April 7, 2014

“Only 38.6% of Jobs Added Under Obama Have Gone to Women”

What in the name of Amanda Marcotte’s rancid, well-worn pooter is going on here?   Some sort of War on Women?

I don’t know about the rest of you, but I’m OUTRAGED:

Since President Barack Obama took office in January 2009, the U.S. economy has employed an additional 3,590,000 people, but only 1,386,000 of those people—or 38.6 percent–have been women.At the same time, women represent 46.8 percent of the national civilian labor force. That means women are getting a smaller share of the jobs being added to the economy (38.6 percent) than their representation in the civilian labor force (46.8 percent).

The percentage of the added jobs that have gone to women is even smaller if measured from the post-recession nadir of employment, which took place in December 2009. Since then, only 37.8 percent of the net additional jobs have gone to women.

Well, if anything, this explains why so many women stay in abusive relationships.  And the pimp hand is strong with this Won.

Posted by Jeff G. @ 3:01pm

Comments (21)

  1. What in the name of Amanda Marcotte’s rancid, well-worn pooter is going on here?

    I think I’ve lost my appetite for the rest of the week. Thanks.

  2. What does the unhygienic state of Mandy’s laptop have to do with —



    Never mind.

  3. Holy shit. The Senate has just passed a Ted Cruz authored bill. Unanimously.

  4. oh pablo got that one already

  5. Unemployment Rates (Seasonally Adjusted)

    White men over 20
    Jan 2009: 7.1%
    Mar 2014: 5.3

    White women over 20
    Jan 2009: 6.0%
    Mar 2014: 5.3%

    Black men over 20
    Jan 2009: 14.4%
    Mar 2014: 12.1%

    Black women over 20
    Jan 2009: 9.3%
    Mar 2014: 11.0%

  6. Hey yo. Bro’s before Ho’s, you know the rap.

    What? Oh. Wait. That can’t be right.

  7. jsjbst,

    The article you link to is from last November — but the point it makes is right up to date. In Jan of 2009, the rate was 35.3% and last month it was 36.1%. The average monthly rate over that time period was 40.0%

  8. The unemployment rate for whites ages 16-19 (both sexes) was 18.6% in Jan of 2009 and 18.3% last month. The monthly average over that time was 21.6%.

  9. If the average was 40%, and last month it was 36.1%, that means the rate is going down!


  10. I think I figured out why Mozilla put out that tone-deaf defense of their actions: they don’t use “tolerance” or “diversity” and stuff the same way regular people do.

    “Tolerance” = Gay Rights
    “Diversity” = Gays & Brown People
    “Equality” = Gay Rights
    “Freedom of Speech” = Asserting Gay Rights
    “Inclusiveness” = Gay Rights

    No, not as code words or ironic usage — as actual new definitions. Newspeak. Ask the younger set to define those terms and they won’t come up with the dictionary definition, and if you point out their error, they won’t know what you mean.

    When I was young, we used the term “ignernt” to mean “rude.” When I found out that “ignorant” meant “lacking knowledge” I was stunned.

    They didn’t see the contradiction because in their hermetic world, there’s no incongruity whatsoever between what they wrote and what they did.

    Even beyond “I don’t have to tolerate the intolerant” (oh yes you do, if you want to be tolerant), I don’t think that chick genuinely saw a contradiction.

    Wow, we need a divorce quick.

    Or an EMP. Either way.

  11. some 1970’s rock news

    }Obviously the greengrocer . . . does not put the slogan in his window from any personal desire to acquaint the public with the ideal it expresses. This, of course, does not mean that his action has no motive or significance at all, or that the slogan communicates nothing to anyone. The slogan is really a sign, and as such it contains a subliminal but very definite message. Verbally, it might be expressed this way: “I, the greengrocer XY, live here and I know what I must do. I behave in the manner expected of me. I can be depended upon and am beyond reproach. I am obedient and therefore I have the right to be left in peace.” This message, of course, has an addressee: it is directed above, to the greengrocer’s superior, and at the same time it is a shield that protects the greengrocer from potential informers. The slogan’s real meaning, therefore, is rooted firmly in the greengrocer’s existence. It reflects his vital interests. But what are those vital interests?

    {7}Let us take note: if the greengrocer had been instructed to display the slogan “I am afraid and therefore unquestioningly obedient;’ he would not be nearly as indifferent to its semantics, even though the statement would reflect the truth. The greengrocer would be embarrassed and ashamed to put such an unequivocal statement of his own degradation in the shop window, and quite naturally so, for he is a human being and thus has a sense of his own dignity. To overcome this complication, his expression of loyalty must take the form of a sign which, at least on its textual surface, indicates a level of disinterested conviction. It must allow the greengrocer to say, “What’s wrong with the workers of the world uniting?” Thus the sign helps the greengrocer to conceal from himself the low foundations of his obedience, at the same time concealing the low foundations of power. It hides them behind the facade of something high. And that something is ideology.


