Meta-correction: % is probably related to women entering the workforce and so doesn't matter as much. This is less important than I originally thought.
-
-
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
1/2 Isn't the huge increase in women's participation the most obvious explanation for the 1970-2004 decrease in men's?
-
2/2 Why not say, "Since 1970, women have (partially) replaced men in the workforce, leading to a slight increase in overall participation. Separately, there has been a slight decrease in overall participation since 2004."
-
Very few men are homemakers, so not through women subsidizing men. In terms of women taking men's jobs, this should be same principle as immigrants taking natives' jobs, which generally doesn't happen. Also, job loss worst in manufacturing, with few women.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
One thing that changed recently is that the amount of labor needed to automate something went down a lot. Manufacturing the McCormick reaper took a lot more people than building Craigslist and probably clobbered around the same # of jobs.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.