It's paywalled, so I can't read it. If it's not just click bait and 98% of job gains went to women, that is an incredibly lopsided month. 49 of every 50 to 1/2 the population. What could possibly cause that?
It's not paywalled on my end, but TLDR reason is that most of the jobs gained came from healthcare, education, and hospitality sectors, which traditionally have more women than men. Meanwhile, men-dominated sectors like manufacturing continue to struggle.
and how many of these "manufacturing" jobs are actual engineering or actual making shit jobs, versus ancillary "professional daycare in a manufacturing plant" jobs
it's probably the same thing as in healthcare and education where "there's huge job growth in these sectors" but the part that people have to actually interface with hasn't shifted, what's shifted was the number of "administrative" jobs manufactured to keep eating the infinite-money inflow from taxpayers and government-mandated fees
Sounds like we need some DEI programs to get men into those. Lower bar to get into med school, scholarships specifically reserved for male teachers and professors.
Women accounted for 98% of jobs added to the economy.Getty Images
Who runs the world—or the U.S. labor market—in August? Girls.
Women accounted for almost every job added to the U.S. economy in August, an extraordinary statistic within a jobs report full of surprises.
The economy added 162,000 jobs last month, nearly triple most economists’ projections of around 55,000, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Of those gains, women accounted for 158,000 of them, roughly 98% of the net increase in payroll employment.
Men, by comparison, gained only about 4,000 jobs.
Heather Long, chief economist at Navy Federal Credit Union, cautioned against reading too much into the gender split of one month, calling it “noisy.”
“I think there’s been way too much focus on the month to month—is it men gaining jobs or women?” Long told Fortune. “That moves around a lot.”
Nevertheless, the lopsided month is another data point for a broad transformation in the American workforce: Earlier this year, women overtook men in total payroll employment for the third time in history. Unlike the other two times—the Great Recession and just before the pandemic—the latest shift looks less crisis-driven and more structural: Female-heavy industries such as health care and hospitality continue to add workers even as male-heavy sectors like manufacturing stagnate.
August really emphasized this divergence. Women gained around 68,000 jobs in leisure and hospitality, even as the whole sector added only 62,000, meaning men lost 6,000 jobs in the sector. Several other service industries showed the same pattern, where women accounted for more than 100% of net job growth since male employment fell.
“One of the main drivers of the post-pandemic labor force has once again been health care, where women are highly represented,” said Long. Women also earn more college degrees than men, she added, leaving them relatively well positioned to capture growth in some professional industries.
Still, Long said, much of the dramatic August swing had a simple explanation: teachers and servers.
“The reason that women were down in July and up in August is almost entirely driven by education hiring—the teacher effect,” she said, along with a rebound in hospitality, where women make up a large share of workers. “It’s not like something dramatically changed for women.”
Indeed, food service and drinking places added 59,000 jobs, while local government education added another startling 42,000—together making up 62% of all the jobs created in August. Education was seen as a reversal of a seasonal summer decline, and BLS said employment there has shown very little net change since January 2025.
June and July were revised up by a combined 55,000 jobs.
“A monster jobs report for August reminds us that this labor statistic has become highly volatile,” said Bradford Smith, portfolio manager at Janus Henderson Investors.
The unemployment rate held at 4.1%, while labor force participation ticked higher. Wage growth stagnated, rising only 0.3% in August and just 3.1% from a year earlier, the slowest annual pace in years.
For markets, good news becomes bad news as traders immediately began pricing in a higher chance of a rate hike. September hike odds rose to 52.6% from 49.4% Thursday, according to CME’s FedWatch tool, while the two-year yield rose 7.6 bps to 4.41% and the 10-year to 4.792%. Stock futures were mixed. The concern is that a strong labor market gives the Fed more reason to nip the bud of inflation above 2%, and raise rates in September.
“An upside surprise in payrolls will likely ramp up concerns about a rate hike,” Ellen Zentner, chief economic strategist for Morgan Stanley Wealth Management, said, though she added that the decision ultimately rests on next week’s inflation report. If inflation comes in cooler than expected next week, Zentner said, the Fed may be comfortable looking through the stronger jobs number and sitting at the current Fed funds rate. If it doesn’t, August’s surprising labor market gave policymakers one more reason to hike.
Probably related to the types of jobs that are doing well.
If the nursing, education, food service, childcare services, or other women dominated industries grew more than other sectors than this would be the result
It isn't 98% of the workforce, it's 98% of net new jobs. If 98K more women gain jobs than lose then, and 2K more men gain jobs than lose them, women would have 98% of net new jobs.
In October 2024, women had 300% of net new jobs, because women gained a net 36K jobs and men lost a net 24K jobs (for a total change of +12K).
Its a jobs report while Donald Trump is the President, I fully expect a revision in a few weeks that says "actually the net gain in jobs was 17. Not 17,000, 17."
And the ones doing well are essential to the function of society, so if those are the only market segments that are expanding, things are really really bad.
