# The Myth of Men’s Full-Time Employment  ## Metadata - Author:: [[Adrianne Frech]] - Full Title:: The Myth of Men’s Full-Time Employment - Category: #articles - URL: https://theconversation.com/the-myth-of-mens-full-time-employment-221078?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Daily%20newsletter%20February%208%202024%20-%202873529156&utm_content=Daily%20newsletter%20February%208%202024%20-%202873529156+CID_7834ce5c7473e21f3309d0bd3e5c2503&utm_source=campaign_monitor_us&utm_term=The%20myth%20of%20mens%20full-time%20employment ## Highlights > Men’s employment in the U.S. reached a 20-year high in 2023, with [nearly 90%](https://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/publications/economic-letter/2023/october/mens-falling-labor-force-participation-across-generations/) of men ages 25 to 54 in the workforce, according to [the Bureau of Labor Statistics](https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2023/labor-force-participation-rate-for-people-ages-25-to-54-in-may-2023-highest-since-january-2007.htm#:%7E:text=Among%20men%20ages%2025%20to,pandemic%20level%20in%20April%202023.). This supports the [broad expectation](https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243216649946) – some might say stereotype – that full-time employment is the norm for American men. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01hp4ne0q6622hjqrnzwfhyf0w)) > [study](https://doi.org/10.1177/23780231231197031) of male baby boomers’ working lives – spanning more than two decades – tells a very different story. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01hp4nej3xb4nb5hbg3p3f7f3c)) > In fact, men’s labor force participation has been [steadily declining](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300001) since the 1970s, and workers are experiencing greater labor market precarity – that is, shorter job spells, greater job insecurity and more long-term unemployment. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01hp4nf6v6041a167j5syzc3by)) > In our research [as experts](https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=VoDOQ44AAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao) in the study of [people’s employment](https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=zTqwiBYAAAAJ&hl=en) over time, we have [previously challenged the myth](http://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-016-0464-z) that most women “opt out” of the workforce, establishing that the majority of women work steadily and full time. That led us to suspect that the picture of men’s employment could also be incomplete. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01hp4nfsvtnjgg5f7k3pf02d3r)) > To understand these long-term trends, we studied data from about 4,500 men collected over more than 25 years ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01hp4ng5tzgxzw05mxgq0w6wqr)) > We were looking for patterns in the amount of time these men spent employed, unemployed and looking for work, and out of the workforce and not looking for work. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01hp4ngawz3c6xekjs81c9360m)) > We were surprised to find that [only 41%](https://doi.org/10.1177/23780231231197031) of late baby boomer men – those who were between 14 and 21 years old in 1979 – worked steadily and continuously, which we defined as working almost every week of the year between ages 27 and 49 ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01hp4ngz4aeksa9bcxzfnrs2pb)) > We found most men didn’t fit this stereotype. About a quarter didn’t reach steady employment until they were nearly 50. Another quarter either found themselves increasingly unemployed and out of work as they aged or able to find only intermittent work. Finally, a smaller group of men left the labor market entirely – some leaving paid work at relatively young ages, while others leaving as they reached middle age. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01hp4nhsz32t9hwc2b2413a76z)) ##### Problems with precarity > We don’t know exactly why these men followed such a wide range of work patterns during what economists call their “prime earning years.” But we think increasing labor market precarity – which researchers say is driven in large part by [increases in layoffs](https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_State_of_Working_America/WdM77z0HUcAC?hl=en&gbpv=0) and [decreases in unionization](https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjab012) – played a big role ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01hp4njzbcr0qvxcwjrzhep6bv)) > For example, we found that men who worked as “[operators, fabricators and laborers](https://usa.ipums.org/usa/volii/occ1980.shtml#operator)” or in “[precision production, craft and repairs](https://usa.ipums.org/usa/volii/occ1980.shtml#precision)” were at greater risk of unemployment. These are jobs that provided our own grandfathers with good, well-paying work, but they are also jobs that have become [increasingly rare](https://arnekalleberg.web.unc.edu/books/good-jobs-bad-jobs/) since the 1970s. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01hp4nkjnhwm0m6ytn1qf7gsna)) > Our findings paint a troubling portrait of employment in America. If this kind of unsteady employment characterizes the work patterns of the baby-boom generation, what awaits those of us who follow them? Is there anything we can do about it? ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01hp4nn2ftf5wa2qdf56yx79sn)) ##### Ideas for improvement > The good news is there are solutions for workers, employers and the federal government. Our [research](https://doi.org/10.1177/23780231231197031) [shows](https://doi.org/10.1177/07308884231162949) that a college degree could protect men from the risk of unemployment or time out of work. The government can support this goal by [making college more affordable for workers](https://www.amacad.org/sites/default/files/academy/multimedia/pdfs/publications/researchpapersmonographs/CFUE_Economic-Impact/CFUE_Economic-Impact.pdf), as the current administration has [proposed doing](https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/10/29/a-proclamation-on-national-college-application-month-2021/). ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01hp4nny1hnn5v5h4ab04jev91)) > For employers, our findings suggest that making work less precarious – in other words, making it more stable, with better pay and more schedule control – would be a win-win proposition. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01hp4npb5t31mkkj670kjt9ahs)) > The government could also implement policy changes, such as the [Protecting the Right to Organize Act](https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/20), to promote workers’ right to unionization, since unionization is consistently linked to [higher wages](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eeh.2017.08.003) and [lower levels of inequality](https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122411414817). ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01hp4nqc8me9z76gzmbx31cr3t)) > We don’t think the U.S. needs the jobs that our grandfathers held to return; instead, it needs to turn today’s available jobs into good jobs ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01hp4nqvtkhc8rzr81dj5pwrzf))