Skip navigation

This story brings some perspective to the Obama administration’s plan to “renew its push for stimulus dollars to be directed to minority groups and women.” It is pointed out that–

Three-quarters of the recession’s total job losses have fallen on blue collar workers. Two-thirds of all Americans who have lost jobs are blue collar men. And more than four-in-10 of the total job losses are blue collar white men.

It seems obvious that a plan focused on minority groups and women will not be effective for a huge segment of the unemployed. It is pointed out that, because of the smaller number of black, blue collar workers, the percentage of–

(Black men) have suffered most as a group. The number of jobs held by white men has fallen by 6 percent. Hispanic men by 5 percent. But the number of black men employed has fallen by 11 percent.

It is also noted that women have lost a smaller percentage of jobs than men. So why focus recovery policy on minorities and women? It is vaguely suggested that the policy is based on outdated views of prejudice against those minorities. The statistics do not support that view.

I do wonder about something–I wonder if the unemployment statistics are skewed by different participation rates with unemployment benefits. Finding unemployment we only measure those looking for work compared to those working. It may be that white men have easier access to the unemployment lists, for whatever reason. Maybe some women–when losing a job–are more likely to just stay at home rather than go to the employment office.

Another question–Will policy create opportunities for those who have opted out of the system and are not counted as unemployed? Or will it focus only on those on the unemployment lists now?

Advertisements

2 Comments

  1. That is a very good question. I don’t know whether these jobs will help that white male blue collar population for now.

    The job recovery could be aimed at the future generations of america. It could be difficult to estimate what america will look like in the future. Except we hear statements based on birthrates that in 40 years or 2 generations of american birthrates we will be a 50% minority nation. (Which will be a good time to refocus on who is the becoming minority in the american landscape. At that point maybe a stimulus package will be aimed at white males)

    Also, there are currently more women in college than men. Which could also be why the recovery could be aimed at long-term sustainable growth opportunities for America.

    It’s one of those things that on the surface might not seem like it makes much sense but just as in 1964 the civil rights act created an opportunity for Barack Obama to run for president about 40 years later that the affects of today must account for the circumstances of the future.

    I defiantly agree that the for now these actions might not seem like a very wise move but protecting the past isn’t very forward thinking.

    I hope that is what the President is focused on and making sure that the legacy he leaves now will benefit america in 40 years.

    Very good questions.

    Dustin Norman
    Communications Manager
    http://www.IlostMyjob.com
    Dustin@Ilostmyjob.com

  2. i just read this stuff roughly,,so ,,solving the unemployment issue can be categorized to several parts. on this issue , there should be frictional unemployment , structual unemployment, . So, to conclude
    1.lower the benefits of unemployment and give more incentives to people to get a job
    2.Get some training and education and subsidies to the firms who offer the training .


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: