Unemployment by Sex

I am never sure if I should take Rush Limbaugh seriously, or just take the humor and laugh.  Blogger Ann Althouse linked to a piece that explains Rule 24.  Here is Mr Limbaugh talking about Undeniable Truths of Life Rule 24:

Feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of American life.

Mr Limbaugh used this as a lead to a story in the 3 April issue of The Daily Mail, where a team of three woman and two men concluded that the availability of men in an area was correlated with the percentage of women in high paying jobs.

They said this means that when men are scarce in a particular area, women, and particularly less attractive ladies, may decide they need to provide for themselves with a well-paid career.

The researchers carried out several experiments to come up with their startling argument.  The first looked at the number of eligible men in an area, which they called the 'operational sex ratio'.  After collecting data from across the US, they found that as the number of eligible men in a state decreased, the proportion of women in highly paid careers rose.  In addition, the women who became mothers in those states did so at an older age and had fewer children.

But, while this is all interesting research, supposedly done by trained scientists, in my mind it brings up a bigger and more important issue.  Have we figured out the impact of women moving from home to work on men less able to get jobs and what happens to them?

Going to the Bureau of Labor Statistics we find the following (People 16 or older, as of March 2012):

	MEN	WOMEN
EMPLOYED	74,507,000	66,906,000
Participation %	69.9	57.7
UNEMPLOYMENT Rate	8.9	7.7
Num UNEMPLOYED	7,323,000	5,580,000
NOT In Labor Force	35,156,000	53,133,000

What is it that should jump out at us with these statistics?  I would assert that it is the number of unemployed males.  Between a group of a dozen males and a dozen females, which group is more likely to cause mayhem?  Not petty crime, but big crime?  If you picked females you are showing your evolutionary ignorance.

This, in turn, raises the question of if there is some upper carrying level for the economy, beyond which it can not absorb new workers, even when things are going well?  In the 1930s it was believed that women squeezed out men in the labor force.  When my Mother-in-Law married my Father-in-Law she was discharged from her teaching job—that day.

This, in turn, raises the question of if the Federal or State Governments should be designing social policy such as to encourage more men to work and to encourage more women to get out of their way?

To look at it again, of (non-institutionalized) Males 16 and older, the total number is 116,986,000, of which only 81,830,000 (69.9%) are actually in the labor force.  What are the rest of them doing?  With women the numbers are 125,619,000 who are 16 or older and not in an institution, and of them, 72,486,000 (57.7) are in the labor force.  Since they are women we assume that the 42.3% are stay-at-home moms.♠  It fits our picture of ourself.  Do we picture some 35 million males as stay-at-home dads?♥

This is not a trivial issue.

Any woman who wishes to have a job outside the house should be free to have a job, any job she can freely compete for and win.

We should be very concerned about a buildup of unemployed males, since history shows that it rarely leads to anything good.

I will let you know when I figure out an answer.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  Like Ann Romney.
♥  I don't have any good examples to give you.