A while ago, I discussed the record low rate of male employment in the U.S. Well, Mike Konczal also has that figure (why read anyone but the Mad Biologist. We are always firstest…). But he notes some other jarring data:
You have to go back to pre-1988 to find an era when there were a fewer percentage of women working than there are right now.
You’ve come a long way, baby. If you have a job, things suck too:
Meanwhile, how’s the economy working out for those with jobs? Average weekly earnings of all private employees dropped from $791.20 to $788.56. We can’t really have an inflationary spiral based on prices and wages if wages are decreasing. Also without a buildup in wages, it’s harder to argue that we are having a “structural unemployment problem” – those who do have the skills necessary to get a job aren’t turning that into higher wages. And this also means we don’t even have a recovery for those who are not the worse off – as Matt Frost said, “the technical term is a ‘recovery-less recovery.'”
As I’ve mentioned before, real disposable income seems to have a strong effect–although not inviolate–on election outcomes. When wages drop, how do you think that affects real disposable income? Employment stalls and wages decrease. Who coulda thunk it?
Yet the administration just doesn’t seem very concerned about this state of affairs. Instead, Obama is blathering about the federal budget being like a household’s budget, and the Democrats in Congress are too craven to even look out for their own self-interest (it goes without saying that the Republicans just want to watch the world burn).
Abort. Reboot. Retry?