In a groundbreaking study by Penn State and Ohio University (The Myth of Men’s Stable, Continuous Labor Force Attachment: Multitrajectories of U.S. Baby Boomer Men’s Employment by Adrianne Frech, Jane Lankes, Sarah Damaske, and Adrienne Ohler), researchers have unveiled the complex nature of American men’s workforce participation. Contrary to the long-held view of steady employment, only 41% of baby boomer men followed a consistent work trajectory. This finding challenges traditional notions of the male breadwinner role and its impact on men’s health, social status, and economic stability. Context The study published in Socius critically reassesses the ‘lockstep progression’ of men’s employment, traditionally seen
I’ve got news for this article: Having a steady job doesn’t make you a breadwinner
Neat, the article and the study even talks about it
Hell, the article’s conclusion is about economic instability being a bad thing? >
I was just looking for why this was framed as just pertaining to men rather than men and women. I would like to see a follow up which includes women as well to have some kind of basis on more reasonable expectations for the present and what to demand from our economic systems in the future.