Live data from Hacker News

No one expects young men to do anything and they are responding by doing nothing

robkhenderson.substack.com

661–670 of 1001 posts

Re: No one expects young men to do anything and they are responding by doing nothing

#661
post #277
post #3

This is an important read, especially this part. > This highly educated and affluent person prioritized stability for her own children. But refused to publicly endorse this value so that less fortunate children could also benefit from family stability. I’m from a rigidly socially conservative immigrant family that professes fashionably liberal values in public—imposing a double standard between “us” and “Americans.”…

> Watching and hearing about the family instability in these communities is heartbreaking. Half or more of everyone’s parents are divorced. The kids float around seeking stability and the adults can’t provide it. You seem to be attributing the cause of this to 'Telling men and boys it's cool and fine to divorce' and not attributing to say... declining material and social capitol in the lower four quintiles of wealth…

This statistic "with the advent of no-fault divorce, divorces went up, but female suicide rates dropped by 20%" seems very surprising to me. By googling I haven't been able to find a source for it. If I look at women's suicide rates over time they seem to be trending up. No fault divorce starts in California in 1969 and is legal in the last state, New York, by 2010. If that causes a significant drop in suicide rate I can't see it on this graph.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/187478/death-rate-from-s...

Additional Googling has turned up for me a paper that gives the 20% reduction claim. Still not clear to me how a 20% reduction in female suicide does not show up in a chart of female suicide rate.

Another interesting thing about this paper is that it references another paper that found the opposite result - i.e. that no fault divorce seems to have increased the suicide rate.

https://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=104...

I tried to find suicide rate in California specifically around 1970. Ideally, I'd like to see a graph going from 1950 to 1990 and see that there is a ~20% drop around the legalization of no fault divorce. I found this paper that does mention a big drop in California suicide rate, especially among women and teens, between 1970 and 1990.

https://sci-hub.se/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1943-278X.1994....

This paper does not attribute the drop in suicide rate to no fault divorce though. As I understand it this paper is saying that the suicide rate drop is explained by two main factors.

First, a change in how California coroners coded suicides relative to how other coroners did it. If I'm understanding correctly it seems in 1970 California coroners were inclined to mark deaths resulting from suicide attempt damage as suicide. Because of this, in 1970, California cities had about double the suicide rate of US cities. By 1990 California coroners were doing what other coroners were doing and California cities had effectively the same rate of suicide as US cities.

In my imagination this works as - if a woman attempts to kill herself by overdose, but survives the attempt, though has irreparable organ damage and dies from that a month later - in the 1970's California coroners would call that suicide, but by 1990 they would call it an unintentional death. Since men tend to kill themselves with guns or by hanging men tend to die when they attempt suicide. Women are more likely to try poisoning or drug over dose and thus are more likely to survive the attempt but take an eventually fatal injury. This would explain why women's suicidality is apparently more affected by a change in coroner practice than men's.

Second factor is changing demographics. American Indians are the most suicidal, then white people. Between 1970 and 1990 the proportion of these two groups declined and the number of the relatively not-suicidal Hispanics increased dramatically. Thus, the suicide rate in California will appear to plummet - not because of any change in behavior or policy, but simply because there are more less suicidal people moving in.

After reading about this for the last hour my current impression is that we probably don't know the affect of no fault divorce on female suicide rates. The academic literature is contested (I've seen two papers on the specific point with opposite claims), the statistics are not clear (female suicide rate is trending up), and in the state with the sharpest change in suicide rate following no fault divorce legalization (to my knowledge this is California) there are other explanations for the change.

Re: No one expects young men to do anything and they are responding by doing nothing

#662
post #543

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People tend to be absolutist about whether it’s better for kids if unhappy parents get divorced, but as the saying goes every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way. Some marriages are hell for everybody involved and need to end. I put abuse situations in that category of course and also marriages that have so much animosity that they can’t stop fighting. On the other end of marriages that may end in divorce are si…

Quoted post unavailable.

