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

#501

Post by gowld » Sat, Jun 12, 2021, 12:20 AM UTC

mechagodzilla wrote: post #406

whiskyant wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the parents don't provide for them, what do you think would happen to the nephews? Do you think they would be homeless? I certainly don't. The fact that the parents are providing a roof over their head and paying for their food/water/electricity/internet/clothes/games/etc is why they haven't had a job nor any desire for one well into their 30s. Honestly, because the parents keep providing for them, there's no impe…

The parents certainly can be enabling, but I think you're ignoring that there are plenty of people that are homeless, that do wind up with dependencies on alcohol, drugs like meth, etc, and your implication that anyone (especially people in their 30s with no real work history) can get full-time, minimum wage work doesn't seem realistic. Many of those jobs are both minimum wage and few enough hours per week (to avoid…

Spiked rich kids are spoiled. If they weren't spoiled rich kids the parents would be risking homelessness by supporting a layabout who isn't paying rent.

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

#502

Post by gowld » Sat, Jun 12, 2021, 12:22 AM UTC

paulpauper wrote: post #438

nxc18 wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Bezos has, what, $200B of total wealth? Divided a million ways makes $200K, a nice nest egg but not a lifetime of freeloading.

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

#503

Post by notriddle » Sat, Jun 12, 2021, 12:25 AM UTC

_Microft wrote: post #145

zitterbewegung wrote: post #19

What is strange is this has been going on since the 1950s and it is even invariant in relation to economic cycles. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300001 I am also an exception to this rule (I am employed but I live at home). Currently I'm saving for a down payment to a Condo / House.

Maybe is has to do with women entering the labor force? Here I plotted the labor force participation rate of women and men plus the sum of both. While the rate for men declines, the one for women increases. Update: here is a new graph without the assumption that there are equally many men and women (participation rates for each are now multiplied by the population size of each and normalized to total population). The…

I think that's horribly misleading.

Obviously, the percentage of women in the workforce shot up after anti-discrimination laws were applied to sex, but since the turn of the century, that trend has leveled off and reversed. If you just look at the last 20 years, the percentage of men and women in the work force have both been going down.

Using your own, new chart (EFG8), which I used DoL statistics to verify [1], the overall labor force participation rate dropped from 67 in 2000 to 63 right before the pandemic hit, almost monotonically. What happened 20 years ago?

[1]: https://www.dol.gov/agencies/wb/data/facts-over-time/women-i... (specifically, "Labor force participation rate by sex, race and Hispanic ethnicity")

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

#504

Post by JoeyBananas » Sat, Jun 12, 2021, 12:25 AM UTC

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…

I completely reject everything that you are saying. A grown man (or woman) who is dependent on their parents at that level has very serious problems because they are the equivalents of obese domestic dogs in a world full of wolves. Left to their own devices, they would have nothing.

A person who does nothing with their life when they could be doing something is really a narcissist. They take it for granted that others will support them even though they contribute nothing and they don't understand that there could be any reason to work hard other than their own immediate pleasure. Ironically, these people often complain that the reason for their situation is because others aren't doing enough to help them. In their minds, it's not really their fault that they are failures and they go to great lengths to convince other people of these lies.

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

#505

Post by ravenstine » Sat, Jun 12, 2021, 12:25 AM UTC

Mediterraneo10 wrote: post #486

ravenstine wrote: post #478

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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,…

Sure, one can get intellectual stimulation from other men, but having an intellectual partner means one can have intellectual stimulation around the clock – if you think of something interesting at any hour of the day, you have someone to share it and discuss it with. I value my male friends, but you can't reasonably expect to see them more than a few hours a week, and many gradually fall away as they e.g. get bogged…

I agree with most of you're saying, but I don't believe this requires a woman needs a college degree or hold down a "job" to be a good companion or that a college degree likely helps her at all in that context. I would even argue the same for men. The thing I'm arguing for is that it shouldn't be surprising that most men are indifferent to women's college education. Yes, some men on the edge of the bell curve are going to require a woman of a university background. The rest of the time, it doesn't add anything to a man's experience with a woman and can even potentially detract from it.

