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

The Rise of Men Who Don’t Work – And What They Do Instead

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 288 posts

Re: The Rise of Men Who Don’t Work – And What They Do Instead

#201

Post by humanrebar »

ctdonath wrote: post #109
bruceb wrote: post #5

There are books on this phenomenon. Part of what they say is now men have access to their basic needs with out needing to work as much. Entertainment is abundant and relatively cheap and sex isn't tied to marriage. You can lounge around and be if not exactly satisfied, at least not terrible wanting for stuff. Of course these guys are screwed when it comes to retirement.

Shortly before meeting m'lady, I'd nearly paid off the house and otherwise driven my expenses to near zero. The prospect of withdrawing from the system ("going Galt") was becoming a realistic option; grow much/most of my food (as my folks had growing up), find a mundane job in walking/biking distance (notable as I lived in the country), and spend my time writing what software I wanted and puttering in a back-to-basic…

This is a really good point, actually. Parent says:

  Part of what they say is now men have access to
  their basic needs with out needing to work as much.
...but men don't have access to enough resources to fulfill their basic responsibilities. If you're a celibate hermit who pays his taxes and is funding his own retirement, that's fine. But I don't know many of those.

In reality, one of the easiest ways to be poor is to have a single mom. In other words, one of the easiest ways to be poor is to have a dad who isn't (can't or won't) fulfilling his responsibilities. Men and women who are fertile and sexually active need to be able to care for a child for eighteen years. Yes, birth control, please. But there are millions of single moms out that came from somewhere.

Additionally, someone needs to pay for current social security retirees, poverty programs, etc. And if you aren't having kids, someone else's kids will be paying for both their social security checks and yours.

I say all that not to be judgmental, but to point out that the numbers don't add up for men to just live the minimalist lifestyle free of guilt. Like I said, that's possible, but you'd literally have to live (and die!) off the grid while somehow caring for orphans, veterans, and windows at the same time (lifestyle choices don't count).

Re: The Rise of Men Who Don’t Work – And What They Do Instead

#202

Post by zaroth »

camgunz wrote: post #197
zaroth wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And it's not just disability benefits. When you stop and really analyze it; Medicaid and health insurance credits, SSI, food stamps, EITC, FICA, progressive income tax rates, refundable tax credits, phased-out tax deductions, even things like housing and energy assistance, etc. There's easily $60,000 of services, utilities, fees, and taxes that you pay when earning $100k, that you get for free or don't have to pay if…

I'd also really like to see some numbers, because I don't believe that 60% of a $100k/yr. income is lost to "services, utilities, fees, and taxes that you pay when earning $100k, that you get for free or don't have to pay if you earn $0". Is your list "Medicaid and health insurance credits, SSI, food stamps, EITC, FICA..." things that you have to pay, or benefits you get if your income is $0/yr.? For example, you wou…

See below for a table. Also, please note, $100k household income != $100k individual income. Although if one parent works and the other stays home to take care of the kids...

> Is your list "Medicaid and health insurance credits, SSI, food stamps, EITC, FICA..." things that you have to pay, or benefits you get if your income is $0/yr.? For example, you wouldn't get EITC if you had no income, but you wouldn't get food stamps if you had $100k/yr.

I edited in; they don't all fully stack or else it would hit well over $100k. So it's a very complicated calculation (why we need a nice D3 app to show how everything interacts!). For EITC, I think it's fair to count the full $5k which you could get by working just a little, against the cost of working 'too much'.

I have not done the math necessary to find the global maxima of public support. Frankly, I'm not sure it's a great idea to make that calculation too easy for everyone to figure out, lest we all start optimizing for it!! Conversely, there are many points in the curve where you are below Net-$0. $63k household income for a family of 4 is probably the global-minima, where you're way below Net-$0.

The cost of working is much worse if, for example, you have a qualifying disability but are not vegetative and know how to code. You then have to choose, just stop working and get $30k, or don't go quietly into the night and forgo the entire $30k of SSDI.

Re: The Rise of Men Who Don’t Work – And What They Do Instead

#203

Post by innguest »

jahnu wrote: post #29
shutupalready wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> companies hoarding cash instead of spending it I've heard this sentiment many times but I've wondered if there's an economic fallacy there. Would the economy be better off if lots of companies stopped hoarding cash and hired lots of new employees? Or would there be side-effects like inflation, or some effect of pulling out cash from whatever it was invested in, etc.? Serious question.

Very little down side. People with more income spend more which grows the economy. In a two person economy, your expenditure is my income and my expenditure is your income. If one of us hoards then both of us lose eventually. Also moderate inflation is a good thing. It disincentivises hoarding of cash.

That spending stimulates the economy is a fallacy.

Standard economics defends that idea; but it is only true in a fairy-tale world where you have a magic money printing machine - like the world we are currently living in.

In the real world you actually have to have savings first and foremost in order to produce the products that others will buy.

Hoarding is a good thing since it frees the person to work on what they like, which is likely to benefit others. Also, money hoarded is usually invested in some instrument that might be benefiting other businesses.

