Fewer young men are in the labor force, more are living at home • Hacker News Board

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

#471

Post by 01100011 » Fri, Jun 11, 2021, 11:43 PM UTC

MattGaiser wrote: post #206

I have a very multicultural background, but the dominant cultural view, at least when it comes to money, is Chinese. For us, living at home is not failure. Moving out without planning to start a family if you live in the same city as your parents is considered wasting money. You instead use it as an opportunity to save a pile of money and invest. How much of this is just cultural change? It isn't failure to launch. I…

This.

Caucasian, US born male here. IMO, Western culture is less suited to many of the challenges of the modern world. I don't want to imply that Asian culture is somehow flawless, but there is quite a bit the west can learn if it wants to be efficient and stable in the near future.

My half-baked thought is that you can look at world population growth over time(https://ourworldindata.org/world-population-growth) and note that East and SE Asian population density has been higher for much longer than in the west. It stands to reason that either some aspects of culture have adapted to this, or that the population density somewhat results from a conducive cultural factor. Obviously it's much more complicated than that, but I hope I've made my point.

That said, I think there are forces at work which are putting special pressure on young people today. Whether it is related to declining testosterone, cultural shifts against traditional masculinity and success, negative information overload, cheap and ubiquitous entertainment and distractions, economic forces... I don't know. I think it's good to note that living at home isn't necessarily a bad thing, but there does seem to be something more insidious affecting our youth today.

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

#472

Post by teachrdan » Fri, Jun 11, 2021, 11:44 PM UTC

thepasswordis wrote: post #291

Is anybody advocating for them or encouraging them in any way? I can’t think of a single group which aims to highlight men, uplift men, and encourage masculine behavior. These guys grew up in a school system of almost entirely women teachers, and popular media tells them that if they are successful in any way, it is due to oppression. It’s no wonder why they’re not succeeding. We spent the last 15 years telling them…

There seem to be any number of outlets promoting men and encouraging masculine behavior. (however that may be precisely defined)

* Joe Rogan is the highest paid podcaster of all time, and has 190 million downloads a month

* Ben Shapiro has the number 6 most-listened to podcast in the US

* Fox News is the highest rated news program in the US

To your point that most women teachers are women: That's true because women are often channeled into careers that are lower paid and lower status. This is even true within careers. For example, women are 50% of assistant professors, but only 34% of full time professors.

So who could young men look up to as role models? Well, the obvious answer would be anyone who is successful and doing good in the world, regardless of gender. But even if they are only capable of having male role models, they could look up to the 66% of full professors who are men; the 100% of US presidents who are men; the professional athletes who are most celebrated, which is overwhelmingly men -- all 10 of the top 10 best paid athletes are men.

It's easy for people who feel like losers to blame the "other." It's very easy for men who feel like losers to blame all their problems on women. But by any objective standard, there are plenty of individuals and groups that support and promote men. Whatever the underlying cause is for this phenomenon, it's unlikely to be women.

https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2020/12/10/new-ana....

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brettknight/2021/05/12/the-worl...

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

#473

Post by andrekandre » Fri, Jun 11, 2021, 11:44 PM UTC

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…

  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.

sure, but if people are too exhausted to make the time to have a family (a.k.a nookie) then its maybe worth examining [0] if "constant growth" is societally sustainable

[0] https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/07/japan-m...

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

#474

Post by vmception » Fri, Jun 11, 2021, 11:44 PM UTC

MattGaiser wrote: post #344

vmception wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

false dilemma. many parents contribute to their children's first downpayment, if you can't or aren't interested then just leave the discussion. they don't have consensus on wanting to live with you while you believe they have the skillsets to save $200,000 in 4 years. who gives af if there is a theoretical savings optimization possible, that's not your problem stop acting like it is. you are going to have an empty ne…

> who gives af if there is a theoretical savings optimization possible, that's not your problem stop acting like it is. In some families, caring and advising continues past the 18th birthday. Northern European culture is the anomaly in this regard.

This conversation is about college aged 22-28 year olds who have been under the care and advisement of their parents far far after their 18th birthday.

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

#475

Post by mensetmanusman » Fri, Jun 11, 2021, 11:45 PM UTC

belorn wrote: post #269

What are the things that motivates them, and what do they themselves want to do in life? I ask this because much of the undertone in the article and in this thread is about the failure of meeting the gender role expectations that are put on young men. Do they have a job and a car? Have they studied hard so they can get a good job in order to support a wife and kid? Culture in the last several decades have hammered do…

The gender role for men in TV the last 35 years has been to be stupid like Homer Simpson. Studies show it worked?

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

#476

Post by imtringued » Fri, Jun 11, 2021, 11:47 PM UTC

nradov wrote: post #358

tetranomiga wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He said, in a time of record unemployment and low wages that are impossible to live off of. Almost like there are other factors at play here than just men being lazy. HN loves to forget that not everybody can be a FAANG employee or has the desire to sit in front of a computer writing code their whole lives.

