Carpe Diem’s Mark Perry carefully investigates and clearly explains — much better than I do here — the likely source of Paul Krugman’s mistaken claim, in yesterday’s New York Times, that "the percentage of prime-working-age Americans without jobs . . . is historically high."
Mark reached the same conclusion that I reached: Krugman mistook "men" for "all workers."
Using what is likely the same data source used (but carelessly so) by Krugman — and looking at the jobless rates of both men and women — Mark concludes
Krugman
says "the percentage of prime-working-age Americans without jobs is
historically high," which is clearly not accurate. It would be more
accurate to say that it is close to being historically low.
Podcast RSS Feed
Full EconTalk Text
{ 27 comments }
Interesting point. Who knows? Maybe women make for better free market entrepreneurs than men because they are less prone to risk-taking and violence (alternatively men are good Mercantilists). Most front office workers and checkout operators are women. Women, I think, are better long-term investors too. Though the downside for Libertarians is that women aren't prone to thoughts of rugged individualism and usually like to pool money for 'worthy causes' (a.k.a. a tendency towards Socialism).
Gilduck,
Being a free market entrepreneur is by definition risk taking, no way to be one without being the other. There are no guarantees in the free market.
Front office workers and checkout cashiers are women because business can typically get them cheaper.
Women may make better long term investors because their "nesting" nature would tend to lead them that way; build the nest, guard the nest. The question is though, typically do women make better or more successful investors over-all (apologies to our Methinks, who does not seem typical).
Finally, how do you mistake free voluntary cooperation for the dictatorship of involuntary socialism?
Gil:
"Though the downside for Libertarians is that women aren't prone to thoughts of rugged individualism and usually like to pool money for 'worthy causes' (a.k.a. a tendency towards Socialism)."
Lets quickly deconstruct this non sequitor.
-Women like to pool money for 'worthy causes' (more than men do).
-Thus women tend towards socialisms (defined simply as coerced collectivization).
Fallacious implicit assumption: pooling of money always occurs through the process of coerced collectivization.
On to more pertinent things. It seems to me that PK believes we need to go back to 1960 in 1 of three ways (I'm sure there are more and would like others inputs). Since the goal is to minimize male joblessness either he wants to see…
A) More women back in the kitchen
B) Less men going to school beyond 25
C) Less men retiring early in life
D) ???
…it'd be particularly funny if a progressive saw "men" and thought "oh, that's everyone."
a mistake, undoubtedly, but an ironic one.
Oops! Sorry! Men rule OK.
Mark Perry concludes "Fewer Men Are Working Because More Men Are Retired", but the shift in the jobless rate of males from roughly seven percent to roughly twelve percent occurred in the seventies. The most prominent change in the labor force in this decade, and the decades before and after, is the increase in female participation. Female "joblessness" was sixty percent in 1960 and is below thirty percent today, but most of the "jobless" women in 1960 were not "retired". They worked in the unpaid (or non-monetized) labor force. They received compensation in kind or shared a husband's monetary income rather than receiving a monetary wage themselves.
We have this idea that people who don't receive monetary incomes don't work, but the idea is absurd. Most people throughout history worked without monetary incomes. Even today, female "joblessness" is nearly thirty percent and far higher than male joblessness, but the difference has little to do with female retirement.
While women entered the work force in large numbers in the second half of the twentieth century, did a blending of traditional male and female roles also occurred in the other direction? Do more men in prime working years spend significant periods "jobless", because more men spend longer periods in unpaid labor roles that we traditionally associate with women? If so, many of these men aren't truly jobless at all, and they aren't retired either. They work without receiving monetary compensation, as most women did half a century ago and most people did only a few centuries ago.
Gil,
You don't ever seem very interested in truly engaging the topic at hand. You seem to be more inclined to "look for" something irrelevant, wrong or weak that has little to really do with the subject matter so you can provoke pointless debate over nothing.
You and Muirgeo seem to both follow this pattern:
To actual topic you say:
"yeah, whatever…"
and then proceed with:
"but what about (insert silly strawman or irrelevant rant here)"
I initially supposed men might have a harder time getting employed because women might be considered more employable. I don't see how that was necessarily trolling behaviour.
gil,
Of course you don't see it.
