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

Men Without Work (2016)

time.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 471 posts

Re: Men Without Work (2016)

#11

Post by dbingham »

Octoth0rpe wrote: post #6
cs702 wrote: post #3

Many men who would have done well as labor or middle management in, say, 20th century factories, now find themselves the victims of a rapidly changing, ever-more-concentrated, ever-more-automated global capitalist economy that has less and less need for them. And to them it feels as if no one cares about them. To riff on Churchill[a]: Capitalism is the worst economic system ever invented... except for all others that…

That's a pretty useless quote. It entirely ignores the fact the economic systems all exist on a spectrum from extreme libertarianism to complete state ownership. The question has never been capitalism versus socialism, it's always been "how much regulation do we want as a society in exchange for a higher floor in our quality of life?" (and its follow up, did that regulation actually achieve its goals?)

It's not just a spectrum from Libertarian Free Market to State Socialism. There are many other forms of economic system.

Capitalism isn't even synonymous with free markets. Capitalism just speaks to who gets to own the businesses (those with the capital). There are alternatives other than "the state". Worker cooperatives exist and are perfectly functional and successful. Which means one economic system that isn't often spoken about might be described as "Free Market Socialism", in which businesses are governed democratically by their workers in a free market. That system doesn't really fit on the above referenced spectrum.

Re: Men Without Work (2016)

#12

Post by adolph »

In the transition to a post-scarcity world it may be that this crisis represents a transition in which people's mental wellbeing is less moored to earnings and oriented more toward value.

Re: Men Without Work (2016)

#13

Post by javajosh »

afavour wrote: post #8

I'm very far from a red-pilled anti-feminist but I do think this is a hugely overlooked problem. Perhaps too much of an aside but I was lucky enough to be able to take an extended parental leave when my child was born, being a "stay at home dad" for the best part of a year. It was incredibly hard work, incredibly rewarding but also a real eye opener at how society still doesn't know what to do with a full-time parent…

The fact that you need to apologize and explain why you care about issues that might affect men is telling in and of itself.

The American Zeitgeist around gender issues is distorted to dehumanize men and alienate anyone who even dares to recognize this fact. I'm a pretty hardcore liberal and I I'm totally astonished on a daily basis at the hate in vitriol directed at men that go without comment, let alone castigation that it deserves.

As for the rest of your post, absolutely. I love being a dad and it's a shame that our society doesn't seem to care much about father's apart from being a provider of money. Every man should be aware that if things go south and their marriage that their children could be taken away from them and they will be vilified if they try to get them back. You will not get sympathy from your friends or family or from the public at large. He will be fighting the tide.

Re: Men Without Work (2016)

#14

Post by fullshark »

afavour wrote: post #8

I'm very far from a red-pilled anti-feminist but I do think this is a hugely overlooked problem. Perhaps too much of an aside but I was lucky enough to be able to take an extended parental leave when my child was born, being a "stay at home dad" for the best part of a year. It was incredibly hard work, incredibly rewarding but also a real eye opener at how society still doesn't know what to do with a full-time parent…

I think this book is probably more about men who aren't working and are instead doing nothing productive. Raising children wouldn't count.

Re: Men Without Work (2016)

#16

Post by sschueller »

bobkazamakis wrote: post #4
cs702 wrote: post #3

Many men who would have done well as labor or middle management in, say, 20th century factories, now find themselves the victims of a rapidly changing, ever-more-concentrated, ever-more-automated global capitalist economy that has less and less need for them. And to them it feels as if no one cares about them. To riff on Churchill[a]: Capitalism is the worst economic system ever invented... except for all others that…

"deaths because of communism are entirely because of communism, but deaths because of capitalism are because you didn't pull your bootstraps hard enough"

Capitalism wants you to think it's your fault but when you get sick from poisoned food and water but it's entirely the fault of the greedy capitalist that put profits over all. Sure that in true capitalism the bad actors go out of business but how many die before that happens?

What do I care if people die because my actions today in 100 years, I won't be around to have to face the consequences... /s

Re: Men Without Work (2016)

#17

Post by [deleted] »

dbingham wrote: post #11
Octoth0rpe wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a pretty useless quote. It entirely ignores the fact the economic systems all exist on a spectrum from extreme libertarianism to complete state ownership. The question has never been capitalism versus socialism, it's always been "how much regulation do we want as a society in exchange for a higher floor in our quality of life?" (and its follow up, did that regulation actually achieve its goals?)