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

#506

Post by spideymans » Sat, Jun 12, 2021, 12:25 AM UTC

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…

More succinctly, why work when we have nothing to work for?

Anecdotally, I just graduated from university and am gainfully employed. I'm really happy to be employed, yet I quickly realized that I have no idea what I want to do with all this money. I'm never going to be able to buy a house. I'm not particularly enthusiastic about having kids, and don't think I can afford children in the first place. I have no major life milestones to look forward to other than retirement. So why am I working? What do I do with all this money, other than dumping it in investments and generally hoarding the wealth? I've yet to find an answer.

Who knows, maybe I'll end up retiring before my 40th birthday.

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

#507

Post by GloriousKoji » Sat, Jun 12, 2021, 12:26 AM UTC

MeinBlutIstBlau wrote: post #397

samlevine wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dating isn't fun. At least it isn't for me as a middle aged divorce. I get matches, I meet interesting people and go on dates and the process is just emotionally exhausting. I would rather put in time into my job, or my friends, or my hobbies. If I can meet someone who wants to be part of my life, fantastic. If not, I will live until I don't.

As a 26 year old finishing up a Comp Sci degree, I'm in a similar camp. I mean I'd rate myself as a 5-6 straight up average. I get matches and have gone on several dates. What I've noticed is most men don't do profiles right at all. They show themselves off in what they do, not what's attractive. Also nobody every acknowledges that selfies are bad. I mean these are just little tips I've learned honing a profile over…

> They show themselves off in what they do, not what's attractive.

Can you elaborate on that? I thought the general advice is to show off what you do because you hope to find someone who also enjoys the same.

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

#508

Post by nashalo_nighly » Sat, Jun 12, 2021, 12:27 AM UTC

jplr8922 wrote: post #313

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.

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…

I agree with your sentiment except for the « men unable to feel » thing. Emotions and sentiments are a fundamentally human thing and men feel too. However there is a social pressure on men to not show emotions and sentiments. We fight patriarchy so that women are less pressured into being fragile and pretty housewives but we should also fight it so that men are less pressured to be emotionless hardworking robots who have to provide for their family.

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

#509

Post by munificent » Sat, Jun 12, 2021, 12:27 AM UTC

perplex wrote: post #413

holoduke wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Addiction is fascinating because the distribution of outcomes is so broad across users. Damn near anything can be life-debilitatingly addictive to some segment of people while others can consume it with absolutely no problems.

Psychology obviously can't always be simplified, but I think a key component underlying when consumption goes in a bad direction is why someone is using.

If you're playing videogames because your life is otherwise fine and you want to sprinkle some leisure on top, it's fine. Hell, you can play for hours a day and it's not really a problem if you're content with the time spent.

But if you're playing videogames as an avoidance strategy for underlying psychological problems, then you're setting yourself up for addiction. Because avoidance tends to cause those problems to grow. You aren't working on them, and seeing yourself avoid them subconsciously sends a signal that the problem is too big for you to handle. So the whole time you're avoiding, you're building it up bigger and bigger.

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

#510

Post by Mountain_Skies » Sat, Jun 12, 2021, 12:27 AM UTC

88840-8855 wrote: post #391

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…

I have a good friend who is working in HR. She used to be in hiring, now she is in the talent and development stream. We are not in the same company. A few weeks ago I was speaking about my impression that my company is forcing women into promotions and positions just for the sake of reaching targets. I said that it felt unfair towards male colleagues. Her reply was something like this: Men had the advantage for thou…

In theory such companies should end up imploding from valuing genital configuration over talent which is why there's so much pressure on the various levels of government to enshrine this type of behavior into law so all competitors will likewise be as hobbled by it.