Women now make up the majority of the U.S. labor force

From the BLS stats in question (https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm), the total "civilian noninstitutional population" (i.e. labor force) is 260 million. Of the 244 million who are ages 20+ and broken out by gender, there are 117.4M men and 126.0M women.

Why the difference?

- Disabled people are still included for the labor force cohort unless they're hospitalized/institutionalized, so the gender-gap impact is relatively low.

- Active-duty military service covers 1.3M adults, 90% male.

- Incarceration covers 2.3M adults, 90% male.

- The "labor force" has no upper age boundary, so the 20+ cohort has about 6 million more women. (1.5M people are in nursing homes and not counted, but the gender split is fairly even.)

That's 6 million more women total, and 3M more men than women excluded from the pool, against a laborforce gap of ~9 million. Looks pretty complete for the denominator. But the raw number of total nonfarm payrolls listed is 76.2 million per gender. That would be 66.9% male LFPR, and 62.3% female LFPR, which we know isn't right.

The BLS report instead has a male 20+ LFPR of 84M (71.5%) and female 20+ of 74.5M (59.2%), which is that 12% gap. What gives?

- Farm labor is part of the LFPR. That data is extremely messy, but there are ~3M farm workers who appear to be ~75% male.

- "Proprietors", or unincorporated self-employed people, aren't counted. That's 9.5M people, roughly 68% male.

- Multiple jobs count as multiple payrolls, but one employment. This adds 6-7M non-employment payrolls per gender to help explain why the employment counts don't match payrolls, and up to 0.5M more female payrolls than male. (Although I can't tell what percentage are nonfarm payrolls.)

That correction gets us to 70.7% male LFPR and 60.7% female LFPR, which is much closer to correct. Correct for the 16-19 numbers at it gets even closer. Looks good!

...except that apparently nonprofit jobs aren't included in nonfarm payrolls either. And that's 12M people, ~73% female. Which completely blows out the stats, so badly that I can't find any way to fix it. All I can say is either seasonal adjustment, or major differences in raw population counts between the methods (e.g. response rate gaps). Does anyone else know what's up?

[2] For your other claims about low IQ. It is "correlated" with lower lifespan (bit different than what you claimed but causes are similar) since you didn't cite.

You can find studies explaining high IQ with differences in environment or income and others point to genes. Some studies claim the choice of [3]toys your kids play with correlates to their IQ and success in life while others ask you to find a good genetic match.

Depending on which camps you are in, IQ could be highly related to the poor condition of the society.

* -15 points for not getting a healthy diet and regular health check ups in your childhood.

* -15 points for lack of proper education, social and family structure in your childhood.

* -17 points for mental health problems, unemployment, poverty and limited freedom after you become an adult.

Those issues overlap with each other regardless of IQ. Although, you can argue Intelligent parents can change these outcomes and if you believe IQ is heritable, then it makes perfect sense. You can use that to explain your bias.

Historically, evidence has been carefully crafted to promote products, services, aristocracy and many other things. I believe a lot happens now too with a different vector (China manipulating their averages) so I think IQ is not a good metric for looking down on people and explaining other circumstantial problems.

1] https://www.healthline.com/health/average-iq

2] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/research-confirms...

3] https://www.parentingscience.com/intelligence.html

That is an interesting angle. What do you think is going to change, and what is going to cause it to change?

Much like how first wave feminism was a response to advanced in pressure vessels producing distilled alchohols, and second wave was a response to the obsolescance of muscle in manufacturing, so too is 3rd wave feminism the response to the key technologies of social media and contraceptives.

We've replaced the concept of a couple investing in eachother from a young age to build a nuclear family with college, debt and a status symbol competition; Social media and dating apps have cast relationships and sex as something that you purchase like a product, and they advertise to women that they too are a product, and that they are more valuable than 90% of men. When you remove the risk of STD's and pregnancy, advertise to women that the ability to act like a masterbation toy improves their "social worth" with no consequences. It's a disgusting trade but it has prooven unbelievably effective. The business model of OKCupid is to dissaude their audience from viewing relationships as investments so they instead invest time in OKCupid. Many women have shut themselves off from men approaching them entirely until they can fully vet them online first. The flip side of this is the "top dogs" become unbelievably pessimistic about, and often abusive of, women.

Today a newborn male child has a 1 in 2 shot at procreating (US Census data for Males never married, no children; look at the growth rate); that's 60 to 100 million men, TODAY, who are in search of a purpose in their lives that won't be fulfilled by a family. Ever. Replacement fertility is 2.1 births per women; we're at 1.7. When the USSR Collapsed they were down to 1.3. The dislocation this has produced is absolutely massive and is what is behind birth rate declines in western countries.

