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

Fewer young men are in the labor force, more are living at home

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 1001 posts

Re: Fewer young men are in the labor force, more are living at home

#51

Post by andrewmcwatters »

willcipriano wrote: post #45
andrewmcwatters wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does effort mean in this context? I recall friends of mine, young women, who were having the hardest time finding a significant other were just demanding things of men that would have them selecting from a socioeconomic pool of the top 20% of the population, when they themselves were in the bottom 20%. It was my experience that young women in general were asking for too much when I was in my early 20s. They want…

"Take me on an adventure" was always a instant no for me. In the modern world a spouse is supposed to be a equal partner, I'm glad I found my wife who feels the same way. I don't want someone I have to drag somewhere like a suitcase.

I think this also gets to the heart of it. My general feeling was that women wanted equality but didn't want to put in any effort whatsoever, and so a lot of women I came across just seemed like bums.

I'm not saying that is what you're saying. It just made me recall my experiences.

Re: Fewer young men are in the labor force, more are living at home

#52

Post by tjs8rj »

beckman466 wrote: post #12
andrewmcwatters wrote: post #7

I see this on the fringes of those within my circle of friends. I know one man in this age cohort who doesn't seem to have a job, just plays video games all the time, and I don't get it. But one thing I think about is what he has been exposed to: this is what he knows. I don't think this individual I'm speaking of was raised with anything differently. In this same light, as I believe the two concepts are directly rel…

> I suspect all of this is primarily cultural first, and not related specifically to work, the economy, pricing of good or services like buying a home and starting a family, which would come second. Hmmm I think you're wrong. It sounds like you've got survivorship bias, big time. Most people want to contribute, but the economic system fucks them and makes them dependent. Examples include: the intellectual property re…

Curious: what effect do you think culture has? The economic plays a big role, but there’s a tendency nowadays to call the root problem for everything economic and act like cultural effects are just “holidays and religion” or other marginal effects.

The culture has changed dramatically since the 50s when these trends started. For the men, their role has gone from default “protector, provider, head of the home, in charge, theist, conservative, married young” to “equal bread winner, often oppressive, too often toxic, without innate greater purpose or role, etc”.

Obviously these are broad generalizations, but we would probably agree that men get a worse wrap now than then (even if that came at the expense of others). Does that large cultural shift have a large effect? Are men lacking purpose now and how much of the current problem men face is because of that cultural shift? The economic is important, but the cultural factors are huge too

Re: Fewer young men are in the labor force, more are living at home

#53

Post by falcolas »

ameister14 wrote: post #6
dijit wrote: post #2

If the goal is gender equality: what's wrong with this? The idea that every able bodied person has to work is not supposed to be the way our society functions; at least not in the last 100,000 years.

>The idea that every able bodied person has to work is not supposed to be the way our society functions; at least not in the last 100,000 years. What? I was under the impression that particularly in agrarian societies, everyone who was able to work, worked. Are you saying that surpluses allowed for a large class of people to just not work at all?

> Are you saying that surpluses allowed for a large class of people to just not work at all?

Apparently this is the case today, since it's happening.

Historically, agrarian societies did require everyone to work - twice a year. During harvesting and planting, as much manpower as possible was needed. The rest of the time didn't require 40h of work 50 weeks out of the year. It left time for leisure, building, crafting, etc.

We're also not really in a traditional agrarian society today; most of the work required to create food is done by a vast minority of society using force-multiplying tools.

Re: Fewer young men are in the labor force, more are living at home

#54

Post by Romulus968 »

I'm in the labor force, but live at home. I can absolutely afford to purchase a home.

Why don't I?

Because I'm not spending $250,000+ on 1400sq ft. These types of articles make it seem like some huge mystery as to why society is the way it is today. It's no mystery. Houses cost to much and employers don't pay enough.

Re: Fewer young men are in the labor force, more are living at home

#55

Post by UnpossibleJim »

AlwaysRock wrote: post #42
andrewmcwatters wrote: post #7

I see this on the fringes of those within my circle of friends. I know one man in this age cohort who doesn't seem to have a job, just plays video games all the time, and I don't get it. But one thing I think about is what he has been exposed to: this is what he knows. I don't think this individual I'm speaking of was raised with anything differently. In this same light, as I believe the two concepts are directly rel…

I've got a buddy in a similar situation. We all came from somewhat similar backgrounds and all majored in the same, useless, thing. We lived together and while we all played a lot of video games one of the three never really moved on from that. He's still working at a low wage job behind a counter and playing video games a lot. I think it's less that he doesnt know different but more that he never got a break in the…

Risk aversion and a lack of opportunity (luck) seem to have a large impact on this phenomenon, if you will.I know everyone is quick to jump on "helicopter parenting"from the 90's (?) on, but I think (from the limited speakers I've seen on the topic - which are few) really have made a generation of risk averse peoples. Add to that an economic downturn, where a lack of opportunity makes for less situations where luck might happen where you can take those risks... and here you are. Young men in basements getting a dopamine fix in a plasticine bubble with a virtual body.

