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

171–180 of 1001 posts

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

#171

Post by lotsofpulp »

lazypenguin wrote: post #114
BitwiseFool wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Adding to this, we've also abandoned the idea of building out in the middle of nowhere and linking it to a city center with a rail line. I'd gladly buy a cheap home in the boonies if I could take a train into work instead of driving.

That’s an interesting observation. I’ve always heard the argument that we need “more density” but I like this option as well.

There is no way the tax base of the boonies can support the initial and operating costs of a rail line. Therefore it is not an option, and why you do not see it anywhere.

Even suburbs cannot afford all of their ongoing infrastructure obligations, and why you see many dilapidated areas.

This is all becoming apparent now because birthrates have plummeted hence what used to be masked by economic growth due to sheer population growth no longer has the ability to be papered over with increased tax collections due to increased population.

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

#172

Post by watwut »

falcolas wrote: post #53
ameister14 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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,…

> 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.

Because fabric for cloth magically appears from nothing and they sew themselves. Same for bedheets and such, they fill themselves.. And candles are gift from Santa, animals dont need care and houses fix themselves. Wood is just there, without preparing and cutting it.

Yo and food also creates itself from grains, just like that. And small kids changed their own diapers and washed them.

Speaking of which, did you tried washing without washing machine and modern chemistry? It used to be huge physically demanding work.

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

#173

Post by troupe »

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…

> It makes no economic sense to move out and get an apartment. The cost of living in major metros makes renting nearly equivalent to paying a mortgage.

That might account for them living at home, but not for not pursuing a job.

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

#174

Post by mkmk2 »

lumost wrote: post #58
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 w…

What are the FIRE cultural phenomena?

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

#176

Post by shimonabi »

troupe wrote: post #160
shimonabi wrote: post #157

I had a pretty rough time between the years 2004 and 2016. I dropped out of college for a career track I dreamt about since childhood and I didn't know what to do with my life. I had no job experience and the recession hit also. If you live in a small country, where everyone is related on average 2.5 degrees away to a random person, it's pretty hard to get a job if you don't have any family connections. After several…

Are you in a field where you need to work onsite or can you work remotely?

The boss at my firm doesn't understand the concept of remote work. I did the job interview with my mask on and when there were hard restrictions on moving between cities in my country, so I had to have a signed document with me if the policed stopped me. I got my second shot 2 weeks ago and I'm working as usual.

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

#177

Post by [deleted] »

UncleOxidant wrote: post #136
usrusr wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know someone who used to fit that description quite well and then apparently made it out at some point between 35 and 40. Seems like there is always room for a surprise improvement left.

Yeah, well, maybe. But currently they don't seem to have any motivation which is a prerequisite to improvement. I think their parents should provide that motivation by being a good bit tougher on them. They sometimes try this, but then go soft on them again after not very long.

[deleted]

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

#178

Post by lotsofpulp »

plif wrote: post #168
grogenaut wrote: post #151

I'm trying to get my son and his girlfriend to live at home for a few years post graduation. He wants to move out into a place in seattle. She's a bit more about saving money. The math is that they'd have all loans paid off and a 200k down payment about 4 years out of college if they live with us, and they'd have loans paid off if in 4 years and Important side note: they're both major home bodies so they wouldn't tak…

Something about the savings math doesn't check out, especially given the NEET aspect. 200k savings in 4 years out of school is a lot.

$185k/48 = $3.85k in monthly costs saved by not living independently. I can see it as being possible in Seattle, but on the high end. I would assume comparable abodes to sharing your parents house would be cheaper.

I also would not have wanted to stay with my parents in my 20s though, at least not with my specific parents.

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

#179

Post by Gunax »

vidanay wrote: post #104

I really wish this stigma against living "at home" would go away. Multigenerational homes has been the standard for thousands of years, and still is in large portions of the world.

People use 'living at home' as a stand-in for a set of properties: unemployed or lowly employed, low ambition, single, excess time on entertainment, etc.

Of course they aren't always true individually (I know some of my facebook colleagues lived at home) but from a rough demographic perspective, it's true.

We do this a lot: consider that teen pregnancy is understood to be unwanted, thwarting educational opportunities, etc. but in some religious communities a 17 year-old might be married and ready to bear children. It's just that's a very small proportion, and doesn't diminish that teen pregnancy is generally considered a problem.

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

#180

Post by watwut »

LatteLazy wrote: post #88
thaumasiotes wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also the first time women have been allowed to opt out. Working most of the day is the historical norm for all able-bodied people and most not-wholly-able-bodied people.

I think women's experience has been a lot more complex. U til the 1950s they were needed to work in the home most of the time. And it's only really the last 20 years women haven't been REQUIRED to opt out of working once they got married or had kids...

If you look at women employment stats in the past, a lot more of them were employed then people generally assume. Women with small kids would work the least, but younger and older more likely to work.

There is middle class white ideal and then there is reality of people needing to eat. They did not had careers, but they needed money and only other option is stealing.

Men were emplyed more and home required a lot more work then now. But still, lower class women needed jobs.

Post reply on HN