It's a weird statistical quirk. There are roughly 5 million hires and 5 million fires/quits/retirements each month, with the net number being +150K. For men, the net number was close to 0, and for women it was +150K in August. So it's not like 98% of new hires are women, in fact most employed people are men.
It's more accurate to say about as many men left the workforce as entered it, and slightly more women entered the workforce than left it.
Well, you did earlier when you said "For men, the net number was close to 0, and for women it was +150K in August." Those are nonfarm jobs. Hence why it was fairly reasonable for vortex to assume that the sentence immediately following that was still referring to nonfarm jobs.
On the household survey, which were the numbers you linked to in your previous comment, men gained 360,000 jobs and women gained 210,000.
The 98% number is a textbook example of when to NOT use percentages
There were some gains in labor, the Us labor market is 160 m and there were let’s say 100k more jobs in August
What that means is that the female workforce grew by 98k and the male by 2k but you cannot use percentages to split growth!!! That’s extremely misleading
What would have happened if the male workforce declined by 2k and the female one grew by 1k (a 98x reduction!!) would you say that women represent 300% of the growth in the workforce???
Literally the majority of all of the new jobs the government is bragging about is just food service and other gig work.
Some manufactoring, some construction(deportations are prolly the cause of this), a ton of retail, early public school teaching work and health care mostly stuff like nursing and RNA/GNA.
It's not just job gains. They included job losses. Male dominated sectors like construction, manufacturing and agriculture saw large job losses while female dominated fields like healthcare, education and others saw large gains making for the lopsided gains.
.
This isn't the first time it has looked like this, especially since the massive female job losses during COVID. Rehiring for growth in sectors dominated by women continues and the construction boom is slowing. Trump's tariffs are really to blame.
Think of who typically is running HR and Recruiting too, not saying this is facts but I have lots of women that I know who refuse to hire men. Modern Feminism is a trip...
Yeah, there are hordes of men lining up to be primary school teachers, healthcare workers, and hospitality workers. All these MAGA men crying for women to leave the workforce. You all are going to become maids, waiters, and elder care nurses?
Healthcare and Education are the two sectors that have been hiring recently. Both industries have a gender imbalance, especially at the lower end where most of the hiring is likely happening - teachers and paraprofessionals, medical assistants, home health aids, nurses, etc.
The declining birthrates have been hitting elementary enrollment the last couple years, but it will take a while for that to filter up and it’s somewhat regional. But it’s also a high turnover field and there’s increased need for Special Education services, where many students require one-on-one paras or classroom aides to participate in integrated classrooms. Even the best school districts in the country are often not fully staffed with paras by the beginning of the school year. So there’s still a lot of hiring going on over the summer.
so, that isn’t a clear enough link to me.l and thw title is problematic. Retail workers are traditionally women, it doesn’t mean all new hires are women.
Women are slightly over half the retail workforce. Education is way more skewed at around 75-80%. At the elementary level where a lot of the paras are working, it’s 89%. It can be a high turnover field and May-August is when they do all their hiring.
Now you look at the high turnover healthcare jobs that everyone’s scrambling to hire for - women are like 90% of medical assistants. 98% of dental hygienists. And we’re also seeing a huge swing now in the higher education positions. Women are now a slight majority of new medical and dental school graduates.
75% of school superintendents are men who typically work a 12-month contract. K-12 teachers, 76% of whom are women, generally work a 10-month contract, are unpaid and “unemployed” for two months, then return to work in August.
well, the month of August just ended and this information is only avail able to the federal government via
EEO Self-Identification Forms and it’s grouped by types - women, handicapped, etc.
In economic reporting, NEW jobs are an entirely different area- they are jobs that didn’t exist before, like if you need a business analyst and you aren’t replacing one, it’s a new role.
It’s very unclear where this data is coming from and how
>Nevertheless, the lopsided month is another data point for a broad transformation in the American workforce: Earlier this year, women overtook men in total payroll employment for the third time in history. Unlike the other two times—the Great Recession and just before the pandemic—the latest shift looks less crisis-driven and more structural: Female-heavy industries such as health care and hospitality continue to add workers even as male-heavy sectors like manufacturing stagnate.
Even if the month to month stuff is all driven by teachers, this is pretty big.
That's ridiculous. This administration once again is flexing the bullshit. The ADP numbers show +38K. Even with a public sector bump, 160K is nonsense. This will get drastically revised down unless of course Trump has rigged that as well.
EDIT: Do you think the best jobs news we've heard in 2 years just so happens to come as we're losing a war and right before the midterms? It just so happens to come with all sorts of glaring abnormalities and inconsistencies?
Well an outlier is an outlier. 2 years of outliers that seem to coincide heavily with the president's mood, business interests, and embezzlement is somebody cooking the books.
Well it doesn't but the best jobs news we've seen in 2 years coinciding with a ramp up in the war and right before the midterms does. The fact that there's glaring issues in the data is a side effect of sloppy work.
