Jiggering the Numbers on Women Breadwinners for Hillary

Here’s the story: “Women are not only more likely to be the primary caregivers in a family. Increasingly, they are primary breadwinners, too.”

Who needs men? Women can do it all. “America needs a female president.” This is all a set up for Hillary in 2016.

Like immigration, the female vote is not monolithic, but Democrats try to make it so to dilute the Republican vote.

So why are women gaining ground in the breadwinner sweepstakes? There are several reasons. Women, because they will take less money for a job or choose professions that men do not pursue, they are less expensive to hire. Economics prevails.

When the economy took a hit in 2008, companies found ways to cut expenses. They often got rid of middle management positions, cut the pay of all employees, and laid off some of their more expensive employees, most of whom were men.

“The recession may have played a role in pushing women into primary earning roles, as men are disproportionately employed in industries like construction and manufacturing that bore the brunt of the layoffs during the downturn.”

When construction jobs came to a screeching halt, men were mostly affected. While there are concrete workers, stone masons, and brick layers who are women, these are mostly male-dominated professions.

Many companies won’t hire recently unemployed men who earned a high salary for fear that when the economy picks up, they’ll start looking for a better paying job in their field. I’ve known a number of men who went to a job interview saying, “I just want a job.” The employer often hired the younger guy with fewer financial obligations.

There’s another factor that is rarely discussed. Labor unions were instrumental in keeping women out of the competitive workplace, as Cathy Young at Real Clear Politics points out:

“Historian Allan Carlson, a strong social conservative, has noted that the sole-breadwinner family of the 1950s was enabled by the efforts of progressive reformers and government-backed labor unions to institutionalize the idea that the male head of household should be paid enough to support a stay-at-home wife and children. The ‘family wage’ rested on built-in, intentional discrimination against women; its decline, along with the loss of union power, partly accounts for the decline of high-paying traditionally male jobs where pay had been artificially inflated.”

Also missing in the discussion of women breadwinners is that 63% are single mothers. The reports that have been coming out on the higher female breadwinner rate often fail to point out that many of these female breadwinners are the only breadwinners because there is no man in the house.

Some conservatives have tried to point out that the traditional family structure is in jeopardy. This means more government will be needed. Praise God for Democrats (whose policies created the mess in the first place)!

If you think like I do, then you see a political agenda in the works. The GOP will be cajoled into making concessions to abstract women voters as they are being cajoled into passing an immigration bill that’s “good for the future of the Republican Party.” And who’s telling the Republicans these things? Democrats!