Re: Fewer young men are in the labor force, more are living at home

#56

Post by BeFlatXIII »

andrewmcwatters wrote: post #7

I see this on the fringes of those within my circle of friends. I know one man in this age cohort who doesn't seem to have a job, just plays video games all the time, and I don't get it. But one thing I think about is what he has been exposed to: this is what he knows. I don't think this individual I'm speaking of was raised with anything differently. In this same light, as I believe the two concepts are directly rel…

To be fair, your friend has the right idea about online dating: the juice isn’t worth the squeeze. It’s like playing the lottery: life-changing good if you win but a negative expectation value.

Re: Fewer young men are in the labor force, more are living at home

#57

Post by listless »

BitwiseFool wrote: post #35
futureshock wrote: post #22

This seems like a kind rational economic choice. If there are not enough good jobs that can support independent living, providing for a spouse, buying a home or raising a family, then staying home with the easy accomplishment of video games makes sense. Most people never live outside their home states and can't afford to leave the support network of their family and close friends. If you grew up in a medium or high c…

I'm just now middle aged and even when I was a twenty-something I never felt as ambitious or as risk embracing as I was supposed to be. My father and grandfather got into way more trouble than I ever did, with just about every facet of their life. My stories are absolutely tame in comparison. It turns out the steady dopamine faucet is a stronger motivator than going out and trying to flirt, date, make friends, networ…

This is a troubling trend that I see in my sons and that I battle in myself.

Why go out and compete for money, success and sex when those things are at your fingertips. I really think it’s as simple as “turn off the TV”. The problem is that the world is a hard place, and games/porn offer a “good enough” alternative that offsets the trouble of putting yourself out there.

Sorry for making this thread weird by bringing porn in.

Re: Fewer young men are in the labor force, more are living at home

#58

Post by lumost »

andrewmcwatters wrote: post #7

I see this on the fringes of those within my circle of friends. I know one man in this age cohort who doesn't seem to have a job, just plays video games all the time, and I don't get it. But one thing I think about is what he has been exposed to: this is what he knows. I don't think this individual I'm speaking of was raised with anything differently. In this same light, as I believe the two concepts are directly rel…

This has a lot of parallels to "opt-out" syndrome in Japan. Given the concurrent rise of VanLife and FIRE cultural phenomena it's worth considering why many individuals in developed economies ideal life is to not work.

I'd hypothesize that the rising costs both economic, and mental associated with what many consider a basic standard of living independently probably has alot to do with it.

Why work when 60 hours per week leaves you just barely scraping by and exhausted? Why not be just barely scraping by and not exhausted.

Re: Fewer young men are in the labor force, more are living at home

#59

Post by BitwiseFool »

Romulus968 wrote: post #54

I'm in the labor force, but live at home. I can absolutely afford to purchase a home. Why don't I? Because I'm not spending $250,000+ on 1400sq ft. These types of articles make it seem like some huge mystery as to why society is the way it is today. It's no mystery. Houses cost to much and employers don't pay enough.

I also can't compete with Blackrock and other professionally managed funds buying up swaths of homes tens of thousands of dollars over asking price because they want to rent them out later.

Re: Fewer young men are in the labor force, more are living at home

#60

Post by bena »

kogepathic wrote: post #17
andrewmcwatters wrote: post #7

I see this on the fringes of those within my circle of friends. I know one man in this age cohort who doesn't seem to have a job, just plays video games all the time, and I don't get it. But one thing I think about is what he has been exposed to: this is what he knows. I don't think this individual I'm speaking of was raised with anything differently. In this same light, as I believe the two concepts are directly rel…

> another friend of mine basically refuses to date anymore because he thinks the sort of culture of Tinder dating is a waste of time that favors women disproportionately. My female friends (I'm male) with online dating profiles have shown me their matches and conversations, and it's bleak. They all mostly have an average profile and still receive thousands of likes/hearts/swipes and messages, but the mean amount of e…

Bumble has its own issues. It turns out "making the first move" is anxiety inducing in everyone. What women have done on Bumble is to basically treat the "first move" as an "invitation to treat", a second shot at selecting a guy. Most of those "first moves" are exactly what they say they don't want from guys: simple "Hey"s and "Hello"s. And then they say in their profile that once they say "Hey", you're supposed to respond back with something substantial and entertaining.

I don't think dating apps/sites favor either sex more so than dating in general does. Women, in general, don't really have to try to get solicitations. Their issue is in trying to weed through all of the solicitations to find those worth responding to. It's basically the hiring problem. But there's no Hackerrank for compatibility.

And then there's the issue that even those that feel the system is tilted against them in general don't understand that it's just them. They're not successful because they aren't as kind, nice, or desirable as they think they are. Or they keep making the same bad choices in romantic pursuits and wonder why they keep getting the same outcome.

The problem with all of these apps and gimmicks and what not and certain segments of tech in general is that it assumes that deep down, people are making rational choices. We aren't.

Post reply on HN