Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Men not at work: Why so many men aged 25 to 54 are not working (2016)

brookings.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 226 posts

Re: Men not at work: Why so many men aged 25 to 54 are not working (2016)

#151

Post by Nomentatus »

J-dawg wrote: post #116
Frondo wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I'd do is this: 1) Vote for politicians who are going to create real structural change in society, e.g. Bernie, not just systems maintainers like Hillary, or rich guys who want to rip us off, like the guy who won. (And really work at a local level to enact structural systems changes!) 2) Work to change the cultural baggage around one's value being tied to one's day job. Make it sexy to be a poet, writer, singer,…

>Make it sexy to be a poet, writer, singer, househusband, whatever, derive personal/interpersonal value from something other than a career. I would dearly love to believe this is possible, but I fear it's not. I don't think (most) women are capable of overcoming their programming to seek a high-status provider.

If the prestige were great enough, maybe (and good luck with that.) Now add in the extraordinary reluctance of most women to date men shorter than they are.

Re: Men not at work: Why so many men aged 25 to 54 are not working (2016)

#152

Post by greenhatman »

bobbytherobot wrote: post #60
jokoon wrote: post #2

I've started some treatment recently, and for some reason I immediately started dating and looking for mates again. I quickly realized how difficult it is. You can't find women unless you have a job, while women have made outstanding progress in education and the workforce, and for some reason they have a hard time dating people who have a less comfortable situation than themselves. I don't want to ride the whole men…

> One generation behind us, women still sort of relied on men, and now that the tables have turned, women might need to make a compromise. You mean the system was heavily stacked to make women reliant on men. I won't call that a compromise. The tables haven't turned, the game changed. We have drastically removed many of the forces meant to keep women as dependents of men. If the tables had turned, then men would be s…

By compromise, he probably means that women will have to get comfortable dating men who earn the same or less than them. Or are less ambitious than them.

In my perception most women don't look at men who aren't more well off than themselves or lower status than themselves.

Re: Men not at work: Why so many men aged 25 to 54 are not working (2016)

#153

Post by nodamage »

lacker wrote: post #142
nodamage wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

59.2% is quite misleading because it includes students and retirees. The next two paragraphs from your own source[1] say: One reason for the difference is that the share of Americans saying they don’t want a job has trended up since the Great Recession: from 31.9% of the working-age population in October 2008 to 34.6% last month (on a non-seasonally adjusted basis). Some of that increase, though, may be due to Baby B…

Why should we exclude students and retirees from our key employment metrics? Society must pay for students and retirees, and the higher the employment-to-population ratio, the easier that is to do.

I suppose it depends on the purpose of the metric you are evaluating. If your goal is to find the percentage of people currently unemployed because they are looking for a job but unable to get one, then it does not make sense to include students or retirees that are not currently looking for work.

Besides, I'm not sure it's accurate to claim "society must pay for students and retirees". Some students can pay for themselves (via loans) and some retirees can pay for themselves (via their own retirement savings).

Re: Men not at work: Why so many men aged 25 to 54 are not working (2016)

#154

Post by klodolph »

pharrington wrote: post #87
jokoon wrote: post #2

I've started some treatment recently, and for some reason I immediately started dating and looking for mates again. I quickly realized how difficult it is. You can't find women unless you have a job, while women have made outstanding progress in education and the workforce, and for some reason they have a hard time dating people who have a less comfortable situation than themselves. I don't want to ride the whole men…

Try making her laugh. Try listening to her. Be honest. Don't open by trying to fuck.# Yes, it's a skill that like any other, requires deliberate practice. The skill, however, is being a generally enjoyable person to be around. #(If it seems like the last point contradicts the honesty, don't go around making sex your goal. Most humans are horny, it ain't anything you really need to draw attention to .) edit: downvote…

> A known effect of attacking (without confronting the core of the problem), or suppressing, or dismissing parties expressing certain beliefs or engaging in particular behaviors is that the opposing party reaffirms their actions or beliefs. Two-way intelligent and earnest discussion makes both sides amenable to the reasonable positions of the other.

The downvotes are here not because people disagree with you, but because the comment doesn't confront the core of the problem and doesn't contribute to the discussion in a productive way. It can be hard not to take downvotes personally and get defensive, but the comment in question is not defensible.

Re: Men not at work: Why so many men aged 25 to 54 are not working (2016)

#155

Post by cutler »

Like a lot of studies which simply count "jobs" this one misses the point. The combination of wages being driven down, broken unions and sky-high rents mean the real value of many jobs is worthless. Here in the UK zero-hours contracts and low pay are endemic whilst most low income earners rely on housing benefit to supplement their pay. Simply having a job does not mean having a living income.

Re: Men not at work: Why so many men aged 25 to 54 are not working (2016)

#156

Post by intended »

PKop wrote: post #126
20160226 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't fight biology. Women are hardwired to look for men with resources or the ability to get them. It comes down to whether a man can provide the woman with a safe and clean place to have her babies. In the past, this signal has taken the form of physical strength, number of slaves, land, goats, whatever. Today, it's jobs and/or money. Then add a layer of the instinctive hunger for status within any social speci…

Not sure why getting downvoted. To dismiss out of hand thousands of years of evolution and think the last 50+ years of modern societal change can completely counteract biological forces is.. wishful thinking? I mean, this explanation is at least as good as any other speculation in this thread.

Because it's the worst kind of ad hoc evolutionary psych bs?

