[torben-friis]

Yeah, but if we're splitting losses by gender as well then the gender difference might as well be due to men dominated fields getting shredded.

As in, balanced job creation + a shitton of mostly male tech workers fired = female growth.

[lesuorac]

No because the title is using the word "new jobs".

If there's 100 men and 100 women employed and 100 women get fired then you have an equal number of "newly" employed people (0).

If there's 100 men and 50 working women and you fire 100 men and hire 50 women then 100% of the new jobs went to Women. Same is if you didn't fire anybody and just hired 50 women.

[torben-friis]

If there's 100 men and a 100 women, you hire 50 men and 50 women, and separately 50 men are fired, total is +50 growth all women, despite the fact that non absolute job creation was balanced. I'm wondering if the author is missing this effect.

The net result is the same, but in the case in my example there is no barrier to men getting jobs.

In fact, if you start with a male dominated economy and it gets progressively balanced, you would see years of absolute female job creation, and that would not imply men are blocked from entering the workforce, just that the male dominated generations are exiting the market as they age and being replaced by a more balanced mix.