Bullshit. Oklahoma has a 4% unemployment rate and a very low cost of living. Some other states are similar. Anyone who's willing to show up and work hard can survive there.

You have to consider that deciding to stay unemployed is one of the few remaining ways workers can strike nowadays. Most of them have zero power on the negotiating table but they still have some power by choosing to not work at all.

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

#477

Post by imtringued » Fri, Jun 11, 2021, 11:49 PM UTC

spoonjim wrote: post #232

tetranomiga wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He said, in a time of record unemployment and low wages that are impossible to live off of. Almost like there are other factors at play here than just men being lazy. HN loves to forget that not everybody can be a FAANG employee or has the desire to sit in front of a computer writing code their whole lives.

The US is not in record unemployment. Not in either direction.

It's recovering and that is a good thing.

Youth unemployment in Spain or Italy is clearly structural.

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

#478

Post by ravenstine » Fri, Jun 11, 2021, 11:49 PM UTC

Mediterraneo10 wrote: post #357

pcbro141 wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On a related note, on mainstream TV/articles about declining marriage/birthrates in the West, it's common to see criticisms about modern Western men. How women can't find life partners because men aren't masculine enough anymore, don't want to grow up, don't get educated etc. But very rarely do you see any criticism or even questioning about modern Western women and what men want in a woman. Only what women want. The…

> Degrees don't make you marriage material. This gets said so much on fora with men who regard themselves as “redpilled”, but it makes no sense to me personally. As a bookish and arts-inclined person, so much of my worldview, the things that occupy my thoughts during the day, has been formed by the canon of literature, music, films. No woman would seem dating and marriage material to me if she weren’t similarly erudi…

> Often the man claiming that men don’t care about a woman’s education, goes on to say that what matters is that the woman knows, for example, how to cook. That, too, has never made sense to me. I live in a country where for the childless, eating out good healthy food is not appreciably more expensive than cooking at home, and a woman who chooses to take advantage of that and use her valuable time for other pursuits, would seem more attractive.

If a woman is basically the mirror image of a man (degree, high paying job, spends most of the day at an office), then what exactly is a man buying into with a relationship with said woman? Maybe intimacy, but that feeling will wear off after a few years. A vagina? Well, that's kind of depressing on its own. Expecting men to love and accept women who serve the exact same role they do in life is like wondering why companies aren't run entirely by managers, or entirely by assembly line workers. Men can already make a bunch of money and find intellectual stimulation from other men, and a woman has to compete with that. So what does a woman necessarily provide a man in that case?

Related to that, an intellectual woman probably isn't going to have a lot of time for anything outside of a few hours of eating food, watching Netflix, and maybe sex. That's all fine and good, except there's a kind of relationship that already fulfills those things, and it's called friends with benefits. Why make a contract with the state that gives half your possessions to the opposite party if things go wrong when you can get the benefits without any of that baggage?

No offense, but it can be really astounding how people simply can't understand that the programming they received about college degrees can be wrong. Man spent millions of years mating with women who didn't have a college degree (and vise versa!). A woman with a college degree does little more than what the man already can do with his own college degree.

It's just like the field of software engineering. No one really wants to work with a jerk with credentials. They want someone with good qualities that they can get along with.

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

#479

Post by 01100011 » Fri, Jun 11, 2021, 11:51 PM UTC

MeinBlutIstBlau wrote: post #417

mynameisash wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, blow…

I try to tell this to kids having FOMO right now with the housing market going crazy(same feeling people had in '06, even if the causes were different).

I bought a house young(26) and spent a good part of the next 16 years working on it. Sure, I enjoyed some of it, but much of it I did not. I did make money with the appreciation, but I also spent a lot on repairs and improvements. If I had focused on my career and my hobbies, I'd be richer and happier now. That all said, I didn't have kids. Maybe if I did I'd think it was worth it. Society puts a high value on having a home though, and much of that is bullshit. The world wants you to think owning a home will complete your life and signify your success but it is much more complicated than that.

Homes tie you down. They're fairly illiquid assets. Transactional costs are huge. Neighborhood issues can significantly affect your quality of life and net worth while remaining nearly completely outside your control.

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

#480

Post by majormajor » Fri, Jun 11, 2021, 11:52 PM UTC

ravenstine wrote: post #478

Mediterraneo10 wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Degrees don't make you marriage material. This gets said so much on fora with men who regard themselves as “redpilled”, but it makes no sense to me personally. As a bookish and arts-inclined person, so much of my worldview, the things that occupy my thoughts during the day, has been formed by the canon of literature, music, films. No woman would seem dating and marriage material to me if she weren’t similarly erudi…

> Often the man claiming that men don’t care about a woman’s education, goes on to say that what matters is that the woman knows, for example, how to cook. That, too, has never made sense to me. I live in a country where for the childless, eating out good healthy food is not appreciably more expensive than cooking at home, and a woman who chooses to take advantage of that and use her valuable time for other pursuits,…

You think a better relationship would be built on a "cook and clean and take care of kids for me" role? I can pay to have that done for me these days!