Thread

The AI industry is booming. Women are getting left behind

5 points · 8 comments · shadow28

xvxvx · 1791175802 · focus · HN ↗
If only The Guardian cared about actual reality:
‘Women accounted for 158,000, or roughly 98%, of the 162,000 net new nonfarm payroll jobs added to the U.S. economy in August 2026.
Compared to this time last year, there are 870,000 more women employed in the U.S., according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and 1.5 million fewer employed men.’
<a href="https://ifstudies.org/in-the-news/women-filled-98-percent-of-jobs-created-in-august-what-happened-to-the-men" rel="nofollow">https://ifstudies.org/in-the-news/women-filled-98-percent-of...
‘There has been a “multi-decade decline in male labor force participation” and a “multi-decade increase in female labor force participation,” Kirk Doran, a professor specializing in labor economics at Notre Dame University, told National Review.‘
<a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/news/women-filled-98-percent-of-jobs-created-in-august-what-happened-to-the-men/" rel="nofollow">https://www.nationalreview.com/news/women-filled-98-percent-...
1. bigcat12345678 · 1791176796 · focus · HN ↗
  You are asking media to show objectivity, that's equivalent to ask Facebook to be doing social good. They can do that only to the point of their private interests overlapping with the public.
  This is liberalism by design. A person or an organization, is entitled to behave on their own interests, within the lawful framework. Thus the overall process looks like a paradox, just like anyone observe closely any non trivial software and maverled at the harmony derivied from the utterly incomprehensible chaos.
  Although by now, everyone understanding the term liberalism already knows these.
  Worse yet. Even by themselves taking a shape of public service while pursuing private profit, media are essentially being stolen of their values by the AI company. Where information used to produced, now they are manufactured and medicated by AI models, the no one paid anything beyond nominal data purchase fees.
  1. tensor · 1791178837 · focus · HN ↗
    1. He quote two heavily biased right wing media outlets. One with questionable accuracty. [1][2]
    2. He cherry picked one month of data. And in fact the data for that month was flagged as bad and the new data for the number of women is not released yet. [3]
    The real data for each months looks more like:
    Monthly Job Changes — U.S. Establishment Survey (CES), 2026 (Seasonally adjusted, in thousands. Women = BLS Table B-5 / CES0000000010. Men = implied: Total − Women.)
    Month ΔTotal ΔWomen ΔMen (implied)
    Feb -156 -27 -129
    Mar +214 +98 +116
    Apr +148 +84 +64
    May +63 +49 +14
    Jun +31 +89 -58
    Jul -10 -32 +22
    Aug +133 +145 -12
    Sep +29 +14 +15
    So no there is not some crazy trend that only women are being hired. This is classic propaganda using cherry picked data.
    [1] <a href="https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/institute-for-family-studies/" rel="nofollow">https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/institute-for-family-studies/
    [2] <a href="https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/national-review/" rel="nofollow">https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/national-review/
    [3] <a href="https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_10022026.htm#:~:text=The%20average%20workweek,%2B162%2C000%20to%20%2B133%2C000." rel="nofollow">https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_10022026.ht...
    xvxvx · 1791179234 · focus · HN ↗
    Fortune and CNBC also reported the same figures, since you’re so sensitive about sources:
    <a href="https://fortune.com/2026/09/04/jobs-report-september-women-162000-jobs/" rel="nofollow">https://fortune.com/2026/09/04/jobs-report-september-women-1...
    <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2026/09/04/jobs-report-women-payrolls.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.cnbc.com/2026/09/04/jobs-report-women-payrolls.h...
    And it’s not cherry-picking. I used the most recent data available. Let’s see how September fares.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.