Not really, these people are all morons, the qualified adults all left or were fired. It's easy to cook the books, it's hard to do it properly in a way that doesn't have glaring statistical abnormalities
Not a glaring statistical abnormality. Only looks weird because of net job reporting. For example, in October 2024, women gained 300% of net new jobs (women gained 36K, men lost 24K, total change of 12K)
Why does it have to be a conspiracy? This administration has demonstrated it is a laughing stock of ignorance, obvious corruption, and attempted manipulation almost daily, why would this be any different?
The people running agencies right now, aside from the personalities, are far and away the highest quality the government has had in living memory. In my reporting chain I have an MIT grad, stanford MBA and multiple peers from Ivy's. Cope as you see fit but now that the college park dead weight is gone, it's amazing
I have a computer engineering degree and an MBA, and I can assure you that in the 20 years I worked at a Fortune 100 at a high level nobody gives a shit what school you went to, and often times the ivy league grads were way behind state college grads who had real life experience.
I have a degree in statistics. The numbers we've seen over the past couple of years are crazy. They were already bad due to certain practices by the BLS, namely trusting companies to be truthful about their hiring practices and scraping job boards to build stats.
Other articles I've read said that there were a bunch of restaurant service and cook jobs that were made available due to deportations. It makes sense that these might be filled with more women than men.
Women are paid 82 cents for every dollar a man earns, so it makes a depressing sort of sense that women dominate new hiring in this high-inflation, uncertain AI-threatened jobs market, while “male” sectors lose jobs. Doesn’t seem like the good news the authors want it to be. And if the architects of Project 2025 want to send women back into the home out of the paid labor market, tanking the economy is a disastrously grim way to do it.
It makes sense, considering healthcare, and especially low level healthcare is what grows the most in the United States. I think considering how desperate male nurses are wanted and recruited, one of the smartest career moves you can make as a man is become a nurse.
That’s why there is a massive shortage in trade jobs! We need electricians/plumbers/mechanics/construction workers and so on. Women want A/C office jobs
Those aren’t men. I’ve drove heavy machinery and fixed things for almost 30 years. I have almost 2 million in assets. These weak boys will never accumulate that working as a secretary or at Starbucks
Some people need to have some other group to resent along lines that make them feel superior. For this guy, it's that he gets to feel like a big boy and that people who aren't "like" him are effeminate and thus repulsive.
Good for you, but you might be sad to learn plenty of these "weak boys" have office jobs with A/C where they make more in a year than you have in assets.
There absolutely is not a shortage in trade jobs. This is just rhetoric to drive down those wages. There is a shortage of tradesmen willing to work for poverty wages.
Yeah, that is the same crap the CEO from NVDA keeps pushing. First of all, good luck getting 50 year olds with coding experience to wake up and go, “gee, I think I wanna be a plumber now” not happening!
Women are severely underrepresented in construction jobs. We should push to get them more jobs in construction. Given that women earn 25% less than men (according to them) this will also help lower the price of new construction. Win/win.
This attitude is why there's a shortage in trades! Women don't want just one thing. Plenty can be just as good of electricians or plumbers if not better, whereas most young men I know definitely want an A/C office job on a computer. Keep thinking this way and you're going keep. Having those deficits. Instead, try investing in women to fill those jobs. You might be surprised!
The nature of trade work heavily favors people whose bodies can handle the constant physical load. Maybe like 1in 3 men can realistically do the work long term but probably only something like 1 in 20 women.
Totally wrong and just old fashioned thinking. Modern electrical or plumbing mostly requires precision, coordination, and endurance. All things women excel at. Also, it's been well known for centuries that women endure constant physical load better than men. Men do have edge in shear physical strength, but that's why less important in the trades now. Who spends their days just hoisting materiels anymore? We're taking about skilled trades here. Not peasants dragging rocks.
Women also generally don't want to do sweaty physical work in a room full of big sweaty men, or enter a stranger's house alone to unclog their pipes, that more or less the bigger reason why you don't see women in the trades.
Last lady plumber I saw years ago said she thought she was too tall and butch looking to be in danger and she wouldn't be doing it if she was smaller and didn't have a nice looking girlfriend she wants to spend on.
OddlyFactual1512 | 6 hours ago
It's paywalled, so I can't read it. If it's not just click bait and 98% of job gains went to women, that is an incredibly lopsided month. 49 of every 50 to 1/2 the population. What could possibly cause that?
ImperiumRome | 6 hours ago
It's not paywalled on my end, but TLDR reason is that most of the jobs gained came from healthcare, education, and hospitality sectors, which traditionally have more women than men. Meanwhile, men-dominated sectors like manufacturing continue to struggle.
GreenXero | 6 hours ago
Healthcare is one of the most skewed jobs toward females and it is still only 88%. 98% is pretty crazy.
runningraider13 | 5 hours ago
Male dominated fields also had more job losses
cpslcking | 4 hours ago
Yeah manufacturing and especially engineering has been brutal
Outrageous_Apricot42 | an hour ago
Time to do some DEI and inclusivity there.