Please don't descend into flamewar like this. That's not what HN is for, and it destroys what it is for, so if you'd please not, we'd appreciate it.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: No one expects young men to do anything and they are responding by doing nothing

#663
post #570
post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its innumeracy propaganda. There are no minimum wage jobs where I live anymore, and I live in a lower cost of living area (not Manhattan or silicon valley, LOL). I'm not surprised no one can afford rent at $7/hr when no one can find a job paying $7/hr. Costco has a sign up paying $19/hr to empty trash cans and they can't hire people at that low of pay and the article claims its a tragedy that a middle tier single bed…

First, it's not federal minimum wage, it's minimum wage for each jurisdiction. So Washington state being $11 or whatever it is, not the federal min. Second, for some reason I believe the propaganda that city living is inherently less costly despite it being pricier everywhere in the USA, so I believe rich city liberals need to change zoning to allow cheap housing to be built. Finally, they're living that way by getti…

"First, it's not federal minimum wage, it's minimum wage for each jurisdiction. So Washington state being $11 or whatever it is, not the federal min."

The BLS data was only tracking federal minimum. I would like to the state minimum wage earners, but that wasn't in that report.

"so I believe rich city liberals need to change zoning to allow cheap housing to be built."

I believe it's all due to preferences. The preference for sfh, preference for better schools, preference for low crime, etc. It's pretty cheap to live in many north Philly neighborhoods. Many people don't want to.

I agree with the final part. I turned down jobs in college due to the commute cost.

Re: No one expects young men to do anything and they are responding by doing nothing

#664
post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Im not American. The Americans I do know who really hate defund are the very definition of latte swilling liberals complaining about crime going up in their nice suburbs in SF, Portland and Seattle while... complaining bitterly about rich white liberals. The one supporter I do know lives a few blocks from George Floyd although the slogan seems to mean something different to her (transfer funds and responsibilities fo…

That's what most people mean when they say "defund". The problem is that America has an issue with being reactive instead of proactive. Instead of treating drugs and crime as an economics issue and getting ahead of it with social policies, we react to it after the fact and criminalize everything and pay for a standing army with zero accountability. Creating an arms race between gangs and police, with the average citi…

At least it's clear what Republicans mean by "Defund Planned Parenthood".

If you have to keep explaining "when I say X, I really mean Y", you should maybe stop saying X.

Re: No one expects young men to do anything and they are responding by doing nothing

#665

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Giving birth to a baby without being married is a religious point of view. I am supposed to believe that a "sociology professor at Princeton, and Kefalas, a sociology professor at St. Joseph’s University" can somehow convince me that he knows what a "low-income woman" thinks or does in her life. I've lived around "low-income women" my whole life and I haven't figured it out. "The conventional view is that a lack of m…

> This link outright proves there are not 10 million men unemployed in America. https://www.statista.com/statistics/193244/unemployment-leve ... So who's statistics are right? Both of them are right, this is a common confusion in unemployment statistics. Unemployment as a technical term refers to people who both don't have a job and are "in the workforce", meaning they gave the right answers for the survey taker to c…

They aren’t in U-3 (the most commonly cited figure), but might be in U-4, U-5, or U-6 (or might be in school, retired, permanently disabled, or something else that most people wouldn’t think of as “unemployed”).

https://www.stlouisfed.org/open-vault/2018/june/unemployment...

Re: No one expects young men to do anything and they are responding by doing nothing

#666
post #17

Rob Henderson also coined the term "luxury beliefs" which is one of the most apt name for something we've been witnessing lately ("defund the police" or "healthy at every size" or "marriage is just an oppressive institution of the patriarchy"). I highly recommend that other essay too https://nypost.com/2019/08/17/luxury-beliefs-are-the-latest-...

Rob went to Yale. He's literally a luxury columnist.

"When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names." (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

You may not owe luxury columnists better, but you owe this community better if you're participating in it.

Re: No one expects young men to do anything and they are responding by doing nothing

#667
Holy crap I never imagined so much weird Ward Cleaver ideology from HN. This thread is insane to read. I expected this article to be universally eviscerated, since it's tons of conjecture and bad data badly interpreted, but there's a ton of people who apparently feel like their male identity is attached to some bizarre archetype. Some sort of fucked up Form for men floating out in the ether that looks like a cross between Archie Bunker and John Wayne.

