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

411–420 of 1001 posts

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

#411

Post by harryh »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #403
rayiner wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But who raises the next generation under that scenario? Immigrants, of course, but what does that say about what American society has become? This is not a “replacement” screed, by the way, but quite the opposite. If your culture requires constant immigration to survive, that means it’s unsustainable in the steady state. Like, it would be bad if everyone adopted your culture. Your culture is the panda of cultures.

> But who raises the next generation under that scenario? Immigrants, of course, but what does that say about what American society has become? https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2021/05/24/will-birt... (Will births in the US rebound? Probably not.) People respond to incentives. Living and having children in the US is expensive, so the results are what you’d expect. Maybe we don’t need replacement rate, except f…

except for the part of an economic system that requires unending growth

This is such a tired phrase. Like if we had socialism or communism or some other -ism it wouldn't matter.

But that's just not true. The issue is math and the fact that prime age working people (25-55ish) are the ones that, for the most part, make stuff. If you have a shrinking population then the % of the population that makes stuff gets a lot smaller so everyone has to be poorer. No "economic system" can change that.

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

#412

Post by paulpauper »

yaacov wrote: post #260
paulddraper wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Tacoma, I lived nextdoor to a guy who "hurt his back" when he was 22. As far as I can tell, he'll sit on his couch collecting disability until 65, at which point he'll switch to retirement.

I don’t know this dude, and if you know he’s just scamming the system I’ll take your word for it, but when I’ve experienced serious physical pain I’ve found video games much more helpful than OTC painkillers.

anyting is better for pain releif than OTC painkillers

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

#413

Post by perplex »

holoduke wrote: post #395
UncleOxidant wrote: post #113

I've got two nephews aged 34 and 32 who still live at home and play video games all the time and rarely leave their rooms. Neither has ever had a job that lasted more than a month or so. Neither ever learned to drive even though they live in a town with little or no public transit. They haven't had any education beyond high school. They seem wholly unprepared to navigate life without their parents. It's a slow motion…

I had the same life till my 26th. I then stopped watching television, threw all games away and started studying computer science. I am so happy about that move. I am 40 now. Own multiple IT businesses and have a happy family. Game/TV addiction is really dangerous. You don't have to be a depressed person to fall into it.

For some people (myself included) Game/TV addiction is a real problem and can have drastic affects on ones life. (It did for me throughout my 20s/30s). For others it doesn't seem to have negative side effects.

My life was held back by time spent gaming for so long and later in life I realized TV was doing the same. Moderation in all things right? For me it is easier to cut them out period.

I'm happier and have a far more productive life as a result. I'm now in my 40s and have productive life and career but this didn't start until my mid 30s.

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

#414

Post by tomjakubowski »

mywittyname wrote: post #345
tristor wrote: post #305

This thread is full of people talking about cultural, societal, and economic factors that may influence this outcome. I've yet to see anyone mention the factor that I wish we more thoroughly investigated: health. This has been discussed in some articles at length, but we still haven't identified primary causes, but testosterone levels are falling in men (at a given age) at a pretty steady pace year over year. This is…

Could be. But lack of exercise would also lead to low T, and I'm quite confident that middle aged man without a job who lives with parents aren't exactly staying fit.

> lack of exercise would also lead to low T

would it? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exercise_and_androgen_levels

> In cross-sectional analyses, aerobic exercisers have lower basal total and free testosterone compared to the sedentary. Anaerobic exercisers also have lower testosterone compared to the sedentary but a slight increase in basal testosterone with resistance training over time.

Anecdatum: during a years long period where I was not exercising at all, I had some blood tests done and total testosterone came out healthy and high.

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

#415

Post by uncletammy »

at_a_remove wrote: post #200
mkmk2 wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who's been exposed to the stats more than most of us (I assume, pre-web dating service), do you have any particular insights? Have you thought about what one could do to address this mismatch since? I was fortunate to find my s.o. on a language exchange site, but if I felt my best options were something from the Match Group... it looks grim

No solutions, I am afraid, that do not involve large-scale genetic engineering. In the parlance of our times, dudes are generally "thirstier." On top of it, you can call it genetics or you can call it culture, but ... men make the approach, typically. (Okay, I am done with generally and typically and trends for now) This leads to guys spamming some entirely-too-fussy gals and the usual dynamics emerging. You've read…

Enlightening commentary. Thanks for sharing it.

