Live data from Hacker News

Study finds young men are playing video games instead of getting jobs

chicagotribune.com

41–50 of 59 posts

Re: Study finds young men are playing video games instead of getting jobs

#41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think people want to know why there's no longer an easier way. It seems people 50 years ago didn't have to dedicate their waking hours from 6 to 18 years old constructing an impressive enough resume to give them the luxury of then dumping a hundred thousand dollars on an employable education. Software has an obscenely low bar for getting experience, you're right. Software comprises enough job vacancies to employ th…

"It seems people 50 years ago didn't have to dedicate their waking hours from 6 to 18 years old constructing an impressive enough resume" People 50 years ago didn't go to University - and they took a menial job at the factory, or did 'what their parents' did, took over the family shop/farm etc.. They earned very little, travelled little, had little in the way of material or aspirational opportunities. They also had s…

Oh so all these kids should just go find a farm to work on or factory to work in.

It's not like the vast majority of those jobs are either outsourced or handed to the lowest bidder (who is then systematically abused).

Of course people travelled 50 years ago. They could even afford to own the roofs over their houses!

Re: Study finds young men are playing video games instead of getting jobs

#42

Often, getting a job is a stepping stone to impress a woman, get married, and have children. That takes a long time, and women these days usually work, making your job a lot less attractive to them. Why not play video games at home? At least then you'd know you'd have some fun.

Marrying an overweight/tatooed/feminist older woman is not much fun!

Re: Study finds young men are playing video games instead of getting jobs

#43
post #33
post #15

This is the demographic that's traditionally fueling crime/war. You can give a positive twist to the story by rephrasing the title "study finds young men are playing video games instead of shooting people."

Yeah, the more I think about it, the more I think men are obsolete. Men are responsible for forcing all the natives out, setting up the government, constructing nearly every piece of infrastructure and creating nearly all technology. Not to minimize the potential of women (patriarchy really, really held them down), just highlighting that these male flavored contributions to society are really not needed anymore.

Is this sarcasm by any chance?

Re: Study finds young men are playing video games instead of getting jobs

#44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is normal for blue collar workers to make 2x - 4x more than white collar workers today. This is in my area so things may be different elsewhere. Kids don't want to go into blue collar work because it is looked down upon as a 'lack of advancement' or similar middle class trope.

Uh it might be normal for some . And by some I mean highly skilled unionized workers. Let's not forget the millions of blue collar workers who had their jobs disappear overnight in the past 15 years. Many of these people showed loyalty to their employers for spans of several decades. Of course, loyalty plays no role in the calculus of capitalism. You think a kid should aspire to a blue collar job right after an entir…

> Uh it might be normal for some. And by some I mean highly skilled unionized workers.

Some clarification.

I do blue collar and white collar work myself. Not in America, not a member of a union. I don't think most blue collar workers I know are in unions, maybe some of the electricians but that is probably it. I don't think they need one either, it is a kind of hold-over.

I code (for my projects, some of which spin money as well as independent work) and also do things like cleaning, plastering etc. I make a good deal more money this way in my situation.

For the sake of a comparison, I usually earn at least $30-40 per hour in blue collar activity, often more, but the payments for code tend to be highly variable. I prefer to choose jobs I find personally enjoyable or those with objectives I support, which is a freedom I value a lot. I probably make about the same or less if you averaged out everything, but it is not entirely about economics.

I also don't like to make a sharp distinction between the different things I do for a living. I think that is a old fashioned way of thinking. I've gotten software work from blue collar jobs and blue collar jobs from software work I've done. I actually think the pay is higher this way.

> Let's not forget the millions of blue collar workers who had their jobs disappear overnight in the past 15 years. Many of these people showed loyalty to their employers for spans of several decades. Of course, loyalty plays no role in the calculus of capitalism.

We should make a distinction between factory labour (which I agree has had serious job reductions over time) and the trades, which have done quite well over time and are relatively prosperous in real terms. I think this is also true in the USA judging from what I've heard.

> You think a kid should aspire to a blue collar job right after an entire generation of blue collar workers were laid off at the stroke of a pen? Right when every other post on the front page of HN carries foreboding of an automation job-pocalypse just a decade after an outsourcing job-pocalypse?

I have a computer science degree from a red brick university. I think I know about automation and AI. I have read Norvig/Russell's book from cover to cover a couple of times.

It is like this:

If your job is very routine, it was or is being automated by machines with an extreme division of labour.

That is the history of the past few centuries.

If your job is routine and information-centric, then it was or is being automated by computer programmers like myself.

That is the history of the past few decades.

If however your job falls into three categories:

1. Information-centric and novel. e.g. starting your own company with software skills, or even a job in the entertainment industry.

2. People-centric jobs, like being a host, gym trainer or prostitute.

3. Skilled labour. Skilled labour is almost always novel. Tadelakt finishes or custom cabinetry is not about to be automated.

You know why? Because people want authenticity. It is like the economy of the neo-victorians in The Diamond Age.

People who buy furniture from IKEA are not the rich of society.

Machine made = stuff normal people can buy = not elite = not fashionable. Machine production is too orderly, too linear.

This is not theoretical. I've ordered a bunch of jobs done that I could have gotten cheaper if I chose the automated option but I don't want to. This is a phenomenon I see everywhere.

> You're a maniac. Anyone capable of evaluating these options with an ounce of foresight is going to take the gamble on college and make a desperate debt-ridden attempt to scramble to the top of the knowledge economy. The only economy that isn't demonstrably under threat.

We just don't see the same world.

In fact it is much worse than you think, because I don't even agree our society is becoming more technologically advanced.

