What started as a she-cession might leave a legacy of lower male labor force participation. Surprising to me. Although we're still waiting for the final analysis.
Here in Australia, we had very similar media reports. But, on closer inspection, things were not what they seemed.
To me, the striking thing about the early Australian reports was that they were using data on employment to draw conclusions about which sex was hardest hit. Normally, unemployment (or perhaps underemployment) data would be use for this purpose. (I think these comments may also apply to the US.) I was intrigued enough to look more closely. Very briefly, what I found was:
• Women mostly didn’t "lose" their job, they resigned. And they mostly chose not to look for a new job - moving from employed to "Not in Labour Force".
• Women did not give up work because of increased domestic demands. During Covid, men increased their time spent on domestic activities by 34% while women’s time didn’t change.
• More men were laid off than women. Men also lost more hours of work and more wages.
I appreciate the challenge to 'conventional wisdom' here but gender aside, every conversation about people not going back to work is unable to provide any data about the number people who were able to replace their income by freelancing or launching a business. Quite a few people of every background were able to launch a talent into a steady income while sitting at home more than usual. It is my hunch that men would be more represented amongst that group just as they are in the FIRE movement, which has also removed men in their prime working years from the job market.
What started as a she-cession might leave a legacy of lower male labor force participation. Surprising to me. Although we're still waiting for the final analysis.
Here in Australia, we had very similar media reports. But, on closer inspection, things were not what they seemed.
To me, the striking thing about the early Australian reports was that they were using data on employment to draw conclusions about which sex was hardest hit. Normally, unemployment (or perhaps underemployment) data would be use for this purpose. (I think these comments may also apply to the US.) I was intrigued enough to look more closely. Very briefly, what I found was:
• Women mostly didn’t "lose" their job, they resigned. And they mostly chose not to look for a new job - moving from employed to "Not in Labour Force".
• Women did not give up work because of increased domestic demands. During Covid, men increased their time spent on domestic activities by 34% while women’s time didn’t change.
• More men were laid off than women. Men also lost more hours of work and more wages.
These conclusions are based on data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (only). You can learn more here: https://www.bettinaarndt.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/The-Pink-Recession-and-The-Gratton-Institute-report.pdf If more details are needed, please feel free to ask.
It would be interesting to know whether any of these findings for Australia also apply in the US.
What does the updated graph look like for the rest of the demographics?
More generally: how did you make the plot? What software, etc?
I appreciate the challenge to 'conventional wisdom' here but gender aside, every conversation about people not going back to work is unable to provide any data about the number people who were able to replace their income by freelancing or launching a business. Quite a few people of every background were able to launch a talent into a steady income while sitting at home more than usual. It is my hunch that men would be more represented amongst that group just as they are in the FIRE movement, which has also removed men in their prime working years from the job market.