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

461–470 of 1001 posts

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

#461

Post by lotsofpulp »

imtringued wrote: post #431
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? Better yet, who takes care of all the old people? Nobody.

Those old people should have invested in kids. Or be content with their fate.

I hope I can muster up the will to take myself out before someone else has to take care of me. Or maybe there will not even be anyone to take care of me, so it will be a moot point.

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

#462

Post by SailingSperm »

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 thing is, to put oneself in a position where they're able to get $100/hr takes a lot of early sacrifice. So it's a false equivalence to say they'd be happy to work for 100/hr rather than 11 - but because 100 isn't offered straight away, purely leisure becomes a reasonable choice. Regardless of how the media portrays it, I'd say it is a rather tragic situation for an able person to live in such a way, only through the support of others.

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

#463

Post by courtf »

heylook wrote: post #298
echelon wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know people are different and I'm not wired the same way, but I have trouble understanding how people can play games for more than a few hours a week. Games like Pac Man and Tetris are algorithmic workloads. It's not much different than driving a semi or forklift, except you're not paid by a company for the work you do. It puts human brains closer to acting and performing as algorithmic worker bee agents. Modern AA…

> I already work too much. That’s your problem. Repetition, mindlessness, boredom, flow are different facets of the same phenomenon. When your ancestors needed to build a shelter, they spent hours and hours chopping, hewing, digging, etc etc. Birds have nests, bees have hives, beavers have dams; the list goes on and on. It’s perfectly normal to find some amount of busywork soothing. You hit your cap at work; others d…

Not to mention, many jobs actively encourage this busywork grind, giving out more money for more grinding. So you get trained to chase the rabbit, but then you lose your job or something happens that makes it harder for you to get employed and you are left satisfying these ingrained habits any way you can, just so you don't go nuts. Video games can fill that need for grinding and give a feeling of virtual progress, but they aren't necessarily the source for that drive in humans. I blame school and work for training us to be this way, like a Skinner box. I don't blame young men for getting hooked on video games, even though it can become an unhealthy coping mechanism.

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

#464

Post by Apfel »

kypro wrote: post #188
ajkdhcb2 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where is this socialist paradise that you speak of where you can have a home without working? There is nowhere like what you are saying. It is the exact opposite of what you are claiming. Affordability of essentials has become so much worse that many people can't afford to live a decent life with their own home even if they are working the jobs that they can actually acquire. These people aren't privileged because th…

> It is the exact opposite of what you are claiming. Affordability of essentials has become so much worse that many people can't afford to live a decent life with their own home even if they are working the jobs that they can actually acquire. Where do you live? Most people I know are literally given homes to live in by the government. Admittedly I'm a working class guy in the UK and I'm not that familiar with the US…

This story is just a lie. As others have said, council houses and benefits in the UK are not a pleasant experience, or easy to get without jumping through means testing hoops constantly

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

#465

Post by rjbwork »

TuringNYC wrote: post #148
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.

>> 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. This is so true. I'd take it further -- for many (not for most of us developers/engineers) but for many others, the choice to move out is a very risky one because you're constantly on a thin line between paying student loans, mortgage/rent, and o…

>I think semi-permanent WFH changes the equation quite a bit -- one can now live with parents, earn, and save up money to hopefully cross the chasm into the world of sustainable ownership.

This is what I'm doing I'm a software dev in my early 30's. A couple of years ago I moved back in with my parents for some health related reasons after being on my own for a decade or so, and ended up staying with them for another health reason.

Then COVID happened and the job I started 6 months earlier went full time remote. Previously I intended to move back to the city because my commute sucked. They've since terminated office leases and seem to be intending to go full time remote for another significant period of time if not permanently. I am saving an insane amount of money and I intend to stay with my parents as long as is feasible.

In a strange way, COVID is the best thing to ever happen to me financially. Home ownership in a dream location is looking to be a feat within reach in less than a decade.

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

#466

Post by mensetmanusman »

imtringued wrote: post #431
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? Better yet, who takes care of all the old people? Nobody.

EA could make a video game where there are players who control robots to take care of old people.

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

#467

Post by seppin »

monksy wrote: post #310
kogepathic wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> If instead he's referring to apps like Bumble where the woman has to make the first move, see above for why some apps choose to operate with that model. Under that model.. it's common for the first message to be "hi" or ".". Not much has changed.

Most common Bumble message: "Hey how's it going"

Isn't that the exact lack of effort you complain about? The real problem is that wtf are you supposed to say to someone you don't know? Whatever that comes out is meaningless because you have 0 to go on. That's the point. It's a starting point.

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

#468

Post by imtringued »

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.

It's mandatory, but it doesn't mean it's appealing enough to convince people to voluntarily make that decision.

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

#469

Post by mensetmanusman »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #461
imtringued wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>But who raises the next generation under that scenario? Better yet, who takes care of all the old people? Nobody.

Those old people should have invested in kids. Or be content with their fate. I hope I can muster up the will to take myself out before someone else has to take care of me. Or maybe there will not even be anyone to take care of me, so it will be a moot point.

Old people could volunteer for long term space travel while frozen

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

#470

Post by leppr »

harryh wrote: post #411
toomuchtodo wrote: post #403

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? 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 sm…

Actually it's estimated gradually redistributing wealth from billionaires and Silicon Valley companies via taxes and stimulus checks to the American people could afford us up to 4 to 5 years of prosperity. So clearly you're wrong, we can change living conditions of mostly everyone through a better economic system.

/s

Post reply on HN