Re: No one expects young men to do anything and they are responding by doing nothing

#668
post #480

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are you talking about? Just try and find a plumber, carpenter or contractor that isn’t backlogged for months. There’s a ton of really good blue collar jobs, often where you are your own boss. Unfortunately, society is pushing everyone to college.

It's possible that most people just dont want to be plumbers, right? Maybe they would like a chance to do something they think is more interesting. To suggest people just do the thing that makes them money highlights another problem if you ask me.

I think I'd rather be a plumber or electrician than a dev. I'm so tired of all the BS at work. At least in those jobs you aren't sedentary and you actually get to see the positive impact you make on someone's life. Sure you might get some difficult customers occasionally, or be dealing with literal shit.

Re: No one expects young men to do anything and they are responding by doing nothing

#669

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think the left thinks of privilege solely as racial or gender privilege. Here's an article on "everydayfeminism.com" about the broad view progressives take on it: https://everydayfeminism.com/2014/05/income-vs-wealth/

I disagree from extensive experience. Unadorned, “privilege” refers to some identity privilege 99% of the time. For example, “check your privilege” virtually always refers to some identity privilege. Moreover, the salient point wasn’t “the left doesn’t believe in wealth privilege” as much as “ no one disputes wealth privilege and thus Henderson isn’t being hypocritical here as you imply”.

I think the left gets caricatured heavily by the right (there's a "both sides" counterargument here, but my view is that the right is very easy to caricature because it's mostly absurd, and my arguments are gay marriage, gun laws, climate change, immigration, and fiscal/monetary policy) into an image of a huge Twitter mob canceling people for saying the wrong words and miscounting the number of genders. I'm very unsympathetic to people coming from this view of the left; it feels lazy and motivated entirely by insecurity and animus. Even if it's true, compared with the problems caused by Republican policies (Iraq/Afghanistan wars, gutting of regulatory state and scientific research leading to opioid crisis, deregulation, tax cuts, attacks on unions leading to the total collapse of the middle class, active lobbying against climate science leading to... Armageddon?) it carries no weight.

Or TLDR, yeah sometimes we get carried away on Twitter. But at least we're not roasting the planet.

Re: No one expects young men to do anything and they are responding by doing nothing

#670

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As notacoward observes… literally 'men'? To my ear, 'people' would've worked too. I feel it's always worth asking whether there are unstated axioms here being snuck into the discourse. Especially in a big conversation about how 'everything is being ruined because people won't stick to the old good ways'. Though it may be an uncomfortable question to some, to what extent does this rest upon female humans serving as li…

All humans, indeed every life-form, are for " serving as livestock and spawning/rearing children ", period. Until somebody invents Dune-style axolotl tanks to clone people and robot nannies, that's not going to change. If a society and its culture can't perpetuate itself, it will be replaced by one that does so we all need to come up with a balance that works to perpetuate the type of society that we want. In the mea…

No, I don't think so. I specifically exempted the person I was replying to in my 'you' unless he wants to lay claim to being the sort of person I meant, and I'm happy with my language in the context I expressed it: 'if you really want to maximize your dignity and social value of men'

From my perspective we are looking at social balance that incorporates more variation, and that there were obvious problems with the previous balance that's now said to be 'fraying'. I think 'dignity and social respect' is a zero sum game, and largely dependent on power balances: you can never truly feel 'I am treated with dignity and social respect!' unless you're being kowtowed to by at least some. Otherwise, your perspective will inevitably be challenged, perhaps a lot if you mingle with a lot of varied people.

The state of actual freedom, is a state of social instability. Nobody defaults to the dominant, nobody's guaranteed to win, and the larger the pool you're in, the more likely someone is going to turn up, compete hard, and make you VERY challenged indeed. And they're in the same pool so there's doubtless something making them very insecure in turn, even if they're stomping all over you.

You can make this seem like a solid, reliable, secure social balance as long as you're able to crush opposing forces and have whatever your class/gender/race is, totally dominate everyone else. Then it won't seem 'fraying' or 'a problem' at all, because you'll not be in serious danger: others will.

The nice thing about humans is that, as thinking life-forms, we get to self-govern the appetites we share with dogs. As such we cease being livestock. This counts for women, too, exactly as much as it counts for men: it's more aspirational than practical. But we do get to question these things, both personally and societally.

Post reply on HN