What nobody wants to talk about is how much of a powderkeg that will become when those men reach the end of their economic and reproductive utility and determine, rightfully so, they have been been screwed over. The reason you get the CEO of cloudflare blanning white supremacist material isn't because he REALLY hates those kinds of people; it's because the population is becoming a powderkeg and group identity politics is a VERY bad way for that to go. Every revolution has been predicated upon the concept of society losing it's concept of self-respect and dignity, and so devoid of those concepts, unable to engineer them into the solutions they impliment. After the french killed the aristocracy, they engaged in the reign of terror.

No amount of engaging in psychological warfare exercises selling information pollution such as the concept of a "CISGender" or taking down websites is going to change billions of years of evolution or the consequences of bad policy. I'm all for studies on sexuality but they have to be realistic; it is, like psychology, a complex topic.

If you like malthusianism, the approach of allowing the next wave of feminism take it's toll is about as tactful of a way of going about doing it as using a AAMRAM to kill a baby. The kind of generational complex trauma and resulting child maldevelopment this is going to create is not what suites any kind of functioning society well; all you have to do is look at the chicago ghetto's and the never-ending cycle of violence to understand that. The Chinese with their 1 child policy is far wiser for contrast. Think about it; you allow nuclear families and hey they really invest a heck of a lot into that one kid with the government stepping in to ensure it works out.

As far as the roles go in relationships, the correct way to look at it is, the two people in the relationship make the decisions, and if you have something to say about it, go to hell.

Old reference but the classic song "Scrubs" by TLC is is about not wanting to date a "scrub" and describes a "scrub" as "lives at home with your mama"

Conversely, in many Asian countries it's common to live at home until well into your 30s and 40s. In know families in most Asian countries where 3 generations live in the same house.

You can go through the dating sites in various countries here and see 30, 40, 50yr olds still living in their parents house. (it's a standard question on many Asian oriented dating sites) They may have studied abroad, or lived else where for a while but moved back in and no one blinks an eye. There's no or very little stigma unlike the USA.

agreed. in america, the "acceptable way" is rapidly becoming suicide. of course, it's unacceptable. but that's what we've left people with.

That is in part exactly the purpose of a UBI (or Andrew Yang's Freedom Dividend(tm)). To provide people with basic necessities so they can minimally survive without work.

What are the alternatives? Turn him out and see him become homeless?

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.

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

What does mentally can't handle work even mean.

Animals can work, its that people don't want to work. Just because the reasons are probably more related to society than the individual doesn't mean they can't work.

There must be so many people that could’ve been revolutionary creatives if they weren’t struggling to live paycheck to paycheck.

I think "basement" has become synonymous with these cases because: 1. It reflects that the person is at least semi-independent (as opposed to children who live within the same space as the parents) 2. It is a bit insulting, reflecting society's view of the situation (it subtly implies antisocial behavior... The basement gamer, for example)

Providing a big room and privacy for parents and kids.

You can't assume that all decisions were made by males only.

Houses built before about 1980 has basements best described as a dungeon: you store the harvest down there over winter, and the furnace is there, but you don't go down for any other purpose.

About 1980 styles started changing. Most basements in newer houses are living space - one wall might have no windows (even then there is a fire escape window large enough for that purpose that lets in useful amounts of light), but the other wall is not less than half above ground, and often entirely at grade with a complete door outside. In these newer houses there is often a complete (but small) kitchen, used only for entertaining for those rare times where the entire extended family comes to visit. There will be bedrooms down there. It isn't uncommon to have the parents live there for a few years when they cannot live alone but are not bad enough for the nursing home.

Structurally, the purpose of basements is mostly to get the foundation below the frost line so frost doesn't move the house. That can be covered by one meter or less, which leave plenty of space for windows above ground if you want to use the space. Making the space useful is pretty cheap when you have it anyway.

Note that basements are NOT universal. If there is no frost to worry about they are expensive and not worth it. If the ground water is too high there are other ways to deal with frost.

See TV shows like "That 70s Show" for a prime example.

And simply socialization. Gaming is socialization for many male gamers - it is their primary or only social circle and friends. It is the main thing they talk about even in person (what tv used to be).

What does "on their phones" mean? This is like saying they spend time "reading books." There are good books and bad books. There are edifying and educational books and pulpy trash books. Just saying "books" says nothing about the productivity.

