Why American men may have less luck finding a job than women

Article here. When I think of how automation/AI is going to eliminate millions of jobs over the next 30 years, I think of this story being like two groups of hungry people on the Titanic arguing/competing in the dining room over who will get the best seats. Meanwhile, the ship is heading ever closer to the iceberg. Also, notice the careers that are going to do well: healthcare (an aging population) and computer-related (people programming the computers that replace people at jobs). Kind of a gloomy picture getting painted here. Excerpt:

'If you’re searching for a job, the odds of finding one may depend on your gender.

Overall, occupations that are more than 80% female are projected to grow at nearly twice the rate of jobs that are at least 60% male between 2014 and 2024, according to research out this week from the jobs site Indeed and its chief economist, Jed Kolko. The site researched Bureau of Labor Statistics and found that many are jobs that are traditionally dominated by women — including occupational therapy assistants, physical therapy assistants and nurse practitioners — are growing at the fastest rate. They will grow at about a 40% rate, compared to an overall rate of 6.5% for all jobs.

In fact, all of the fastest-growing jobs for women were healthcare-related.
Among male-dominated jobs, some are growing faster than others. Indeed tried to find out which traditionally male jobs will grow and found that ambulance drivers and attendants came out on top, with 33% employment growth expected from 2014 to 2024. They were followed by personal finance advisers, with 29.6% growth expected during the same period, followed by web developers (26.6%), emergency medical technicians and paramedics (24%) and computer and informational research scientists (20.9%).'

Like0 Dislike0



One thing they simply haven't noticed/talked about: As men have become underemployed they are as an aggregate less able to make money that in turn is used to buy stuff for women. Women as a class are generally accustomed to being rented/"provided for". As men make less and less money on aggregate compared to women on aggregate (esp. these days among 20-somethings), they perhaps realize that if they are going to be rich and live the life of leisure so many fantasize about, they will not do so by finding a rich man to marry/con out of his wealth. As the New Reality of Female Economic Superiority dawns on them, they must accept this truly terrifying truth: they are unaffordable. Men don't have enough money to buy/rent them and they can't readily rent themselves out as easily as they used to. In short, they may just have to settle for getting into an LTR with a guy based on feelings/emotions alone and *gasp* support themselves indefinitely. Outrageous. Enter into a heterosexual relationship absent of pecuniary interest? Unthinkable. But like Japan at the end of WWII, the unthinkable must be thought. The alternative is electric dildos and book club meeting punctuated by furtive Tinder hook-ups indefinitely until she becomes unfuckable, eventually settling into a Boston marriage with her bestie of 25 years.

It's enough to make a girl cry rivers of tears into her chardonnay.

Like0 Dislike0

... the looming emergence of sex-bots won't make this new world order go away any time soon, either. Good heavens.

Like0 Dislike0