Secret_Entry1840 | 52 minutes ago
It would be wonderful if more men applied and entered the healthcare field. Caregiving, nursing, PT’s, OT’s etc are hard but rewarding jobs
Kingalec1 | 5 hours ago
Manufacturing gain 12,000 jobs last month . Comparatively, job creation between the generation is becoming a massive disparity .
ordinarymagician_ | 3 hours ago
and how many of these "manufacturing" jobs are actual engineering or actual making shit jobs, versus ancillary "professional daycare in a manufacturing plant" jobs
Kingalec1 | 3 hours ago
You got a point .
ordinarymagician_ | 3 hours ago
it's probably the same thing as in healthcare and education where "there's huge job growth in these sectors" but the part that people have to actually interface with hasn't shifted, what's shifted was the number of "administrative" jobs manufactured to keep eating the infinite-money inflow from taxpayers and government-mandated fees
gottastayfresh3 | 2 hours ago
Nuance!!!! Excellent point.
But serious question. Is it common for admin jobs even in these sectors to be dominated by women?
National-Plastic8691 | 6 hours ago
so, that isn’t a clear enough link to me. Retail workers are traditionally women, it doesn’t mean all new hires are women.
Waterwoo | an hour ago
Sounds like we need some DEI programs to get men into those. Lower bar to get into med school, scholarships specifically reserved for male teachers and professors.
I won't hold my breath though.
Secret_Entry1840 | 50 minutes ago
There’s no “lower bar” in DEI. People who would like more scholarships for men should probably get together and find donors.
Waterwoo | 48 minutes ago
Sure, yeah. Hey what happened with that Jason Arday guy?
Secret_Entry1840 | 44 minutes ago
I had never heard of him. I looked at his wiki. Sounds like a very sad ending for a promising intelligent man.
Low-Car-6331 | 5 hours ago
Who runs the labor market? Women accounted for 98% of U.S. job gains in August
By
Eva Roytburg
Fellow, News
September 4, 2026, 10:24 AM ET
Women accounted for 98% of jobs added to the economy.Getty Images
Who runs the world—or the U.S. labor market—in August? Girls.
Women accounted for almost every job added to the U.S. economy in August, an extraordinary statistic within a jobs report full of surprises.
The economy added 162,000 jobs last month, nearly triple most economists’ projections of around 55,000, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Of those gains, women accounted for 158,000 of them, roughly 98% of the net increase in payroll employment.
Men, by comparison, gained only about 4,000 jobs.
Heather Long, chief economist at Navy Federal Credit Union, cautioned against reading too much into the gender split of one month, calling it “noisy.”
“I think there’s been way too much focus on the month to month—is it men gaining jobs or women?” Long told Fortune. “That moves around a lot.”
Nevertheless, the lopsided month is another data point for a broad transformation in the American workforce: Earlier this year, women overtook men in total payroll employment for the third time in history. Unlike the other two times—the Great Recession and just before the pandemic—the latest shift looks less crisis-driven and more structural: Female-heavy industries such as health care and hospitality continue to add workers even as male-heavy sectors like manufacturing stagnate.
August really emphasized this divergence. Women gained around 68,000 jobs in leisure and hospitality, even as the whole sector added only 62,000, meaning men lost 6,000 jobs in the sector. Several other service industries showed the same pattern, where women accounted for more than 100% of net job growth since male employment fell.
“One of the main drivers of the post-pandemic labor force has once again been health care, where women are highly represented,” said Long. Women also earn more college degrees than men, she added, leaving them relatively well positioned to capture growth in some professional industries.
Still, Long said, much of the dramatic August swing had a simple explanation: teachers and servers.
“The reason that women were down in July and up in August is almost entirely driven by education hiring—the teacher effect,” she said, along with a rebound in hospitality, where women make up a large share of workers. “It’s not like something dramatically changed for women.”
Indeed, food service and drinking places added 59,000 jobs, while local government education added another startling 42,000—together making up 62% of all the jobs created in August. Education was seen as a reversal of a seasonal summer decline, and BLS said employment there has shown very little net change since January 2025.
June and July were revised up by a combined 55,000 jobs.
“A monster jobs report for August reminds us that this labor statistic has become highly volatile,” said Bradford Smith, portfolio manager at Janus Henderson Investors.
The unemployment rate held at 4.1%, while labor force participation ticked higher. Wage growth stagnated, rising only 0.3% in August and just 3.1% from a year earlier, the slowest annual pace in years.
For markets, good news becomes bad news as traders immediately began pricing in a higher chance of a rate hike. September hike odds rose to 52.6% from 49.4% Thursday, according to CME’s FedWatch tool, while the two-year yield rose 7.6 bps to 4.41% and the 10-year to 4.792%. Stock futures were mixed. The concern is that a strong labor market gives the Fed more reason to nip the bud of inflation above 2%, and raise rates in September.
“An upside surprise in payrolls will likely ramp up concerns about a rate hike,” Ellen Zentner, chief economic strategist for Morgan Stanley Wealth Management, said, though she added that the decision ultimately rests on next week’s inflation report. If inflation comes in cooler than expected next week, Zentner said, the Fed may be comfortable looking through the stronger jobs number and sitting at the current Fed funds rate. If it doesn’t, August’s surprising labor market gave policymakers one more reason to hike.