Maybe culturally getting married is incredibly more time consuming and difficult than it used to be? I mean I'm reading George Orwell's Burmese days and the main character was trying to propose (and the girl wanted him to) within 2 weeks of knowing eachother! Granted it's a book, but that doesn't sound outside the realms of normalcy, especially in Burma during the 1920's where there were like 1/1000 ratio of white person to native.

(This also screws with the labor force participation stats, since unless you check "prime age" there's no upper age boundary.)

That one you can probably place the blame squarely on the conservatives for. That bias made some sense back in the old days when women couldn't possibly hope to get a job that paid anywhere near what her (now ex-)husband earned. But things are completely different now, but the court system is still stuck in the 1950s. Meanwhile, the men who complain about this bias continue to vote for conservatives.

It seems I misread this.

It would seem to go without saying that implies all the top performers are going to be men, and if the system is performance based, that means the promotions will tend towards the men.

My actual point is this type of discussion doesn't really add anything. It's difficult to prove, and prone to an extreme amount of bias combined with generalizing from a small sample.

Hahah. Sorry, but there's just no way. The entire McMansion industry, the furnishing industry, IKEA, fast fashion brands and high fashion are all driven by women's business.

This is anecdotal too, but in my experience women spend FAR more money on unnecessary stuff than men. Here's many examples: - donations to churches - designer clothes - luxury SUVs - jewelry (the conflict diamond trade wouldn't exist without women) - eating at expensive restaurants - McMansions - stuff for those McMansions (e.g., custom-made "window treatments": my Mom just spent $15K on "window treatments" for her new house!) - luxurious vacations (as opposed to, for instance, staying in hostels)

Of course, I'm generalizing, and probably mostly describing the Gen-X to Boomer white American woman demographic, but it's what I've seen the most.

As for men, I work with a bunch of Millennial and younger men, and they spend money on Magic cards and video games, and that's about it. That stuff costs hundreds of dollars, and that's about it usually unless you go really nuts. A woman can easily spend a few hundred dollars on a single article of designer clothing. Meanwhile, these younger men don't seem to really give a shit about cars the way men in older generations did.

And of course the things on my list aren't all exclusive to women; some men like eating at nice restaurants too, some men have BMW SUVs, etc., but in my observation, most of those purchases are either done by women directly, or insisted on by them if they're married.

I can see why you think that women tend not to have "expensive hobbies" the way some men do, but even here you're actually wrong. Here in my metro area, the single women all seem to be members of some kind of exercise class (like Zumba, Barre, Orange Theory, etc.). Those memberships are quite expensive, and easily comparable to men spending money on Steam games. Single women also almost all have dogs, and those can be really expensive too when you account for fancy food, grooming, dog-walking, dog-sitting, etc. The problem is that you're not looking at where people are actually spending money, and you're not counting women's purchases as "hobbies". My most recent ex-girlfriend had two big "hobbies" before I met her: one was her Barre class, which was hundreds of dollars per month. The other was going out to eat: she basically had a hobby of going out every weekend with her girlfriends to some new super-fancy restaurant in DC. That too would amount to hundreds of dollars per month. The other thing I've seen with single professional women is they spend a LOT of money on alcohol: they like to go "out for drinks" a lot, and of course a single drink at a nice DC restaurant will probably run $15. That really adds up over a month. So no, not a lot of women buy 3D printers or fix up old cars, but they do have luxurious things they like to spend $$$$ on.

The idea that women were somehow shut out of the industry doesn't really hold up. My programming classes in the 80s, for example, were about 50-50, and in my early career, I worked under several senior women programmers/technologists.

What is your point?

>But that still doesn't account for the entire pay gap. It still leaves about 7% difference.

My understanding had been that the wage gap was a result of statistical malpractice. Further, I had thought that the intraprofession pay comparison between genders boiled down almost exclusively to (willingness to negotiate) and (taking time off of work to have children).

Those damn geese.

Aren't there laws that prevent discrimination on gender and race pretty much in every first-world country? That would make it illegal to pay a woman less for the same job.

If you consider jobs where the title is the same but the professional works B2B, maybe women are less likely to ask for a better pay? That's why pink razors cost more, after all.

Female soccer players make less money because less people watch and there is less money, same thing for BBC journalists who demanded the same pay even though they got 10% share compared to their male colleague.

There are so many variables...

If a business pays employees more than the market rate, it will be less profitable and thus more likely to fail. If a business pays employees less than the market rate, it will lose employees to competitors and it is thus more likely to fail.

Also, to say that "men decided" is pretty strange. It suggests a conspiracy, and it suggests that there are no women who could start companies or otherwise be in management.

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.