“In Trump’s Economy, Job Gains Go to Women. That’s Not an Entirely Good Thing.”

NYT Magazine

e had to look twice at this headline in the New York Times to believe it.

“In Trump’s Economy, Job Gains Go to Women. That’s Not an Entirely Good Thing.”

Huh? Is the Times complaining that men are being shut out of the workforce?

Maybe the subhead will clear things up?

Nope. It says “Despite the administration’s best attempts, the diminishing status of many American jobs is driving a spike in women’s employment.”

“Best attempts”? At what? Driving down women’s employment? Is that really something the Trump administration has been putting its “best attempts” to achieve?

The story tries to explain: “Even the Trump administration’s masculinist rhetoric — about how society has become overly feminine and should re-center male virtues — hasn’t slowed this shift. Of more than half a million jobs that the economy has added since President Trump took office last January, roughly 85% went to women.”

OK. But even if you accept this dubious premise that these job gains for women came despite Trump’s “best attempts,” how is this “not an entirely good thing”?

“The story goes something like this: A job gets worse in some way — say, it pays less or becomes more grueling or monotonous or generally less prestigious — at which point men become less interested in doing it. Employers then turn to women to fill the ranks,” writes the Times’ Noam Scheiber.

But sure. Let’s agree that it’s only when men decide a job sucks that women take over.

What does any of this have to do with “Trump’s economy”?

Absolutely nothing.

At least, nothing Scheiber can point to. In fact, Trump’s name never comes up again after the opening paragraphs.

LINK