US cut 140k jobs in December. Women accounted for all loss, men gained 16,000 (cnn.com) 12 points by TeaDrunk 5y ago ↗ HN
[–] phendrenad2 5y ago ↗ They're seriously claiming that not a single man lost a job in the US in December?> Women accounted for all the job losses, losing 156,000 jobsHuh apparently they are. Seems like the writer misunderstood the numbers, because there's no way that's true,.. right?! [–] joemazerino 5y ago ↗ CNN is hardly the bastion of logical deduction.. [–] fryingspaghetti 5y ago ↗ Per the article> These are net numbers, which can mask some of the underlying churn in the labor market. Of course many men lost their jobs in December, too — but when taken together as a group, they came out ahead, whereas women fell behind. [–] rozab 5y ago ↗ It is of course a ridiculous thing to say, and a terribly worded article, but no need to be unfair. They do clarify it in the following paragraph.
[–] fryingspaghetti 5y ago ↗ Per the article> These are net numbers, which can mask some of the underlying churn in the labor market. Of course many men lost their jobs in December, too — but when taken together as a group, they came out ahead, whereas women fell behind.
[–] rozab 5y ago ↗ It is of course a ridiculous thing to say, and a terribly worded article, but no need to be unfair. They do clarify it in the following paragraph.
5 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 21.8 ms ] thread> Women accounted for all the job losses, losing 156,000 jobs
Huh apparently they are. Seems like the writer misunderstood the numbers, because there's no way that's true,.. right?!
> These are net numbers, which can mask some of the underlying churn in the labor market. Of course many men lost their jobs in December, too — but when taken together as a group, they came out ahead, whereas women fell behind.