Millions of Men Are Missing from the Job Market

Any research on association of joblessness with internet addiction? I know China has entire state-sponsored treatment programs for internet/video game addiction; they think it is a real problem. I think if a person is consuming 8-9 hours of electronic media per day (which is around average), particularly internet or video games, then their motivation/capacity to interface with the real world is severely damaged. In many ways reality is not as rewarding/stimulating as the internet, but is also more difficult and risky. Just take the case of mating: I can enjoy simulated physical intimacy with literally thousands of physically attractive women with 0 risk of rejection and 0 effort, or I can take on the risk of painful rejection and enormous effort of achieving "social status" and being "charismatic" in order to attract an "actual" woman with whom I get to have "actual" sex, which at the end of the day is just not as good as fake sex with 100s of different electronic women. And really, if I have no need to find a real woman, what need do I have to find a job? Electronic stimulation is severely fucking up the reward/motivation functioning of the human brain, at least for some people, in the same way alcohol is a huge problem for some people.

I think the other factor is simply technological productivity. A handful of software engineers can run e.g. Facebook, a social networking site for billions of people. A handful of farmers can produce food for billions of people. Every job opening receives 100s to 1000s of resumes because the world's productivity to consumption of human labor ratio increases every day. If you're not like a top .01% skill level person, you're really not needed. Your brain has been obsoleted.

Do you have personal projects though? I know a few people who have used a long disability/unemployment period as an opportunity to work on one project while receiving enough money to survive without needing immediate profitability. Having a degree doesn't have anything to do with that, either.

I'm not in your place so I'm not saying you should do it, or even that I would actually do that if it were me. But I think I would try to consider this as an opportunity.

On the other hand, I have absolutely no problem with people being supported without doing productive work, because that's the way some of the greatest artists, inventors or scientists have been able to do their thing in the past.

I think universal basic income is the answer to this situation. The fact that you are (apparently) able to survive in our society without being a productive worker seems to be proof that society doesn't need everyone to be workers, contrary to what current politicians (at least in France) say about work, and how having a job seems to be the most important part of life and of citizenship. While the most important thing should just be taking part in society, and having a job clearly doesn't help with that unless you think society is just a large company, which is wrong.

Anyway, just don't forget that a lot of people don't have a problem with others staying at home to paint, draw, write or think. Society isn't blaming you for being lazy, only most of its rulers are, and those people who listen too much to them. It's not easy, but try not to get too influenced by the opinions you keep hearing in public medias, because they're all run by people who have an interest in having citizens think they have to work.

Whether or not this 'passes the smell test', it is provably what Amazon does, as confirmed by extensive reporting and several court cases. I think you just aren't in the same situation.

The difference, if I had to guess? You want "dependable, trustworthy employees who work diligently and productively." That's an excellent goal, and I realize that it's a hard thing to find. Employees who are known to have these traits make a significant premium over minimum wage, even at unskilled tasks.

Amazon... doesn't seek that. These are backend workers, so attitude and customer service aren't relevant. Their warehouse workers are run through metal detectors to prevent theft. They're forbidden from having phones on the job. They can't perform self-directed work; instead they're directed in every task in close detail by software. They can't schedule anything themselves; food and bathroom breaks are rigorously limited, and require checking out through metal detectors to access. Diligence is replaced by incredibly demanding standards for minimum performance.

In short, they've opted out of seeking workers with the desirable traits you mention. With decent wages in low-employment areas, people will suck up all of that, at least for a time.

The vast majority of work being performed has nothing to do with feeding, clothing, housing people.

We have huge numbers of talented people burning themselves out on things which absolutely do not matter, and are only subtracting value.

Some people are just not equipped to log in day after day, doing things that don't matter.

I don't dispute the numbers in the article and can't speak to the tragedy of opioid addiction, but whenever I see something like this I am reminded of a friend of mine who never had a job, and never looked, from ages 18-30. He came from an upper-middle class family and his parents basically supported him all those years and he was fine with that. He knows he's lazy and embraced that as long as he could. To outsiders who'd ask why he doesn't have a job, he'd blame it on things like a crummy job market, chronic joint pain, or that he had hearing issues that prevented him from working effectively. He never went on disability though. Finally when his parents' fortune ran low, he had to suck it up and start working and he's doing fine now.

So, I always wonder when reading this stuff, what portion of the sample just has "affluenza" and is blaming it on something else to hide the truth (which, by the way, I don't have a problem with - if someone wants to embrace being lazy and has the means to do it, then go ahead).