It's not just a spectrum from Libertarian Free Market to State Socialism. There are many other forms of economic system. Capitalism isn't even synonymous with free markets. Capitalism just speaks to who gets to own the businesses (those with the capital). There are alternatives other than "the state". Worker cooperatives exist and are perfectly functional and successful. Which means one economic system that isn't oft…

[deleted]

Re: Men Without Work (2016)

#18

Post by dbingham »

afavour wrote: post #8

I'm very far from a red-pilled anti-feminist but I do think this is a hugely overlooked problem. Perhaps too much of an aside but I was lucky enough to be able to take an extended parental leave when my child was born, being a "stay at home dad" for the best part of a year. It was incredibly hard work, incredibly rewarding but also a real eye opener at how society still doesn't know what to do with a full-time parent…

Yeah, this is real. Men still tend to get erased from the parental equation to a large degree. And this doesn't just affect stay at home dads. Much of the dialog around pregnancy loss and childloss seems to forget that there's often a father involved as well, and that the loss impacts both parents. When we lost our first child to a still birth, people would often focus entirely on my wife when offering sympathy and comfort. The assumption was often that I was supporting her through the loss, not that I was also someone experiencing the loss who needed support. This is problematic on multiple levels, but on a very basic level it just made it that much harder for me to grieve the loss and made me feel erased.

That said, I don't think it makes sense to connect the issues surrounding the ways in which men and women are still gendered in society, our resulting assumptions, and the harm they do with this particular problem. Because I think this particular problem affects both men and women, though with perhaps some differences in affect that are worth calling out because of the aforementioned gender roles and assumptions.

I haven't read the referenced book, but I would separate this problem from the one described in the book. I think we're reinforcing those stereotypes when we frame the general problem of "people not having work" as being specific to men.

Even beyond that, I would challenge the whole notion that people need to be included in the workforce. I think we're framing the problem wrong when we look at it that way. People need to be economically secure, they need to have deep connection to communities, and they need to have something meaningful to do with their time. Right now, many people only get those things from work. This is true of both men and women, plenty of women talk about loss of identity and struggle finding community when they become stay at home parents.

So I would argue that the book is taking the wrong framing - both in focusing on men and in taking the wrong assumptions, or perhaps, the wrong ordering.

Re: Men Without Work (2016)

#19

Post by Octoth0rpe »

dbingham wrote: post #11
Octoth0rpe wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a pretty useless quote. It entirely ignores the fact the economic systems all exist on a spectrum from extreme libertarianism to complete state ownership. The question has never been capitalism versus socialism, it's always been "how much regulation do we want as a society in exchange for a higher floor in our quality of life?" (and its follow up, did that regulation actually achieve its goals?)

It's not just a spectrum from Libertarian Free Market to State Socialism. There are many other forms of economic system. Capitalism isn't even synonymous with free markets. Capitalism just speaks to who gets to own the businesses (those with the capital). There are alternatives other than "the state". Worker cooperatives exist and are perfectly functional and successful. Which means one economic system that isn't oft…

I agree with everything you're saying. My reference to free market -> state socialism as a spectrum I think is still valid, but is only one axis upon which an economic system can be evaluated. Syndicalism, worker coops of course exist and are distinct from each other, but those both still exist on a spectrum from a free for all to state ownership. Admittedly I did conflate things a bit with my point about raising the floor on quality of life though.

Re: Men Without Work (2016)

#20

Post by fullshark »

ianai wrote: post #2

In lieu of any particular review I’m submitting the Wikipedia page. I was unemployed for most of the Great Recession and can empathize with much of this book. I also just remember the “tragedy of my twenties” realizing society had basically no interest in me. Despite a math degree and IT/programming experience. Then the myriad people I’ve interacted with in the last decade plus who are in this situation. Luckily I no…

Society (meaning gov't programs) doesn't care about you beyond your economic output. We offshored countless unskilled labor jobs that men would traditionally take in America and told them they needed to take out crippling loans in order to get knowledge worker skills that our industry is working overtime to make obsolete within 5-10 years anyway.

Many just are giving up, they don't see an opportunity here, they just are going to play video games, take drugs, and accomplish nothing with their lives.

Post reply on HN