(eyes rolling)
Martin, I completely agree with you. Anecdotally, I know of several such arrangements where the traditional role of men and women are reversed. In one case, the woman is a college professor and the husband is an artist. In another, the husband had a very high paying job but quit when his wife's business took off. He enjoys taking care of the kids and the house and helps his wife in her business, but he's considered unemployed. Some would call him retired. We consider him a hard worker.
Gil,
As a professional woman, I'd love to agree with you. I just don't. In my experience, women have not been better employees. Although, I'll give you that we're more prone to socialism (as a group – I'm not), that observation is completely irrelevant. Women don't tend to be risk takers when compared to men. Far more men would take the risk of becoming entrepreneurs. In addition, I'm not sure that even if we were a more entrepreneurial sex, that this would be consistent with the statistics. I don't think that entrepreneurs are considered part of the labour market (someone correct me if I'm wrong, please).
methinks,
I think entrepreneurs would be part of the labor market…I think.
I'm self-employed but I'm also an officer of a Corp and receive a paycheck as an employee. This is one type of case. I don't know how non Inc businesses would be counted.
John, I think you would be considered employed. I'm a managing member of an LLC and don't receive a paycheck (I receive an annual allocation from return on capital). I don't know if I would be counted as "employed".
methinks
Yes. That could be. LLCs do work differently.
Methinks,
Entrepreneurs may not be lumped into the statistics of the "labor force", or as being of the "employed", but clearly if they aren't counted when trying to determine just how many of us are actively working at an income producing endeavor then the statistics will always be skewed and untrustworthy.
I know that I have actively avoided having a "job" since 1983 yet I labor, am self employed, and produce all I need from my efforts. Am I rfeflected in the stats, I wonder, but only idlely cause I don't really care.
Here ya go, one more person among the unemployed and for good reason. Check it out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0x4guxBLGQ
"Why I quit court reporting"
Oh, holy cow, vidyohs! I didn't know whether to laugh or to cry but I didn't understand a single word that lady was saying! That poor court reporter.
Methinks,
The video tape, and the audio backup we make wouldn't help either. Frankly, I was in awe.
Why not J.V.? You'd complain the free market falls apart when people start using 'force&fraud'. Yet aren't women less prone to violence? I can't really remember women feeling a great sense of personal honour where'd they want to beat the shit out of another woman who slighted her in some way (women getting into brawls are extremely rare compared with men). I'd have guessed Libertarians might have suppose it could be good for society if women had greater sway in society (or alternatively men have less). I don't know, maybe not?
Gil,
Put very simply:
In order to make an argument you have to make points as if I disagree them or haven't thought of them or don't figure into the discussion in order to feel like your making an honest argument.
IOW, you need to be intellectually dishonest because you don't have any real point to counter the post topic so you make them up in order to be able to argue with people you want to disagree with.
Well said, John V. Thank you.
The great thing about this is that Krugman can have it both ways. If the jobless rate is increasing, it is a sign of economic weakness. If the jobless rate for men is increasing but decreasing for women it is evidence that women need to work to make ends meet and that the economy is weak. Nice to construct arguments like heads I win, tails you lose.
I think the jobless rate is less important then median net worth. Can someone get that figure?
gdi. One of the points I noticed in the article was that P.K. wasn't including women as part of the workforce. Maybe P.K. is a type of Conservative in that he likes to look back at a time when men were the breadwinners and women stayed at home. I only threw out my two cents that maybe many employers prefer women over men for many jobs because women generally have a more pleasant disposition. I thought this was a much nicer suggestion than saying women only get jobs because they undercut men for pay.
I only threw out my two cents that maybe many employers prefer women over men for many jobs because women generally have a more pleasant disposition. I thought this was a much nicer suggestion than saying women only get jobs because they undercut men for pay.
Gil, I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt but you're an idiot. I could just as easily say that women have a whiny, entitled, I-will-sue-your-ass-for-gender-discrimination-if-you-dare-fire-me disposition and not at all compatible with many work environments. It is not a nicer suggestion than saying that women undercut men in pay. Both of your suggestions are ignorant and idiotic. Women make less money than men because they take time off from their careers to have kids, are less aggressive in negotiating compensation, less likely to go into fields where their pay is directly tied to production, and less likely to leave if they feel they are being under-compensated. If it hasn't occurred to you already, I've typically been paid more than my male counterparts (bitchy disposition and all). You can now feel free to shut the hell up about women – a topic about which you clearly know nothing.
…dare-fire-me (it didn't fit I guess)
Hell hath no fury like the wrath of Methinks scorned.