Yellowdog727 | 6 hours ago
Probably related to the types of jobs that are doing well.
If the nursing, education, food service, childcare services, or other women dominated industries grew more than other sectors than this would be the result
Mackinnon29E | 6 hours ago
Even in those industries, women don't make up 98% of the workforce... This screams horseshit to me
Beyond_Reason09 | 3 hours ago
It isn't 98% of the workforce, it's 98% of net new jobs. If 98K more women gain jobs than lose then, and 2K more men gain jobs than lose them, women would have 98% of net new jobs.
In October 2024, women had 300% of net new jobs, because women gained a net 36K jobs and men lost a net 24K jobs (for a total change of +12K).
noveler7 | 2 hours ago
It's depressing that this has to be explained to people, especially in this sub.
Tastie_Duck_Anus | 4 hours ago
I'm going to go with this whole report is B.S.
PedanticPaladin | 4 hours ago
Its a jobs report while Donald Trump is the President, I fully expect a revision in a few weeks that says "actually the net gain in jobs was 17. Not 17,000, 17."
TuringCompleteDemon | 4 hours ago
Yeah, but if we're losing jobs in places skewed towards men at the same time, then the 98% isn't really insane
M1 - M0 / (W1 + M1 - W0 - M0)
If the number of men employed ended up being equal between the 2 time periods, then they'd be 0% of the growth.
It's kind of a dumb way at looking at it
Temnothorax | 3 hours ago
Thats not how the math works
Busterlimes | 6 hours ago
"Doing well" LOL essential services are the only growth because that all anyone can afford. . . .
Head_of_Lettuce | 5 hours ago
I think you’re reading a little too much into the phrasing of their comment
curiiouscat | 6 hours ago
What's funny about "doing well"?
No-wait-theres-more | 5 hours ago
They’re saying very few industries are doing well atm
Busterlimes | 4 hours ago
And the ones doing well are essential to the function of society, so if those are the only market segments that are expanding, things are really really bad.
Beyond_Reason09 | 6 hours ago
It's a weird statistical quirk. There are roughly 5 million hires and 5 million fires/quits/retirements each month, with the net number being +150K. For men, the net number was close to 0, and for women it was +150K in August. So it's not like 98% of new hires are women, in fact most employed people are men.
It's more accurate to say about as many men left the workforce as entered it, and slightly more women entered the workforce than left it.
vortexcortex21 | 4 hours ago
' in fact most employed people are men."
This above article states that is not true and links to this article:
https://fortune.com/article/why-are-men-leaving-the-workforce-more-women-outnumber/
Beyond_Reason09 | 4 hours ago
Your article is paywalled.
There are 77.4 million employed women:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS12000002
There are 85.3 million employed men:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS12000001
You can also see this here:
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t01.htm
vortexcortex21 | 3 hours ago
The above article, citing numbers of 162k jobs added, relates to the total nonfarm jobs. This is also quoted in the bls news realease itself at: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_09042026.htm
The same bls news release also shows that the women make up 50.1% of all nonfarm jobs.
Beyond_Reason09 | 3 hours ago
I didn't say nonfarm employees.
MisinformedGenius | an hour ago
Well, you did earlier when you said "For men, the net number was close to 0, and for women it was +150K in August." Those are nonfarm jobs. Hence why it was fairly reasonable for vortex to assume that the sentence immediately following that was still referring to nonfarm jobs.
On the household survey, which were the numbers you linked to in your previous comment, men gained 360,000 jobs and women gained 210,000.
24Seven | 5 hours ago
Non-paywall version.
ale_93113 | 5 hours ago
The 98% number is a textbook example of when to NOT use percentages
There were some gains in labor, the Us labor market is 160 m and there were let’s say 100k more jobs in August
What that means is that the female workforce grew by 98k and the male by 2k but you cannot use percentages to split growth!!! That’s extremely misleading
What would have happened if the male workforce declined by 2k and the female one grew by 1k (a 98x reduction!!) would you say that women represent 300% of the growth in the workforce???
Beyond_Reason09 | 3 hours ago
This is exactly what happened in October 2024 when the female workforce increased 36K and the male workforce decreased 24K.
Candidwisc | 5 hours ago
Literally the majority of all of the new jobs the government is bragging about is just food service and other gig work.
Some manufactoring, some construction(deportations are prolly the cause of this), a ton of retail, early public school teaching work and health care mostly stuff like nursing and RNA/GNA.
Everyone else got fucked.
TheDuchessofQuim | 3 hours ago
In July, 100% job losses were female.
Statistical quirks. 🤷♀️
BlazinAzn38 | 2 hours ago
Job gains are in women dominated fields and job losses are in male dominated fields. It’s been this way for the last 18 months
lordaddament | an hour ago
Bullshit data
Incunebulum | an hour ago
It's not just job gains. They included job losses. Male dominated sectors like construction, manufacturing and agriculture saw large job losses while female dominated fields like healthcare, education and others saw large gains making for the lopsided gains.
