Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

robkhenderson.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

871–880 of 1001 posts

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

#871

Post by op00to »

jollybean wrote: post #770
d23 wrote: post #44

Do people find this stuff compelling? Rank speculation and confident assertion with minimal substantive backing? I’d find this statement equally compelling (which is to say, not at all): > Since we stopped using horses as a primary means of transportation, men’s sense of self worth has diminished. Riding a horse carried a lot of high status connotations: drive, masculinity, towering above the land, and man’s dominati…

Honestly, that kind of makes sense. Riding horses is a bit of a masculine thing. I wonder if there's a 'tiny bit' to that. That said, I wonder if most men ever even really rode horses very often.

No, horses were incredibly expensive historically speaking. They need land, food, care, all of which were real expenses.

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

#872

Post by karpierz »

endisneigh wrote: post #344
gumby wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t understand: are you talking about PPP GDP per capita? I agree that the US optimizes for that, but it doesn’t translate into higher quality of life by metrics like life expectancy, literacy, leisure time, malnutrition, proportion of “precariat” etc.

Yes, hence my original question.

If you define socioeconomic status narrowly (gender, race, age, net wealth), then I was wrong to say that the success of European countries is rooted in their socioeconomic status. I'm happy to take that point back, and focus on why I don't think controlling for socioeconomic status is the right analysis.

However, even if the US shows better outcomes when controlling for socioeconomic status, the distribution of people within socioeconomic status is relevant.

If the US has 1000 impoverished people and 10 middle class people, and Germany has 10 impoverished people and 1000 middle class people, the relevant comparison is the German middle class to the US impoverished class.

In other words, you'd want to compare outcomes based on percentiles regardless of socioeconomic status.

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

#873

Post by philistine »

rayiner wrote: post #755
philistine wrote: post #746

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're trying to think that stable families become less stable if their waged stagnate. They don't. What happens is that in aggregate, with stagnating wages, there are less stable (middle-class) families in society. For so-called poorer countries , they are differently structured. It's tough to compare their family units with our rich nations.

> For so-called poorer countries, they are differently structured. It's tough to compare their family units with our rich nations. But that’s exactly the point! Prior to the 1960s revolution in social norms, families in poor countries weren’t structured all that differently than ones in the US. I’m no Reaganite, but the fact is that the stuff the old “family values” conservatives said is pretty much the same thing my…

Asian-Americans are not this rose-tinted perfect example of family values breeding success. https://www.vox.com/identities/22530103/asians-americans-wea...

The crazy successful asian immigrants are mostly those who came recently, and who are bluntly the best and brightest of Asia coming to America for a better life due to US policy attracting the very best. Just like the above conversation, you only think of one slice of data to arrive at your conclusion.

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

#874

Post by rayiner »

hotpotamus wrote: post #865
rayiner wrote: post #761

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s also a couple of billion people in Asia who think the exact same way as the author about families and culture. I’ve never read Laffer or Kudlow. I’m interpreting society through the values of my Bangladeshi parents. And they lead me to the same conclusion. And given the remarkably higher income mobility of Asian kids raised in the bottom income compared to white kids, I think social liberals are sticking thei…

I don't see how this relates to the question the parent comment was asking. But yes, the US does have a history with resentment of Asian immigrants, one of the first laws regarding immigration was the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, and you may be able to surmise from the title what that law did. I think you'll find that conservatives make very capricious allies once they believe you are "stealing their jobs".

The point is that “conservative economists” didn’t invent these ideas to annoy democrats. Asian people tell their kids the same thing. My dad is a blue dog democrat. But he’s not going to ignore his own cultural values just to avoid agreeing with conservatives on something. That would be absurd.

> But yes, the US does have a history with resentment of Asian immigrants, one of the first laws regarding immigration was the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, and you may be able to surmise from the title what that law did. I think you'll find that conservatives make very capricious allies once they believe you are "stealing their jobs".

Who cares about any of that? At the end of the day, Reagan’s America and Newt Gingrich’s America has been extremely good to Asians.

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

#875

Post by BurningFrog »

TedDoesntTalk wrote: post #150
BurningFrog wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OP wrote "lucky" but probably meant "fortunate".

Can you define the difference (Serious question)?

To me "lucky" means something good happened by dumb luck, while "fortunate" means something good happened for any reason.

Winning the lottery is both lucky and fortunate, while winning Wimbledon is only fortunate.

Not sure how much the dictionaries agree.

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

#876

Post by ldiracdelta »

jdrc wrote: post #399

What about young women? Aren't they supposedly the gatekeepers to procreation? The ones that have evolved to choose what's best for their kids (a two family home)? Did they stop choosing right?

The incentives changed drastically for women. You used to have to be married to a man to access his coffers. Try collecting alimony or child support from a guy who can move 100 miles away and essentially be unfindable. Now all you need is just a dna test and the state will hunt him to the ends of the earth. The state, through welfare, has also provided a higher bar than some lower class men can provide for women.

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

#877

Post by motohagiography »

d23 wrote: post #44

Do people find this stuff compelling? Rank speculation and confident assertion with minimal substantive backing? I’d find this statement equally compelling (which is to say, not at all): > Since we stopped using horses as a primary means of transportation, men’s sense of self worth has diminished. Riding a horse carried a lot of high status connotations: drive, masculinity, towering above the land, and man’s dominati…

Triggered my HN alert on horses. I ride seriously more days than not. It's a huge and rich topic, but short version is - there were no kings without horsemen. It's been the training for officer class for milennia because it uniquely inculcates a fearlessness and physicality and magnanimity that really does elevate and improve men by developing qualities that are transferrable to other beings in nature.

There are men, and there are horsemen. Even in ancient mythology, wisdom originated from the "centaurs," from the "east." It's not woo. I may even write a book on it. Mostly women ride in north america (outside western/rodeo), and the reasons for that are at least as controversial as this thread. Women who ride seriously are usually superior leaders as well, and it's just not something one can easily explain without experience in it.

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

#878

Post by anamax »

danaris wrote: post #804
dash2 wrote: post #672

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The evidence is that married couples are more stable than unmarried couples.

Why are the only options "married couple" or "unmarried couple"? Or even "married couple" or "single parent"? Why can't broader family structures be considered, and be stable?

Those are the options that have significant data.

No one knows how other models work. However, note that "stable" comes from the data. Maybe other models are stable, maybe they're not. Without data, it's simply unknown.

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

#879

Post by akomtu »

archhn wrote: post #385
imranq wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a country outside of the US that does not have some of the corrupt aspects you mention? Does this corruption pervade only at a national level or also at state and town and community layers?

The U.S. is a special case because of it's grandiose claims. We are supposed to be a nation by the people and for the people, a nation that is supposed to be a bastion of liberty against the dark tyrannical forces of the world that routinely attempt to enslave man. Corruption in this context is more severe than equivalent corruption in countries differently constituted. It's like a catholic priest who has sex with wo…

The mysterious spiritual sickness is just the expected arrival of weaker souls: they have the right to live too, but they won't be able to uphold the standards set by their greater ancestors.

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

#880

Post by TedDoesntTalk »

reducesuffering wrote: post #842
TedDoesntTalk wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In 100 years or less, whites will be the minority in the US.

Ehh, I doubt you could distinguish the difference between a majority of 2nd generation Hispanic-Americans and "white" European ancestry people, by worldviews or looks (because the Hispanics have European ancestry too). Just look at the leading politicians in Texas, Ted Cruz and Beto Orourke and tell me which one is Hispanic and how it makes any difference. And this indistinguishability will only increase over time, w…

Perhaps not in looks but what about culture, language, food, traditions, and values?
Post reply on HN