  12. During the hectic split-second timing of a campaign, this is a man who took time out to sit beside an old friend who was dying of cancer. His campaign managers were understandably impatient, but he said, “There aren’t many left who care what happens to her. I’d like her to know I care.” This is a man who said to his 19-year-old son, “There is no foundation like the rock of honesty and fairness, and when you begin to build your life on that rock, with the cement of the faith in God that you have, then you have a real start.” This is not a man who could carelessly send other people’s sons to war. And that is the issue of this campaign that makes all the other problems I’ve discussed academic, unless we realize we’re in a war that must be won.

    Those who would trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state have told us they have a utopian solution of peace without victory. They call their policy “accommodation.” And they say if we’ll only avoid any direct confrontation with the enemy, he’ll forget his evil ways and learn to love us. All who oppose them are indicted as warmongers. They say we offer simple answers to complex problems. Well, perhaps there is a simple answer—not an easy answer—but simple: If you and I have the courage to tell our elected officials that we want our national policy based on what we know in our hearts is morally right.

    We cannot buy our security, our freedom from the threat of the bomb by committing an immorality so great as saying to a billion human beings now enslaved behind the Iron Curtain, “Give up your dreams of freedom because to save our own skins, we’re willing to make a deal with your slave masters.” Alexander Hamilton said, “A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one.” Now let’s set the record straight. There’s no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there’s only one guaranteed way you can have peace—and you can have it in the next second—surrender.

    Admittedly, there’s a risk in any course we follow other than this, but every lesson of history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement, and this is the specter our well-meaning liberal friends refuse to face—that their policy of accommodation is appeasement, and it gives no choice between peace and war, only between fight or surrender. If we continue to accommodate, continue to back and retreat, eventually we have to face the final demand—the ultimatum. And what then—when Nikita Khrushchev has told his people he knows what our answer will be? He has told them that we’re retreating under the pressure of the Cold War, and someday when the time comes to deliver the final ultimatum, our surrender will be voluntary, because by that time we will have been weakened from within spiritually, morally, and economically. He believes this because from our side he’s heard voices pleading for “peace at any price” or “better Red than dead,” or as one commentator put it, he’d rather “live on his knees than die on his feet.” And therein lies the road to war, because those voices don’t speak for the rest of us.

    You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. If nothing in life is worth dying for, when did this begin—just in the face of this enemy? Or should Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have thrown down their guns and refused to fire the shot heard ’round the world? The martyrs of history were not fools, and our honored dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of the Nazis didn’t die in vain. Where, then, is the road to peace? Well it’s a simple answer after all.

    You and I have the courage to say to our enemies, “There is a price we will not pay.” “There is a point beyond which they must not advance.” And this—this is the meaning in the phrase of Barry Goldwater’s “peace through strength.” Winston Churchill said, “The destiny of man is not measured by material computations. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we’re spirits—not animals.” And he said, “There’s something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty.”

    You and I have a rendezvous with destiny.

    We’ll preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we’ll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.

    We will keep in mind and remember that Barry Goldwater has faith in us. He has faith that you and I have the ability and the dignity and the right to make our own decisions and determine our own destiny.

  13. does anyone want to fight back?

  14. How could you quote from my link in the Jeb thread and ask that question?

  15. Ok Outlaws,

    That’s a knock-it-off for me.

    See ya Down Range!

  16. We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be, we shall mock them fight on the beaches, we shall mock them fight on the landing grounds, we shall mock them fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall mock them fight in the hills; we shall never surrender.
    Winston Churchill

  17. Delicious irony.

  18. di

    I was in a discussion amongst photographers about the Elane thing last night … amongst all of them they were like “well, yeah, we should be able to choose our own clients, so just don’t give out a reason if you might run afoul of *The Law*”

    Most of them are xers & a few millennials and I was banging my head against the wall that they seemed to think if it was “the law” then it must be right, but if you disagree, don’t fight it, just go around it and be quiet.

    Then there was one guy about my age who is all “equal access is equal access” cuz he lived through the whole “oppression” times and made the most amazing claim (quoting)

    “the greater good of civil rights must trump your artists argument”

    just look at that and marvel.

  19. Darleen, I’ve been arguing with some boneheads about “the law” , as well. If they don’t like it, they seem to think it can be disregarded, e.g., Prop 8. If the other person doesn’t like their version of “the law”, then they are obviously a h8r and a homophobe and a racist. (How all that follows, they are unable to explain.)

    I blame the “heroes” who teach public school for this.