.
This isn't the first time it has looked like this, especially since the massive female job losses during COVID. Rehiring for growth in sectors dominated by women continues and the construction boom is slowing. Trump's tariffs are really to blame.
GamingZaddy89 | 4 hours ago
Think of who typically is running HR and Recruiting too, not saying this is facts but I have lots of women that I know who refuse to hire men. Modern Feminism is a trip...
onan | 3 hours ago
> I have lots of women that I know who refuse to hire men.
Really. How many, exactly, is "lots"?
Long9696 | an hour ago
Yeah, there are hordes of men lining up to be primary school teachers, healthcare workers, and hospitality workers. All these MAGA men crying for women to leave the workforce. You all are going to become maids, waiters, and elder care nurses?
freedraw | 6 hours ago
Healthcare and Education are the two sectors that have been hiring recently. Both industries have a gender imbalance, especially at the lower end where most of the hiring is likely happening - teachers and paraprofessionals, medical assistants, home health aids, nurses, etc.
Global-Bad-7147 | 6 hours ago
This is the correct answer.
August is also when many schools start their new teachers.
Sea-Original-5824 | 6 hours ago
It's also when women who were SAHMs for a few years will start looking for a job.
MisinformedGenius | an hour ago
These numbers are seasonally adjusted to remove that kind of thing. Unadjusted job growth in local government education was over 300,000.
3Dchaos777 | 6 hours ago
Education is hiring even though the young population is dropping?
Butterscotchtamarind | 5 hours ago
Teaching is a stressful, underpaid job, so there's a high turnover.
freedraw | 4 hours ago
The declining birthrates have been hitting elementary enrollment the last couple years, but it will take a while for that to filter up and it’s somewhat regional. But it’s also a high turnover field and there’s increased need for Special Education services, where many students require one-on-one paras or classroom aides to participate in integrated classrooms. Even the best school districts in the country are often not fully staffed with paras by the beginning of the school year. So there’s still a lot of hiring going on over the summer.
National-Plastic8691 | 6 hours ago
so, that isn’t a clear enough link to me.l and thw title is problematic. Retail workers are traditionally women, it doesn’t mean all new hires are women.
freedraw | 3 hours ago
Women are slightly over half the retail workforce. Education is way more skewed at around 75-80%. At the elementary level where a lot of the paras are working, it’s 89%. It can be a high turnover field and May-August is when they do all their hiring.
Now you look at the high turnover healthcare jobs that everyone’s scrambling to hire for - women are like 90% of medical assistants. 98% of dental hygienists. And we’re also seeing a huge swing now in the higher education positions. Women are now a slight majority of new medical and dental school graduates.
WhatFreshHello | 3 hours ago
75% of school superintendents are men who typically work a 12-month contract. K-12 teachers, 76% of whom are women, generally work a 10-month contract, are unpaid and “unemployed” for two months, then return to work in August.
National-Plastic8691 | 6 hours ago
well, the month of August just ended and this information is only avail able to the federal government via EEO Self-Identification Forms and it’s grouped by types - women, handicapped, etc.
In economic reporting, NEW jobs are an entirely different area- they are jobs that didn’t exist before, like if you need a business analyst and you aren’t replacing one, it’s a new role.
It’s very unclear where this data is coming from and how
CurrentCostanza | 4 hours ago
>Nevertheless, the lopsided month is another data point for a broad transformation in the American workforce: Earlier this year, women overtook men in total payroll employment for the third time in history. Unlike the other two times—the Great Recession and just before the pandemic—the latest shift looks less crisis-driven and more structural: Female-heavy industries such as health care and hospitality continue to add workers even as male-heavy sectors like manufacturing stagnate.
Even if the month to month stuff is all driven by teachers, this is pretty big.
cheweychewchew | 2 hours ago
That's ridiculous. This administration once again is flexing the bullshit. The ADP numbers show +38K. Even with a public sector bump, 160K is nonsense. This will get drastically revised down unless of course Trump has rigged that as well.
Automatic_Stage1163 | an hour ago
This isnt really surprising. Every year this job report includes childcare and educators, which is heavily female dominated.
Reporter tried to be cute.
Spaduf | 6 hours ago
If this doesn't convince you the BLS is cooking the books. I really don't know what to tell you.
I can tell you that they lost something like 30%-50% of their statisticians in early 2025. Mass resignations continue to this day at the DoL
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/may/03/mass-resignations-at-labor-department-threaten-workers-in-us-and-overseas-warn-staff-as-more-cuts-loom
EDIT: Do you think the best jobs news we've heard in 2 years just so happens to come as we're losing a war and right before the midterms? It just so happens to come with all sorts of glaring abnormalities and inconsistencies?
cocksherpa2 | 6 hours ago
Why would this make me think they are cooking the books? It makes zero sense
Spaduf | 6 hours ago
Well an outlier is an outlier. 2 years of outliers that seem to coincide heavily with the president's mood, business interests, and embezzlement is somebody cooking the books.
