Monday, August 15, 2011

Missing Jobs by Gender

The following chart shows the exponential growth of non-farm payrolls by gender. I've included an exponential trend line for each gender based on the trend that was established from 1964 to 1990.

The next chart shows the difference between the number of jobs and the trend line.

The exponential growth in payroll jobs for women has failed and it has failed spectacularly. What caused this? Math! That's all it took.

Note that women now make up 50% of payrolls. That trend reached its logical conclusion. It's over and we need to adapt to the new reality.

Here's something else that will most likely cause us to adapt. What's going to happen to the previous charts when the following long-term trend starts forming?

What's going to happen if Corporate America's new wave of robot workers decide not to shop at our country's many strip malls? Then what?

And lastly, check this out.

June 25, 2011
Missing Jobs vs. Trade Deficit

Compare and contrast it to the missing jobs for women.

I'm not suggesting that they are directly related. I doubt that they are. I just find it interesting that the two shapes are so similar (and that neither trend is our long-term friend).

I can't describe it, what I'm feeling and what I'm thinking. This means something. This is important.

Source Data:
St. Louis Fed: All Employees: Total nonfarm
St. Louis Fed: Women Employees: Total Nonfarm


mab said...

What caused this? Math!

Math is a wonderful thing! Good thing we don't let it get in the way of our spreadsheet wealth!

Jazzbumpa said...

I don't think the near identity of those charts is a mere coincidence.

It is uncanny.

Like Repliee, believe it or not.


Watchtower said...

I just wanted to let you know that your charts are more easily understood than a mashed potato sculpture, lol.

Stagflationary Mark said...


The math cannot be denied! Um, well, unless it is based on a maxed out credit card of course.

Stagflationary Mark said...


I don't think the near identity of those charts is a mere coincidence.

Well, one could argue that we simply replaced one dying growth engine in the USA with a faulty one found elsewhere in the world.

I say faulty because we clearly cannot run a trade deficit forever. It's that darned math again!

Stagflationary Mark said...


I actually base most of my charts on pure "mash" science, lol.