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

Young White America Is Haunted by a Crisis of Despair

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 329 posts

Re: Young White America Is Haunted by a Crisis of Despair

#281

Post by will_brown »

emodendroket wrote: post #271
will_brown wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>And I find it at least questionable that parenting has gotten markedly less supportive in the past few decades. Look at the trends of the past few decades: divorce; single parent; and dual income households. There is in fact remarkedly less two parent, supported by single income households, meaning it's a rareity for a child to simply have a parent at home when they return from school to fix them a healthy snack, as…

I'd argue the cause and effect relationship you're positing is backwards.

As in you think the declines in mental health of children leads to an increase in divorce, dual income households and single parent homes?

Re: Young White America Is Haunted by a Crisis of Despair

#282

Post by nostrademons »

marssaxman wrote: post #278
petra wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My list of innovations, currently happening is a bit longer:it's yours, plus IOT, VR, synthetic bio, food engineering across the board, ~AI, robotics and automation, genetic engineering(maybe hundreds in clinical trials?), a lot of innovation in medicine, transportation(even without self-driving, on-demand microtransit could replace lots of cars, EV's, affordable super-sonic airplane in development, lighter-than air…

I like your list, except for IOT, which is innovation with negative value.

Consumer IoT is actually pretty appealing, but it's been incredibly poorly executed so far. I would love to be able to get breakfast started while I'm still in bed, or let guests DJ the party from their cell-phone, or have a robot put away my dishes as soon as the dishwasher is done, or automatically transfer the wash when it finishes. Or imagine a product that, when somebody leaves a package on your doorstep, alerts you via smartwatch, lets you view a security-camera view of the premises around your house, and then gives you the option to open the door, have a robot sweep the package inside, and then shuts & locks the door again.

It's just that a.) nobody has produced a product that actually lets me do this (other than the DJ thing, which you can approximate with various streaming services) and b.) I want to make sure that nobody other than me can do these things. Until someone solves the security & usability aspects and the industry actually adopts those solutions, it's just a gimmick.

Re: Young White America Is Haunted by a Crisis of Despair

#283

Post by wcummings »

jnicholasp wrote: post #78
ChrisLTD wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it a load of crap on so many levels? To take one example, the media and politicians have put a huge spotlight on the plight of coal and manufacturing job losses, while only recently did we learn that in fact we're losing even more retail jobs. https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/04/the-sil... Want to guess at the racial and gender makeup of those manufacturing jobs vs. retail?

I'm not making an argument here, since I don't know the answer to my question, but is it possible that a higher proportion of coal and manufacturing jobs were traditionally living wage, support-a-family type jobs, as compared to retail jobs? And if so, wouldn't it be reasonable to focus attention on the losses in the two categories somewhat differently?

It's because it's hard to unionize retail. Manufacturing is nearly synonymous with union jobs in this context.

Re: Young White America Is Haunted by a Crisis of Despair

#284

Post by wcummings »

ChrisLTD wrote: post #140
jnicholasp wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not making an argument here, since I don't know the answer to my question, but is it possible that a higher proportion of coal and manufacturing jobs were traditionally living wage, support-a-family type jobs, as compared to retail jobs? And if so, wouldn't it be reasonable to focus attention on the losses in the two categories somewhat differently?

That's an interesting point, but it leads me to a different conclusion. Given the higher numbers of people employed in retail, shouldn't we focus more attention on the fact that those jobs can't support a family?

Harder to unionize service and retail workers unfortunately.

Re: Young White America Is Haunted by a Crisis of Despair

#285

Post by true_religion »

anigbrowl wrote: post #91
jlarocco wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a workplace full of only entry-level opportunities I agree with the rest of your post, except this part. Entry level jobs are what people should be getting straight out of college. Senior positions and management jobs go to the people with the experience to do them, and that's almost certainly not a person with a year of experience and a new bachelor's degree. I kind of wonder if these weird expectations aren't par…

Why would you need to go to college to do an entry-level job? Conversely, who wants to spend 4 years (and probably $$$) getting a college degree in order to then work a job that bores them to tears? Perhaps you meant 'entry-level' within some more specific context but nowadays employers seem to think people need a bachelor's degree to answer the phone.

Charitably, you would expect a HN user to use entry level with respect to programming or engineering. Entry level is always within the context of a specific field. You can't say be a master electrician then switch to plumbing and expect the same pay. Your experience is null, and your have to start as entry-level​ in the new field.

Re: Young White America Is Haunted by a Crisis of Despair

#286

Post by jnicholasp »

wcummings wrote: post #283
jnicholasp wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not making an argument here, since I don't know the answer to my question, but is it possible that a higher proportion of coal and manufacturing jobs were traditionally living wage, support-a-family type jobs, as compared to retail jobs? And if so, wouldn't it be reasonable to focus attention on the losses in the two categories somewhat differently?

It's because it's hard to unionize retail. Manufacturing is nearly synonymous with union jobs in this context.