OpticCacophony | 6 hours ago
And 98% of new jobs going to women coincides with the president's mood because...?
Spaduf | 6 hours ago
Well it doesn't but the best jobs news we've seen in 2 years coinciding with a ramp up in the war and right before the midterms does. The fact that there's glaring issues in the data is a side effect of sloppy work.
OpticCacophony | 6 hours ago
So you're saying they cooked the books by adding a lot more jobs but they couldn't cook the books to not show 98% of those jobs going to women?
Just think about that for a second. This is as dumb as the Biden deep state nonsese.
Spaduf | 6 hours ago
Do you think that 98% of new jobs went to women?
Beyond_Reason09 | 4 hours ago
*net new jobs.
If 1000 men are hired and 999 men are fired
And 900 women are hired and 800 women are fired
What percent of net new jobs would have gone to women?
Would this be a glaring issue in the data?
OpticCacophony | 3 hours ago
Dude has a degree in statistics from University of Phoenix and can't read data. Hilarious.
I bet you're right and they think exactly 162,000 new hires occurred in August with 158,760 of those being women and only 3,240 were men.
xterminatr | 6 hours ago
Not really, these people are all morons, the qualified adults all left or were fired. It's easy to cook the books, it's hard to do it properly in a way that doesn't have glaring statistical abnormalities
Beyond_Reason09 | 3 hours ago
Not a glaring statistical abnormality. Only looks weird because of net job reporting. For example, in October 2024, women gained 300% of net new jobs (women gained 36K, men lost 24K, total change of 12K)
OpticCacophony | 5 hours ago
Ah yes, sorry I forgot I was on r/conspiracy instead of r/economics for a second. Yes, it's all a big Trumpian conspiracy. Totally.
iupuiclubs | 5 hours ago
By this comment I can’t tell if you know Trump is currently the President. Its like some kind of schroedingers cat thing.
xterminatr | 5 hours ago
Why does it have to be a conspiracy? This administration has demonstrated it is a laughing stock of ignorance, obvious corruption, and attempted manipulation almost daily, why would this be any different?
cocksherpa2 | 3 hours ago
The people running agencies right now, aside from the personalities, are far and away the highest quality the government has had in living memory. In my reporting chain I have an MIT grad, stanford MBA and multiple peers from Ivy's. Cope as you see fit but now that the college park dead weight is gone, it's amazing
xterminatr | 2 hours ago
I have a computer engineering degree and an MBA, and I can assure you that in the 20 years I worked at a Fortune 100 at a high level nobody gives a shit what school you went to, and often times the ivy league grads were way behind state college grads who had real life experience.
Beyond_Reason09 | 6 hours ago
What it does tell me is that you don't understand the statistics.
Spaduf | 5 hours ago
I have a degree in statistics. The numbers we've seen over the past couple of years are crazy. They were already bad due to certain practices by the BLS, namely trusting companies to be truthful about their hiring practices and scraping job boards to build stats.
Beyond_Reason09 | 5 hours ago
You should get a refund.
Explain why this is an crazy abnormality.
CurrentCostanza | 4 hours ago
> namely trusting companies to be truthful about their hiring practices and scraping job boards to build stats.
Honest question, what do you expect short of legally mandated reporting?
Spaduf | 3 hours ago
I think we have legally mandated reporting
Miserable-Extreme-12 | 5 hours ago
I’m not really sure huge job gains are in the administrations favor. Trump has been pushing for lower rates and this kills that.
BananaMelonBoat911 | 6 hours ago
Other articles I've read said that there were a bunch of restaurant service and cook jobs that were made available due to deportations. It makes sense that these might be filled with more women than men.
BrogenKlippen | 5 hours ago
At the rate of 98%?
Piratical88 | an hour ago
Women are paid 82 cents for every dollar a man earns, so it makes a depressing sort of sense that women dominate new hiring in this high-inflation, uncertain AI-threatened jobs market, while “male” sectors lose jobs. Doesn’t seem like the good news the authors want it to be. And if the architects of Project 2025 want to send women back into the home out of the paid labor market, tanking the economy is a disastrously grim way to do it.
imhereforthemeta | 5 hours ago
It makes sense, considering healthcare, and especially low level healthcare is what grows the most in the United States. I think considering how desperate male nurses are wanted and recruited, one of the smartest career moves you can make as a man is become a nurse.
Cheerful2_Dogman210x | an hour ago
This means more projects and investment need to be done to increase men's participation in the workforce.
Considering women were given assistance before, men should now be given that same benefit.
Drdirt2045 | 6 hours ago
That’s why there is a massive shortage in trade jobs! We need electricians/plumbers/mechanics/construction workers and so on. Women want A/C office jobs
olduvai_man | 6 hours ago
Men want A/C office jobs as well.
Source: am man, have a/c office job.
Usual-Good-5716 | 6 hours ago
Same. Df is this person talking about
korben2600 | 3 hours ago
Trump's America: blow out your back at 40 doing roofing. No free rides either pal, disability is woke DEI.