It is in computation, and computation related fields. Which is a lot. But it is not everything. Energy prices are exponentially higher than they were in the 1970s.

Silicon Valley is not powerful enough to lift up the entire economy. Not even close!

Ex-computation, there has been very little technological growth for the last few decades. There's a few bright spots, like fracking and solar but huge parts of the economy have not seen technological or economic progress for half a lifetime.

You can think I'm a manic if you want, but Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, Larry Summers and Larry Page all agree with me on this.

An Edit: Just to be clear. We probably agree wages are stuck for the average person (look at my other posts), and that opportunities are dimming. The difference is that you believe automation to be the cause, but I am saying the exact opposite, that it is actually a lack of general development that is causing joblessness and wage stagnation. One of us has to be wrong!

Re: Study finds young men are playing video games instead of getting jobs

#45
IRL, rewards come slowly, if ever. Setbacks can cost years of loss of 'progression'. We are mostly, by definition, average, without much agency, without much optimism, without much opportunity. Video games provide the shortest path to a rich, rewarding experience for our minds. Platitudes about hard work aside (for they are for the exceptional), we are helpless in our pleasure seeking, pain avoiding minds. The disappointing mundanity of the 'real world' cannot compete.

Re: Study finds young men are playing video games instead of getting jobs

#46

Two words. Real wages. They are at historic lows. > Turns out that when there's less incentive to do things, less gets done.

Real wages didn't get higher when they got kicked out of the basement. The difference is they had to do something in order to feed themselves.

I think a 20 y/o who lives with their parents so they can play video games is a sloth. I fully intend to teach my kids the same. I expect them to leave and take care of themselves even if the only opportunities available to them are blue collar / manual labor that pay very little.

The decrease in real wages lowers the incentive to work. But so does a society that views playing video games in your parents' basement in lieue of entering the workforce as acceptable.

That probably sounds harsh, but (at least from the article) it seems like these people haven't had difficulties getting jobs when they're in their 30s with equally poor experience. They're just ten years behind the earnings curve.

Re: Study finds young men are playing video games instead of getting jobs

#47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"It seems people 50 years ago didn't have to dedicate their waking hours from 6 to 18 years old constructing an impressive enough resume" People 50 years ago didn't go to University - and they took a menial job at the factory, or did 'what their parents' did, took over the family shop/farm etc.. They earned very little, travelled little, had little in the way of material or aspirational opportunities. They also had s…

> They earned very little, travelled little, had little in the way of material or aspirational opportunities. That is some extraordinary revisionism you've come up with there. It is the 1960s, not the 1600s. > We chose' what we have now, and at least in material terms, it's a whole lot better. There's a lot of opportunity out there. Real wage growth stalls half way through the 70s, just five years later.

In the 1960's people did not travel. Commercial air was for the rich. People might have had a family outing, by car, to Disneyland or something. Now people travel worldwide.

"Real wage growth stalls half way through the 70s, just five years later."

This is completely false - and is a function of how we calculate inflation. In fact, it's laughably false. A 'medium wage earner' today has a significantly improved material situation than in the 1960's. Everything is significantly better for the common person on a common wage.

The average person today has multiple TV's, cable, internet, smartphone, 'apps', 500 channels, amazing healthcare, amazing cars (have you ever driven a car from the 1960's), travel possibilities, educational possibilities.

The notion that real wages have been stagnant is one of the most laughable economic fallacies of the modern era. Anyone alive in that time knows exactly the truth. Financial concerns aside (aka debt), a good measure of wealth is 'what you can buy with it'. The average person is significantly wealthier than the average person in the 1960s.

Re: Study finds young men are playing video games instead of getting jobs

#49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They earned very little, travelled little, had little in the way of material or aspirational opportunities. That is some extraordinary revisionism you've come up with there. It is the 1960s, not the 1600s. > We chose' what we have now, and at least in material terms, it's a whole lot better. There's a lot of opportunity out there. Real wage growth stalls half way through the 70s, just five years later.

In the 1960's people did not travel. Commercial air was for the rich. People might have had a family outing, by car, to Disneyland or something. Now people travel worldwide. "Real wage growth stalls half way through the 70s, just five years later." This is completely false - and is a function of how we calculate inflation. In fact, it's laughably false. A 'medium wage earner' today has a significantly improved materi…

So how about sources then?

Re: Study finds young men are playing video games instead of getting jobs

#50

Two words. Real wages. They are at historic lows. > Turns out that when there's less incentive to do things, less gets done.

Real wages didn't get higher when they got kicked out of the basement. The difference is they had to do something in order to feed themselves. I think a 20 y/o who lives with their parents so they can play video games is a sloth. I fully intend to teach my kids the same. I expect them to leave and take care of themselves even if the only opportunities available to them are blue collar / manual labor that pay very lit…

I don't really disagree. Some of it is attitude. That and what the book the Millionaire Next Door referred to as Economic Outpatient Care.

It is just that in the past the standard of living also was raised, and the market had to bear higher costs to motivate people to work.

If you examine the pay of our grandparents and parents you see they experienced very considerable wage growth in their lifetimes while the standard of living was rising, like by a factor of 10. Roofing contractors were paid a dollar a day in 1900!

That impetus is missing from the labour market today. It is partly that some of the people mentioned in the study feel like they have better things to do, but a lot of it has to do with the trajectory and speed of wage growth.

When you feel like your prospects are 'capped', you're bound to be less motivated.

I've heard employers whining they can't find the right people in the WSJ and NYT for some time now (subtext: at subpar rates of pay) and I think this should be treated with the same reverence given to lazy bones on the coach there. None.

Post reply on HN