Hacker News Reader

Comment by Merrill | Hacker News Reader

This story really needs another graph showing "NOT-IN-LABOR FORCE RATES FOR WOMEN AGES 25-54; 1965 TO 2019".

See https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2016/images/hipple-fig6.png

It appears that the non-participation rate for women is about twice as high as for men.

But that’s not really anything new or unusual, is it? Women have always stayed home to look after children more often than men.

not just looking after children, also as caregivers for elderly parents

The trend is completely different for women though as is the way people view women that are not participating in the labour force.

Since the participation rate for women peaked around 2000, the participation rate for men and women both declined a few percent. The curves are essentially parallel.

The graph is from "Labor force participation: what has happened since the peak?" by the Bureau of Labor Statistics at https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2016/article/labor-force-partic...

I stand corrected. I saw the graph earlier but it was difficult to tell either the reduction in both groups was similar or not. Looking at the numbers though does paint a similar picture. The rate for men from 2000 to 2016 fell from 92.1% to 88.5% (3.6% drop) and for women from 77% to 74% (3% drop).

So the current prevailing theory is that the guys are getting high and playing video games? What's the current prevailing theory for the girls? Doing unformalized work that doesn't show up in the stats? Also playing games and doing drugs?

Look at the chart. There are now a lot more women in the labor force than there were in the 1940s. Back then, they were staying home with the kids. Now, women are having children later and often working (at least part time) once they have them.

1940 was wwii. That is when men went to war (on all sides - many to commit genocide) and women went to work either to feed themselves or cause economy needed it (yes some to support that genocide on home front).

Sure, I'm talking about the 25% of women and what the theory is for them that's analogous to the 10% of men that aren't working.

The traditional role for women has been to stay at home and take care of children, and while it's not the majority anymore, a significant amount still choose this path. Also, there's no stigmatisation of women who choose not to work.

> Also, there's no stigmatisation of women who choose not to work.

Eh... ideally not. It's not uniform, but many treat female homemakers as less sophisticated.

What does this have to do with men?

It provides some missing context.

One should always ask "compared to what?". Is this a male-specific phenomenon, or is it actually happening to all? (perhaps with females lagging by a few years)

The answer matters if you're trying to solve the problem.

>One should always ask "compared to what?". Is this a male-specific phenomenon, or is it actually happening to all? (perhaps with females lagging by a few years)

The linked article does ask this - it's less helpful to use women as a counter though, as for a very long time they have had drastically different labor participation rates. The article uses men in different circumstances to illustrate their points

Reply on news.ycombinator.com