it their best. I'm giving it my best,
you've given it your best.

Again, as I said, a just society looks after those who are trying. The US, if
you want to bring a single country into this (which I have tried to not, as
I'm generalizing about society with hypothetical situations, some of which
apply to some countries, some to others) is not a just society. I'm not going
to sit here and singly talk about the USA.

The discussion came from a statement that society, en large, should facilitate
those who don't want to participate. I see no reason why that should be US-
centric.

>Am I getting trolled? You seriously want to associate voting rights with
employment? Here I thought we left those sorts of attitudes in the last
century.

No. I said that in the hypothetical situation that we create a class of people
who want to permanently disengage and no longer contribute what they can to
society, in doing so rejecting the responsibilities of being part of society,
that they should not be extended the same rights as those participating in the
society they're opting out from.

An entity who promises to rob Peter to pay Paul can always defend on the
support of Paul. Conservatives who promise to reduce welfare or taxes in order
to return money to those most affected can always depend on the support of
those who will benefit. Leftists who promise to increase welfare and taxes to
provide more social services can always depend on the support of those who
already receive both. Both are fine, in a society where everyone is trying to
do a little better one bit at a time.

People who could hypothetically opt-out permanently and rely on a life
provided for by those who are not opting out is not someone who should be
empowered to weigh in on decisions affecting those whose charity and good
grace they're essentially still breathing from.

I hope none of the above is too outrageous to you, and it shouldn't be if you
can sway yourself toward the hypothetical brought up and not concentrate on
January 2020's America.

[0] [https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/issues/koch-industries-
compan...](https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/issues/koch-industries-company-
facts/)

[1] [https://time.com/5413786/charles-koch-charitable-
giving/](https://time.com/5413786/charles-koch-charitable-giving/)

~~~
riversflow
First, I want to thank you for your reply.

The article is about the USA, and the problem is specific to the US. It seemed
natural that we were still talking about US society. I didn’t intend to
provoke you with my bombast, I simply misinterpreted your argument, my
apologies.

The first post didn’t elucidate your points well enough for me to put them in
context, and it makes a lot more sense given this additional information. I
actually agree with almost everything you said in principle! :) But the
ambiguity of your previous post left me genuinely upset, as this particular
issue hit close to home. I’m glad to have this sorted.

I tend to see a welfare class as an unfortunate inevitability of social
welfare programs. The best thing we can do is have strong public education and
holistic healthcare system to try and combat a multi-generation welfare class.
It’s a difficult problem.

I’ll leave my original post as is, for the sake of prose.

------
nightski
I don't have data to back this up, but it's something I am now going to try to
research. However I feel that there is a slight trend away from your
traditional payroll job into independent small business careers (youtuber,
blogger, streamer, freelancer, etc..). I'm curious how that affects these
numbers.

~~~
Causality1
If I had to take a guess I'd say almost not at all. For example, Twitch only
has 27,000 streamers with the Partner status, and only a fraction of them make
a living off of it. There's enough to be a cultural phenomena but not
significantly change the workforce.

~~~
ghaff
Freelance writers, independent consultants/contractors/tradespeople, and some
professional jobs like those are probably more significant. But I agree those
other categories are almost certainly in the noise for actually making a
living. (Though it's not clear that any of these non-salaried jobs count here
at all.)

------
tribune
"[Women] make up 13.8% of mining and logging jobs, up from 12.6% a year
earlier..."

That seems like a huge recomposition in a single year. What caused this?

~~~
arkh
From the Bureau of Labor Statistics: "All employees"

So I'll hazard a guess about a change in what part of those mining and logging
industries hired: less manual workers and more office ones as they get
consolidated into bigger conglomerates. But I may be wrong.

If I read this correctly:
[https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat11.htm](https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat11.htm)
in 2018 you had

    
    
      - 2.6% women for logging workers
      - 5% for Mining machine operators

------
alf-pogz
A lot of talk about younger men, but what about middle-aged men leaving the
workforce? If I don't get married and have children within the next 5 years,
I'm out too since I can retire early.

------
jacquesm
The more interesting thing is the distribution of income. I would happily bet
that there still is a considerable gap between women on average and men on
average and that the total amount taken home by that majority is significantly
less than the total amount for the men.

~~~
nkkollaw
Women tend to choose jobs that pay less.

They're on average more interested in people, so they tend to choose to become
nurses, teachers, etc., while men are interested in things and become software
developers, engineers, etc.

I have no idea why income HAS TO be distributed equally. Unless you want to
force women to become software developers..? But why.

