Is there really a "she-cession" going on?

Canada's recent federal budget made a big noise about addressing the "she-cession" Canada has been experiencing as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Among other announcements in the unprecedented high-spending budget was $30 billion towards a national child-care program, specifically aimed at boosting female employment, which the government claims has been decimated by the pandemic. Quoth Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland, "The closing of our schools and daycares drove women's participation in the labour force down to its lowest level in more than two decades".

But is there really any evidence that women have been hit harder  over the last year or so? After all, many professions and essential businesses in great demand at the moment (e.g. nursing, care workers, factory workers) are largely female dominated. 

The reason I even ask is that The Globe's Andrew Coyne disputes the existence of such a she-cession at all. Now, I rarely agree with Mr. Coyne's point of view, and I'm always suspicious of his methods and motivations, but he purports to back up his claims with statistics. 

According to him and his (undisclosed, unfortunately) sources, male unemployment peaked last May at 13.9% compared to 13.5% for women, and the latest figures show 7.3% for men and 7.6% for women (i.e. not materially different). He also notes that, while employment participation rates did fall quite dramatically last spring, the gender differences were not that notable. In fact, men's fell by 5.7% and women by just 5.5%. (Just in passing, he also points out that the government figures showing a fall in overall employment rate from 74% to 63% actually uses April 2020 (i.e. the worst point) as the latest date, whereas the actual current rate is right back up to 73%. Ah, yes statistics can be slippery things.

So, where did this idea of a she-ceasion actually come from? Well, a CBC article from early March 2021 quotes a report indicating that unemployment among women remain 5.3% below February 2020 levels, compared to 3.7% for men, a very different profile to Andrew Coyne's, and it points to job losses in the food services and accommodation sectors, also women-heavy employers, which makes sense. The reoort, by the Labour Market Information Council also notes that employment for women in low-earning occupations is 14% down from pre-pandemic levels (compared to 12% for men), whereas high-earning jobs for both genders have largely recovered. 

A recent Royal Bank report also concluded that there has been a three-fold increase in the  number of women considered long-term unemoloyed, with an additional 200,000 women out of work for at least six months and ever-decreasing chances of getting back into the workforce. Low-earning women in particular have been hard hit, with a 30% reduction in employment compared to 24% for men in the same income bracket. Also, according to the report, nearly 100,000 Canadian women have left the workforce permanently since the pandemic struck, more than ten times more than men.

So, who do I believe, the disaffected, curmudgeonly Andrew Coyne, or the Labour Market Information Council and the Royal Bank of Canada? Hmm, let me see...