Drdirt2045 | 6 hours ago
Those aren’t men. I’ve drove heavy machinery and fixed things for almost 30 years. I have almost 2 million in assets. These weak boys will never accumulate that working as a secretary or at Starbucks
olduvai_man | 6 hours ago
We have very different perspectives on masculinity and I've done just fine financially working from home.
FishAndBone | 5 hours ago
Some people need to have some other group to resent along lines that make them feel superior. For this guy, it's that he gets to feel like a big boy and that people who aren't "like" him are effeminate and thus repulsive.
It's a sad, empty life.
SghettiAndButter | 6 hours ago
What about lawyers or engineers? Or doctors? Or like any other high paying job that’s in an office?
Drdirt2045 | 6 hours ago
Average person is not becoming a lawyer/doctor/engineer
SghettiAndButter | 6 hours ago
So who is becoming lawer/doctor/engineers? What do you even mean by the “average” person?
Negative_Aerie2825 | 5 hours ago
It probably means most office jobs arent that. 1% of college grads pursue medical school so its a fair statement.
Many trade jobs pay higher than most college grads at the mid level when theyre like 35.
Bluthhousing | 6 hours ago
(Outs self as retard)
fossSellsKeys | 6 hours ago
Good for you, but you might be sad to learn plenty of these "weak boys" have office jobs with A/C where they make more in a year than you have in assets.
Usual-Good-5716 | 6 hours ago
Mr. Manly man over here. I bet you have a high reading level and handle stress well.
Drdirt2045 | 6 hours ago
It’s called adulting, figure it out
Usual-Good-5716 | 6 hours ago
Ooo good one. Sick burn
Raichu4u | 4 hours ago
This is the most insecure shit I have ever read. We are both men. What isn't masculine is gatekeeping masculinity.
Drdirt2045 | 4 hours ago
😥
Spaduf | 6 hours ago
There absolutely is not a shortage in trade jobs. This is just rhetoric to drive down those wages. There is a shortage of tradesmen willing to work for poverty wages.
SubjectCode1940 | 6 hours ago
Yeah, that is the same crap the CEO from NVDA keeps pushing. First of all, good luck getting 50 year olds with coding experience to wake up and go, “gee, I think I wanna be a plumber now” not happening!
Drdirt2045 | 6 hours ago
Welders are needed in high demand
Drdirt2045 | 6 hours ago
I know several electricians and plumbers that make over $200k
kn0w_th1s | 6 hours ago
Because they earn a lot per hour, or because they have zero family time working 70+ hours each week?
Drdirt2045 | 6 hours ago
I work 50-70 hours a week and I make family time cause it’s important
SghettiAndButter | 6 hours ago
That sucks to work that much your whole life tbh. I work like 35-40 hours a week and make 6 figures in an AC office
Drdirt2045 | 6 hours ago
I’m sure your job security and retirement looks great too, good for you
SghettiAndButter | 6 hours ago
Thanks for asking, they are great! Luckily being an electrical MEP engineer is in huge demand for the foreseeable future
Spaduf | 6 hours ago
I seriously doubt your family feels like 10 hours a week is making time for them.
Spaduf | 6 hours ago
Those are mid career professionals who got in when there was a shortage 20 years ago and are operating within a relatively short boom period.
More importantly it has nothing to do with my point. Complete non-sequitur.
TailorSubstantial863 | 6 hours ago
Women are severely underrepresented in construction jobs. We should push to get them more jobs in construction. Given that women earn 25% less than men (according to them) this will also help lower the price of new construction. Win/win.
fossSellsKeys | 6 hours ago
This attitude is why there's a shortage in trades! Women don't want just one thing. Plenty can be just as good of electricians or plumbers if not better, whereas most young men I know definitely want an A/C office job on a computer. Keep thinking this way and you're going keep. Having those deficits. Instead, try investing in women to fill those jobs. You might be surprised!
nylockian | 6 hours ago
The nature of trade work heavily favors people whose bodies can handle the constant physical load. Maybe like 1in 3 men can realistically do the work long term but probably only something like 1 in 20 women.
fossSellsKeys | 6 hours ago
Totally wrong and just old fashioned thinking. Modern electrical or plumbing mostly requires precision, coordination, and endurance. All things women excel at. Also, it's been well known for centuries that women endure constant physical load better than men. Men do have edge in shear physical strength, but that's why less important in the trades now. Who spends their days just hoisting materiels anymore? We're taking about skilled trades here. Not peasants dragging rocks.
nylockian | 5 hours ago
You've never been in any trade lol
exeJDR | 5 hours ago
Men are too busy being incels and living in their mom's basement to go to trade school lol
Candidwisc | 5 hours ago
Women also generally don't want to do sweaty physical work in a room full of big sweaty men, or enter a stranger's house alone to unclog their pipes, that more or less the bigger reason why you don't see women in the trades.
Last lady plumber I saw years ago said she thought she was too tall and butch looking to be in danger and she wouldn't be doing it if she was smaller and didn't have a nice looking girlfriend she wants to spend on.
Fit-Bus2025 | 6 hours ago
I second that