~~~
wayoutthere
Ignoring everything else wrong with your post, I'll just point out that most
software developers were originally women before about 1960 -- it was seen as
"woman's work" because it didn't require physical labor. Women were
significant contributors to the development of computing from the very
beginning -- in fact, "software" as a concept was invented by a woman [1]. The
profession didn't become high-status or highly-paid until _after_ men took
over (and shut out the women by redefining it as "men's work").

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ada_Lovelace](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ada_Lovelace)

~~~
Ohn0
How does this refute the previous position that women in general aren't
currently as interested in computer science as teaching or nursing?

~~~
standardUser
One does not need to refute the position that woman are less interested in
computer science than nursing or teaching because asserting the personal
interest of a hundred million people you've never met is nothing more than
made up nonsense. There is of a course a lot of information out there about
how societal expectations, existing power structures, gendered use of
language, workplace dynamics and many other factors influence things like
education and career ambitions. But ascribing it to the idea that "women are
more interested in people" is lazy and meaningless.

~~~
wayoutthere
I was more addressing the habit of colonial power structures to use violence
and intimidation to push women and minorities out of positions of economic
prosperity.

"Violence and intimidation" in a modern context is exactly what #MeToo was
about, so it didn't stop just because women have equal rights under the law.
Frankly, a lot of women don't want to put up with that kind of crap and so
choose careers in industries where they feel safe (which often pay way less).

~~~
nkkollaw
Social studies degree..?

------
RenRav
Are farm workers excluded because it's easier? Wouldn't matter I suppose just
curious.

~~~
css
> obtaining accurate farming employment numbers is complicated by:
    
    
        - Self-employment
        - Unpaid family employment
        - Part-time or hobby farmers
        - Other partnerships
    

[https://www.stlouisfed.org/open-vault/2019/july/nonfarm-
payr...](https://www.stlouisfed.org/open-vault/2019/july/nonfarm-payrolls-why-
farmers-not-included)

~~~
Ohn0
Isn't the true for other industries as well though, not just farming?

~~~
jrumbut
That is likely true, though there are some special, farm only ways to be
employed such as the H-2A Visa of which there were 2.4 million in 2018 if I'm
reading this right: [https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-economy/farm-
labor/#h2a](https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-economy/farm-labor/#h2a).

My guess is the biggest reason that non-farm labor is tracked is because
someone decades ago decided to do so and now if we want to do longitudinal
comparisons we need to track the same thing.

It's an interesting enough statistic since there are areas that are very
heavily agricultural and areas with very few farms and probably not as much
mixing between the two compared to (for instance) manufacturing and clerical
jobs which may happen in the same building.

------
nsonha
women v machines

------
08-15
I'm confused. The headline talks about _women_ holding more than 50% of jobs.
But the tagline underneath says _females_ make up the largest share of the
labor market! That ain't make no sense! In the current year, not all women
have a vagina. I didn't think Bloomberg was transphobic, but now I know
better.

~~~
Ohn0
"Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something
genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents."

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

~~~
08-15
Ahem. The topic of equality of outcome is flamebait to begin with. (Why?
Because of tiny details like "encouraging" hidden it between the neutral
reporting.)

The question is real, though: are trans women counted as women? If not:
transphobic. If yes: what do these numbers really tell us? And there's also
"non-binary" and "prefer not to say". Making sense of statistics in the
current year is f'ing difficult.

~~~
Ohn0
I know, but I wanted to try copy/paste for easy karma.

------
macmichael01
So much for diversity and inclusivity. In colleges and universities we are all
taught to site our sources but if you are Bloomberg you can just make up data
points to push a political agenda. It would be nice if there was a data source
to reference to understand how they arrived at their stats. But hey we're just
supposed to believe in pretty graphs with no source as being truthful and
representative or the facts. Not to mention treading at Hacker News so it must
be true.

It's also important to remember that: "76% of all statics are made up
including this one!"

Here's something else to ponder!! Where were all of the women over the last 10
years when we were building out all of this tech? We needed women software
engineers!! I saw very low numbers in my 13+ years in the bay area. The only
women in software engineering roles were here on VISA. Now that we have
leadership roles and political narratives.... we all of the sudden have a huge
turnout. But hey what do I know. 13 years in the bay area working at top tech
companies. No credibility at all. Argue with me and tell me know I am clearly
wrong!

