Men More Likely to Lose Their Jobs Than Women

there are many part time jobs..just work part time 24/7 , we need to feed our families, we may not like them but better days are coming..I stock super mkt shelves in muddle of night on wk/ends..# 3 of my 4 part time jobs, until smthing better comes alone ! have faith America !

mike of MI 10:40PM March 16, 2009

I heard part of an NPR interview with Valerie Jarrett yesterday morning. She did indicate that small business was one of the important parts of the economic recovery, but then began to explain how the focus needed to be on getting more women and girls into the small business workplace, even if they are not currently qualified for jobs. The implication was that the administration would be pushing for programs to stimulate increased numbers of women to enter the job market as a remedy to high unemployment and economic instability.

What an incredibly insane thought, on so many levels:

We can solve the high unemployment problem by getting more people to compete for the same number of jobs. Right, that ought to work!

We can train relatively low skilled workers to take jobs that are either currently held by men or were planned for men. Small businesses will save money because they can compensate for less experience. That will help offset the cost of training inexperienced workers.

Win-win, right? Well, except for the families who substitute a lower (entry level female) income for a higher (experienced male) income. No big deal, though, because the social importance of bringing more women into the workplace (a worthy cause, it is true) far outweighs the incidental pain and suffering imposed on families that have to tighten their belts and learn to live on even less. All in all, a satisfactory bargain, especially if you consider it from the aspect of a politician making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. After all, no good crisis should go to waste, right?

Dave in W-S of NC 9:14AM March 13, 2009