Why is it hard to unionize retail?

My (naive) guess would be that retail is a less-skilled job, so attempts by labor-groups to make themselves a controlled source of labor supply are easily circumvented by the readiness with which those jobs can be filled by nearly anyone. Whereas manufacturing jobs that involve some degree of skill are more able to corner the market on their own labor, and thus better able to negotiate from a position of power.

Re: Young White America Is Haunted by a Crisis of Despair

#287

Post by jlarocco »

anigbrowl wrote: post #91
jlarocco wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a workplace full of only entry-level opportunities I agree with the rest of your post, except this part. Entry level jobs are what people should be getting straight out of college. Senior positions and management jobs go to the people with the experience to do them, and that's almost certainly not a person with a year of experience and a new bachelor's degree. I kind of wonder if these weird expectations aren't par…

Why would you need to go to college to do an entry-level job? Conversely, who wants to spend 4 years (and probably $$$) getting a college degree in order to then work a job that bores them to tears? Perhaps you meant 'entry-level' within some more specific context but nowadays employers seem to think people need a bachelor's degree to answer the phone.

> Why would you need to go to college to do an entry-level job?

"Entry level" positions are by definition for people just entering a field, and have nothing to do with whether the position requires a degree. Entry level retail doesn't need a college degree, for example.

In a lot of fields, though, getting a degree is the bare minimum qualification, so simply having one doesn't give you a leg up. Why hire a person just out of school for a senior level position when there are more experienced people (also with degrees) applying for it? Feel free to apply, but experience will win out every time.

> Conversely, who wants to spend 4 years (and probably $$$) getting a college degree in order to then work a job that bores them to tears?

That's not really what work is about. Every job is boring and sucks sometimes, that's why it's called "work" and not "leisure" or "playing" or "fun". Unfortunately, a degree isn't a magic certificate to avoid boring work.

Re: Young White America Is Haunted by a Crisis of Despair

#288

Post by anigbrowl »

spoiledtechie wrote: post #258
anigbrowl wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'Playing the race card' often comes off as code for saying 'racial issues aren't real.' Are you sure that you're not overlooking significant structural factors just because Canada has less racial tension than the USA does?

Canada also has less races and it's less diverse than America. The race card has been played way too much these past 8 years. It's disgusting.

You would probably do well to ignore my comments on any sociopolitical topics then, as the difference in our outlooks will likely cause you acute distress.

Re: Young White America Is Haunted by a Crisis of Despair

#289

Post by jnicholasp »

ChrisLTD wrote: post #140
jnicholasp wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not making an argument here, since I don't know the answer to my question, but is it possible that a higher proportion of coal and manufacturing jobs were traditionally living wage, support-a-family type jobs, as compared to retail jobs? And if so, wouldn't it be reasonable to focus attention on the losses in the two categories somewhat differently?

That's an interesting point, but it leads me to a different conclusion. Given the higher numbers of people employed in retail, shouldn't we focus more attention on the fact that those jobs can't support a family?

> those jobs can't support a family

Should they be able to? Absent some kind of deliberate regulatory or collective-bargaining action to prop up the price of labor in a given category, I assume the prevailing wages tend to reflect an implicit agreement between employers and potential employees on what that labor is worth. What is the argument for propping up the price of labor beyond what people are willing to do it for?

Or, put another way, what is the argument for why jobs should be seen as existing for the sake of giving workers enough money to live on, rather than as existing because some people want certain things done and are willing to pay a certain amount to have them done? In the second case, the value of having certain things done is not infinitely variable: some actions will create x value in the world, and can only be worth doing if they cost =x will simply mean that those things will cease to exist. Is it a better world if we regulate out of existence those jobs whose performance is worth less than a family-supporting wage?

Re: Young White America Is Haunted by a Crisis of Despair

#290

Post by jdmichal »

dragonwriter wrote: post #252
jdmichal wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're discussing the derivative (rate of change) of the actual issue. The issue isn't how fast divorced households are growing; the issue is that they exist at all. Even if the divorce rate was zero, there would still be existent divorced households. And broken households don't do any favors for children, even if the parents do their best to make it seem amicable.

> You're discussing the derivative (rate of change) of the actual issue. The rate of change is the rate of new divorces minus the rate at which divorcee households are ending (if the concern is divorced parents with children, by death of the parent, child, or the child leaving the household.) > Even if the divorce rate was zero, there would still be existent divorced households. A declining, eventually to zero, numbe…

Of course I'm not taking a stance that the rate of change is not important. And of course it would need to drop in order to reduce and eventually eliminate occurrence...

I was instead pointing out that simply bring up a reduced rate is not really a counterpoint. Especially when, as you accurately point out, the divorce rate is not even the entire picture for the rate-of-change of divorced households. See also Arizhel's sibling comment:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14150694

But hey, will_brown did a better job of making the same point and defending himself:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14150843

Post reply on HN