Women marry a lot of different kinds of men, for example: men who make them laugh. Men who are attentive, or ambitious, or well spoken, travelled, groomed, serious, sensitive, quiet, gregarious or any number of adjectives, none of which directly reflect their income.

In simple terms, a lot of,the thread here is guys super imposing the logic of power and position onto 'women'.

A specific type of person seeks mates primarily because of their position, these tend to be ambitious and ambition valuing people.

This is in no way the full set of women.

Yes Statistically, the logic of evolution will result in a bias. Women would love to marry an Adonis who was a PE fund owner, or a cardio-neuron surgeon.

It doesn't mean people wither away, waiting for it to happen.

The most popular trope is not of dr rich, or mr moneybags - its Prince Charming.

Your spouse will be found through the places you visit, the education you attend, via the people you meet, the places you work and and the hobbies you enjoy.

Not just because of the size of your paycheck.

And your spouse will very likely try their level best (all things held equal) to help you out when your paycheck is down, the same way many wives have been all through the recession when people were laid off, and their husbands (and themselves) weren't rising up the corporate ladder.

You may never know why, precisely, your spouse decided you were worth spending the rest of their life with.

But its not just because of biological programming.

Re: Men not at work: Why so many men aged 25 to 54 are not working (2016)

#157

Post by greenhatman »

swiley wrote: post #12
rudrigu wrote: post #10

"... or the wife works while the man take care of kids" Then wifey starts seeing hubby as a sexless entity --- sort of like the son she never gave birth to --- and loses attraction for him. "... it isn't a gender thing. It is a money thing" Humans spent millennia as hunter-gatherers. Men hunted, women gathered. Men protected and provided, women nurtured the children. If women provide and protection is provided by the…

I would argue it's rather dangerous to use evolution as support for theories about human behavior. This kind of argument is what brought us eugenics.

Yea. I like evolutionary psychology. It's interesting. But we need to be aware that it's extremely speculative and not take any of it at face value.

Re: Men not at work: Why so many men aged 25 to 54 are not working (2016)

#158

Post by randomdata »

dukeluke wrote: post #47
randomdata wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Besides, education has never been more accessible. One can sit down at their home computer – or one freely provided by a local library – and gain skills, across a variety of professions, that can make them highly marketable. These people aren't sitting at home watching TV because they lack education. They lack education for the same reason they are sitting at home, which is a much more complex topic, and not solved b…

You act like lower-class "uneducated" men _should_ be unable to get a job. That's a bit messed up in my opinion. At a time of unparalleled wealth, all classes should be prospering. Also, I say "education" in quotes because today in an age where anyone can learn anything on the internet, a lack of degree does not mean a lack of education. A degree just shows you're willing to be compliant and follow an arbitrary educa…

> You act like lower-class "uneducated" men _should_ be unable to get a job.

Where did you get that idea? As a farmer, I see endless work opportunities where the employers would just be happy to have someone show up. It seems most aren't willing to do the work though[1]. Which is fine. It's not everyone's cup of tea. Even more comfortable or 'higher status' work is also easily attainable with a bit of effort.

However, none of this addresses the reason for the situation they are in, and I don't mean just because they are lazy like you insinuated in another comment. There are a number of reasons why some people struggle in the workplace and it is related to the same reasons why they struggle in school, or even learning on the internet for that matter. To pretend that we can just throw education at this problem is misguided. Lack of education isn't the problem.

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/05/15/north...

Re: Men not at work: Why so many men aged 25 to 54 are not working (2016)

#159

Post by ivrrimum »

pharrington wrote: post #84
20160226 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't fight biology. Women are hardwired to look for men with resources or the ability to get them. It comes down to whether a man can provide the woman with a safe and clean place to have her babies. In the past, this signal has taken the form of physical strength, number of slaves, land, goats, whatever. Today, it's jobs and/or money. Then add a layer of the instinctive hunger for status within any social speci…

People are hardwired to prefer partners they find attractive. Beyond a well documented bias towards symmetry in and a certain range of ratios of physical features, attempts to find some sort of innately desirable traits that are not confounded by the incredible strong signals sent in a given culture & generation's media always fail. When you say, "Women are hardwired to look for men with resources or the ability to g…

What has beeing smart to do with having money/social status? Nerds have always been a subject to ridicule.

Regarding the original statement - I agree on both sides. I agree that women(same as men) have some biological broad idea of partner they would WANT to reproduce with. But with time and more experience in relationships, they might compromise.

Re: Men not at work: Why so many men aged 25 to 54 are not working (2016)

#160

Post by astrange »

20160226 wrote: post #31
jokoon wrote: post #2

I've started some treatment recently, and for some reason I immediately started dating and looking for mates again. I quickly realized how difficult it is. You can't find women unless you have a job, while women have made outstanding progress in education and the workforce, and for some reason they have a hard time dating people who have a less comfortable situation than themselves. I don't want to ride the whole men…

You can't fight biology. Women are hardwired to look for men with resources or the ability to get them. It comes down to whether a man can provide the woman with a safe and clean place to have her babies. In the past, this signal has taken the form of physical strength, number of slaves, land, goats, whatever. Today, it's jobs and/or money. Then add a layer of the instinctive hunger for status within any social speci…

There's a lot of comments basically calling women golddigging p-zombies but not citing any evidence or personal experience here. I think that's more family pressure when it exists.
Post reply on HN