Comments on: Male Workers in “Good” Jobs, 1979 and 2008

By: The Best Jobs in America » Sociological Images

The Best Jobs in America » Sociological Images — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 17:47:52 +0000

[...] of college grads, joblessness by race/age/sex/education, more on joblessness, race, and education, men in “good” jobs by race, race and the economic downturn, changes in type of work over time, gender and the wage gap, trends [...]

By: kv617

kv617 — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 03:34:02 +0000

The major reason for the massive drop in the number of Hispanic males in “good jobs” is the significant increase of Hispanic males in the USA. In 1980 alone 100,000 Cubans were allowed to leave Cuba and seek refuge in America. Immigration of Hispanics is on the rise, in 2005 there were an estimated 10.9 million, a number expected to increase to 60 Million by 2020.

A significant majority of immigrants from South and Central American countries have limited English skills, are under educated and often lack skills to work in “good jobs” in the US.

Obviously the disparity is unfortunate and startling, however, can be explained by historical factors regarding immigration and percentages in the US population over time.

By: wag

wag — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 17:54:16 +0000

Umm…If they are basing “good” on median income then it can only improve through economic leveling. If everyone’s income improves, the stats will stay the same. Odd measure.

Also, the literature on flow, money, and happiness suggest that a good job is anything in which you can lose your sense of self. After meeting basic needs, more money doesn’t lead to more happiness…and that seems like a pretty good endpoint.

By: karinova

karinova — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 06:11:16 +0000

“It’s a number that covers such a broad range of quality of life and living expenses that it’s pretty much meaningless.”

The raw numbers are perhaps not useful, but since all the numbers are pegged to that metric, it is meaningful to compare them (to each other, and to themselves over time).

By: Joe Schmoe

Joe Schmoe — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 21:36:58 +0000

What does “retirement benefits” mean? I have a job that pays well over 60% of median household income and health insurance, but like the vast majority of Americans I have no pension and while my company offers a 401(k) it does not contribute anything towards it (or any other retirement plan). Does that count as a “retirement benefit,” any more than deducting social security taxes does (which all jobs do)? I could get that benefit at McDonalds, so while I’m sure most people would consider my job good I wonder if it would technically qualify.

By: Allison Kilkenny - Unreported – Free market enthusiasts plot to destroy public housing - True/Slant

Tue, 17 Nov 2009 14:21:20 +0000

[...] and racist policies of the United States has already been well documented, but I do want to share this chart, which simultaneously illustrates the rise in poverty and unemployment across the board, but [...]

By: Carla

Carla — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 13:38:52 +0000

Exactly…these data are basically useless without that information about the total pool of “good jobs.” If only 40% of jobs are “good jobs” that dramatically changes how you look at the data.

By: Kirrily Robert

Kirrily Robert — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 08:53:50 +0000

I found myself wondering what was up with the huge drop, and whether it was gender related… that is, were men losing those jobs and women getting them instead? But then I realised that the “provides health care and retirement benefits” might be a huge factor in this. We need to know how many of *all possible jobs* are good jobs, and see whether the number has decreased in the past 20 years. I’m guessing it has because of the heath insurance and retirement benefits factor.

By: Ben

Ben — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 06:42:38 +0000

Still, I like that they represented a good job by showing men installing a solar panel. :)

By: Ben

Ben — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 06:41:17 +0000

Yeah I was struck by the same thing as Philip and Jesse. This definition of “good job” presumes that men should be the main breadwinners. It’s not the only thing affecting it, but it does confound things a bit.

By: Jesse

Jesse — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 05:18:11 +0000

Philip is right. As female labor participation increases and gender income inequality decreases, the number of “good” jobs for men will automatically decrease. Presumably that would not be a bad thing, right?

By: Keeley

Keeley — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 04:25:23 +0000

I think a large part of the decrease is due to the fact that as we now generally assume 2 incomes in a family, each worker only needs to bring in 30% of the median to total the household income considered “good” in 1978.

By: caity

caity — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 02:45:31 +0000

I think the researches have tried hard to come up with an objective definition of “good job” – ie, a job that is fairly good regardless of your living situation.

They’ve pegged it to the median household income, a figure which is an average of the incomes of every type of household – rich, poor, 1 income, 2 income, 10 kids, no kids, lives in Manhattan or lives in small country town. It’s a number that covers such a broad range of quality of life and living expenses that its pretty much meaningless.

By: Tabitha

Tabitha — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 02:20:15 +0000

No. My reading is that 31.3% of all men now have what is termed as a “good job.” Only 24.1% of black men have, “good jobs.” If 100% of people had the, “good jobs,” then it would have to be 100% in every category. It’s what percentage of men have good jobs, not how the pie of good jobs break into slices.

By: Allison

Allison — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 02:18:06 +0000

Wow, notice all of the downward sloping lines in the background graphic! I think they played strongly into my initial impression of this graph, which was “downward trend in good jobs over time.” In fact, the x-axis is separated into categories and the downward trend in each is just two data points. As it turns out, the data do seem to indicate a pretty clear downward trend (although no error bars, so can’t be sure), but I’m disturbed by how much the background graphic influenced my judgement of this data. Will have to start looking for this data presentation trick elsewhere…