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

#416

Post by deft »

digglet90 wrote: post #402

Staying at home and playing video games/yield farm is the most incentivised activity right now. This liberal-moral capitalism breaks my heart sometimes lol. Reap what you sow!

Pretty much. The economists created this mess using their magic number science, then look down at the broken scramble and are confused? Assuming rational actors...

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

#417

Post by MeinBlutIstBlau »

mynameisash wrote: post #120
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.

When my wife and I bought our house (Seattle area) six years ago, I was uneasy about spending $300k, and my family in the Midwest was aghast that we paid asking price. Anyone in this area would now laugh at my previous situation; I certainly do. We briefly considered buying a slightly larger house in the area, but everything is going for about $800k now. If I were just entering the job and housing market today here i…

Not to mention, a lot of older housing which ends up being cheaper, has just a myriad of problems with it. They become massive money pits or take well beyond 10+ years to even make a dent beyond the interest paid. Plus you need to fix them constantly or put up with a subpar experience. Over time, I guarantee you save more time renting than you ever will buying a home. People forget to factor that moving the law, blowing snow, paying property taxes and insurance all factor in as additional costs to maintaining property. That amounts to time lost. Unlike money, you can never get that back.

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

#418

Post by nradov »

treespace88 wrote: post #61
marcellus23 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's certainly believable that women don't enjoy dating apps, but I think it's difficult to make the case that it's equally hard for them (in terms of successfully getting a date) when they have thousands of matches and many men I know have none.

Women are paying a high price in the online dating world. It’s preying on their weakness the same way porn does for men. Most women don’t want to sleep around and have a large number of partners. But tinder leads them to believe that they can find an unrealistic partner. And they get hurt by the small percentage of men that play the online dating game well. Women need a lot more data and time to evaluate a potential…

Real humans don't make relationship decisions based on data analysis.

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

#419

Post by xenihn »

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.

right now, I can reasonably afford a $1.3 million mortgage. i could do more if i was willing to lose the ability to save/invest, and also rent out multiple rooms to strangers

there is nothing at that price point (or below) that i would consider worth the current cost, in any of the cities that I actually want to live in. and even if I found something, it's so unfair that my property tax rate would be so much higher compared to others (california)

i'm just going to save money, invest in things that arent real estate, and emigrate at some point. i think the only exception is if I married someone who was given a house by their family. not too unlikely in the bay area or in southern california, but it's still not something i can bank on. i wouldn't even want to if it was.

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

#420

Post by grawprog »

UncleOxidant wrote: post #113

I've got two nephews aged 34 and 32 who still live at home and play video games all the time and rarely leave their rooms. Neither has ever had a job that lasted more than a month or so. Neither ever learned to drive even though they live in a town with little or no public transit. They haven't had any education beyond high school. They seem wholly unprepared to navigate life without their parents. It's a slow motion…

I've worked a bunch of jobs over the years where i've ended up being in the homes of a lot of middle class - upper class people, not that it doesn't happen with working class people too, but anyway a common thing i would see was young men my own age or older living at home with their parents, not employed.

I remember one lady in particular tried desperately to see if we could get her son a job. He'd taken a crane operator course but was scared of heights. He wouldn't even come in the room or speak with us.

The thing is, this guy didn't even seem to help at home. His mom had went out and mowed the entire very large, very sloped front yard before she came in to ask us about a job for her son. He sat in the basement the whole time.

Or the time on a weekday afternoon, dude comes out in his jimjams yelling at his mom to make breakfast while she's trying to deal with us in her kitchen which was mostly not usable.

Then there was all the people in that age range i worked with who would last less than a week. People who'd show on their first day and immediately ask when break time was or people who'd just walk out half way through the day or people who'd just straight up say they don't care and they'd rather be at home smoking weed.

Anyway, this got a bit ranty, i've got plenty more stories from over the years. Suffice to say, this is a trend i've seen a lot over the years first hand.

Post reply on HN