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

431–440 of 1001 posts

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

#431

Post by imtringued »

rayiner wrote: post #400
paulpauper wrote: post #382

I don't think it's a tragedy. The overly dramatic media and pundits get this all wrong in labeling it such. Young people are simply responding to incentives to live at home longer. Living expenses keep going up relative to inflation and wages, such as home prices, rent, insurance, etc. Living at home is a good way save money, even for the employed. Family formation is expensive and fraught with risks such as divorce…

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?

Better yet, who takes care of all the old people? Nobody.

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

#432

Post by nradov »

CameronNemo wrote: post #146
AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have an idea I've been toying with for a dating tool (I refuse to call it an app) based on the premise that all dating "apps" and "sites" are horrible because their incentives are aligned toward wanting people to actually use them. You pretty much have ad-driven and subscription models and both have perverse incentives. Further, the whole "wink", "like" and "swipe" nonsense increases the "meat market" commoditizati…

I've thought about ways to improve dating networks, and I think the best solution is to throw them out and just get young people to go out in groups and do activities together. Romance would be a secondary output (as would friendships, professional networking, and plain old perspective broadening). Rationale is that a lot of women, and to a lesser degree men, do not feel comfortable going out 1x1 with a stranger (and…

There is a dating service called Events and Adventures which operates that way. A friend of mine worked there but I never used it and don't know whether it's effective.

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

#433

Post by [deleted] »

sergiomattei wrote: post #347
codemac wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

PERSONAL RANT YOU DON'T NEED TO READ, BUT I NEED TO WRITE: I will add something to your son's point: being independent from my family was more important to me than saving money, especially if their loans are only 4 years away from being paid off. In fact, it bootstrapped all kinds of good behaviors around how to socialize with others, make friends, find a job, fix my own toilet, do laundry, pay taxes, find a new hair…

As someone in a similar situation as OP's son (although undergrad) and looking to move out... Independence and personal space MATTER, please consider how your son may feel about living close to you. It may hurt, but it's important to understand the mindset behind the decision.

[deleted]

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

#434

Post by imtringued »

imgabe wrote: post #430
harryh wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sm…

There's always the post-scarcity system where robots make all the stuff and we can all stay home and play video games.

You would still need a fair system that distributes a base amount of resources fairly. If we had that system the current form of capitalism could last much longer (another 80 years).

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

#435

Post by ArkanExplorer »

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…

Historically, only a % of the population ever reproduced. About the same as do today.

The difference is that the couples that do have children, have much fewer children. 2, instead of 4.

We need to look at the costs faced by couples with a lot of children. For example, you can accommodate 2 children in a standard 3 bedroom house, but 4 or 5 children are going to need a much larger and more expensive dwelling. Same thing with cars.

The USA seems to be doing alright with this, where housing is relatively affordable, and child tax credits and the ability to combine you income with your spouse. (The situation is much more dire in Central/Eastern Europe)

One way to improve this is to increase land value taxes, but offer a credit for each child of the owners under 18 living there. This would give families a formal tax advantage against baby boomers and investors.

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

#436

Post by grogenaut »

leetcrew wrote: post #368
sergiomattei wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone in a similar situation as OP's son (although undergrad) and looking to move out... Independence and personal space MATTER, please consider how your son may feel about living close to you. It may hurt, but it's important to understand the mindset behind the decision.

agreed. I moved out as soon as I could support myself. it wasn't because I hated my parents; they're pretty good as far as parents go. I feel like it's hard to actually be an adult when you live with your parents. as an example, my dad used to always ask when he could expect me home when I went out. not being nosy, he just had a certain "night lock up" routine for the house. it wasn't an unreasonable question to get…

Yeah I'm trying to figure out where I'm essentially asking the same things of him and putting pressure on him. But I've also been in completely hands off mode for the entire pandemic.

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

#437

Post by username90 »

majormajor wrote: post #409
Mirioron wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They don’t make those decisions for the benefit of men. They don’t have to. But isn't that the parent poster's point? They don't make decisions that make them more attractive for marriage, therefore they're less likely to end up married. The same argument applies to men too. Men don't have to do things that make them more attractive to women, but they shouldn't be all that surprised when they end up not being attra…

There's a group missing here. We're discussing stories talking about a demographic of women that are unhappy with the men they date, and also about a demographic of men that aren't dating at all. The men unable to get a date at all clearly have some work to do - even when there's so many unhappy women, there is something they're still doing or not doing that makes them even less appealing. The unhappy women and the m…

When you have 4 women who wants to date 1 man then they will feel fierce competition and that everything just gets handed to guys. Similarly the 3 men those women refuse to date will feel that dating is a woman's game.

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

#438

Post by paulpauper »

nxc18 wrote: post #394
paulpauper wrote: post #382

I don't think it's a tragedy. The overly dramatic media and pundits get this all wrong in labeling it such. Young people are simply responding to incentives to live at home longer. Living expenses keep going up relative to inflation and wages, such as home prices, rent, insurance, etc. Living at home is a good way save money, even for the employed. Family formation is expensive and fraught with risks such as divorce…

The problem comes in when their parents die and they have no path to supporting themselves. Not everyone has an inheritance to look forward to. Living at home and working isn’t really a problem, but entering the labor force at 40+ is not going to go well.

Millions of jobs were lost due to Covid, many permanently. This was on top of jobs lost in 2008-2010. Each wave permanently removes a bunch of people from the workforce. Pre-2008 it was easier for the unemployed to rebound and find work even without advanced degrees or advanced skills. Not anymore. So there are a lot of people not contributing, either on disability , living with friends or parents, or on some form of welfare. Yet, in validation of MMT, as evidenced by low inflation, low treasury bonds yields, and the strong dollar, supporting these people is not as economically prohibitive as originally believed. The US economy has surpassed the rest of the world since Covid and since 2008 in spite of a lot of people not contributing. A single Bezos or Musk in terms of econ productivity is equal to millions of low-contributing people. In an ideal world, maybe everyone would contribute, but that is not the world we live in.

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

#439

Post by djspiro »

nradov wrote: post #333
jplr8922 wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the term 'coddling ' is not the best. I grew up during the 90's in a hyper-controled environment by a macho dad and a passive mom. I was told to not become an artist, to not travel when I am young (waste of time), to learn how to drive a car, to get a job, get a degree, all that jazz. The thing is, at 32, I still have no sense of purpose in life. When all the goals are chosen for you, it does not matter if yo…

Having a purpose in life is optional. Supporting yourself as a functional adult in society is mandatory.

So better give him some pills and put him back in line with the rest of society. Right. There is nothing mandatory in life except of course death.

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

#440

Post by wyre »

jmcgough wrote: post #254
whiskyant wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the parents fault for coddling them. If they kicked them out at 18, the nephews would definitely need to work and may realize the importance of having a better job/career.

At the same time, I see people leave home in their teens or 20s and work a series of crappy minimum wage jobs and never get a decent one with benefits, because they're busy surviving or don't see a better option. An ideal situation requires pressure to succeed, while also providing resources and guidance to be successful.

Yep, I dropped out of school my sophomore year because I was working a job and I was prioritizing a social life I didn’t have in high school. 7 years later and I’m too busy surviving crappy jobs to go back to school, or I think that I would be too busy working to succeed in my coursework.
Post reply on HN