> In a two person economy, your expenditure is my income and my expenditure is your income.

This is wrong. Imagine two people in an island. We elect that fish is money since it's the thing we all want and have a use for and can easily trade with each other. Now I fish 5 fish and put that in my savings account (a bucket of salt). As I spend this money, it does not become your income.

You might be confusing the way governments characterize the economy with how a real world economy actually works in practice.

> Also moderate inflation is a good thing. It disincentivises hoarding of cash.

And moderate tax-evasion is a good think because it disincentivizes hoarding of cash by the government. This is wrong as well. Not to say morally wrong, as it's trying to steer people's financial decisions in a definite uniform direction (ie. spending).

That sort of thinking is what had the US government almost shut down yesterday and have to inflate the money supply with $1.1 trillion more. It used to take us decades as a country to spend that much, but now it's only expected to last until September 2015.

But we still have people saying moderate inflation is a good thing.

Re: The Rise of Men Who Don’t Work – And What They Do Instead

#204

Post by humanrebar »

icantthinkofone wrote: post #125
TheBeardKing wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe with that much experience they don't think they can afford him?

I forgot to mention that. He applied at large and small companies but, the kicker is, he's all set for retirement, doesn't need the money, and only wants to bring in about $20K to $30K so he can help fund a non-profit he likes.

I've wondered about this. I often do interviews and say, "This guy isn't gangbusters, but he could help us out with if he's willing to work for the right price."

My bosses usually wince at that sentiment, probably because I'm underestimating how much overhead is or something, but there should be a number that makes it worth it, right? And if the guy ends up being smart and reliable, you could ask him to retrain for a job with more responsibility.

Am I missing something? How else are we going to get all these unemployed men retrained in another field, especially growing ones like tech?

Re: The Rise of Men Who Don’t Work – And What They Do Instead

#205

Post by oscilloscope »

pc2g4d wrote: post #192
zaroth wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And it's not just disability benefits. When you stop and really analyze it; Medicaid and health insurance credits, SSI, food stamps, EITC, FICA, progressive income tax rates, refundable tax credits, phased-out tax deductions, even things like housing and energy assistance, etc. There's easily $60,000 of services, utilities, fees, and taxes that you pay when earning $100k, that you get for free or don't have to pay if…

This sounds crazy to me. Maybe you're living in a place with a really high cost of living? What's included in "services, utilities, fees, and taxes that you pay when earning $100k" ?

That sounds like it covers all necessary expenses and taxes, which means there's $40k of discretionary income. A savings rate of 40% is excellent, especially if you can invest it for 10-20 years.

Re: The Rise of Men Who Don’t Work – And What They Do Instead

#206

Post by return0 »

morgante wrote: post #116
return0 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

just "these guys"? everyone will be screwed.

> just "these guys"? everyone will be screwed. Why? I'm pretty sure I'll be totally fine in retirement (predicted savings of $5M+).

I was having in mind europe's imminent pension fund tragedy a few years down the road. Even if americans don't have statewide retirement funds, when a crisis erupts, pensions are one of the first things that does get cut. These costs, and also healthcare will eventually be shared by everyone.

This has already happened in europe's southern bankrupt economies

Re: The Rise of Men Who Don’t Work – And What They Do Instead

#207

Post by zaroth »

oscilloscope wrote: post #205
pc2g4d wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sounds crazy to me. Maybe you're living in a place with a really high cost of living? What's included in "services, utilities, fees, and taxes that you pay when earning $100k" ?

That sounds like it covers all necessary expenses and taxes, which means there's $40k of discretionary income. A savings rate of 40% is excellent, especially if you can invest it for 10-20 years.

No, I'm just talking about just take-home pay. Then you can start paying living expenses with what's left.

Re: The Rise of Men Who Don’t Work – And What They Do Instead

#208

Post by tjr »

threatofrain wrote: post #44
briandear wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All it takes is a computer, hard work and dedication. The 'poor' manage to find the time to surf the net, why not spend the time learning how to build the net? It's a simplistic idea, but it is definitely possible. I lived out of my car for months until I was able to turn it around by using my computer for something besides surfing MySpace.

I think the sad fact is that so many people are now in front of vast, utterly vast learning resources, and it just doesn't matter. Rich or poor, there are numerous people sitting in front of extreme learning resources, and they'll never do anything with it unless there's this enormous infrastructure designed to remedy issues of motivation and planning. And that's where I think the difference is between rich and poor;…

they'll never do anything with it unless there's this enormous infrastructure designed to remedy issues of motivation and planning.

That's an interesting thought. What might infrastructure to remedy issues of motivation and planning look like?

Re: The Rise of Men Who Don’t Work – And What They Do Instead

#209

Post by EC1 »

ctdonath wrote: post #109
bruceb wrote: post #5

There are books on this phenomenon. Part of what they say is now men have access to their basic needs with out needing to work as much. Entertainment is abundant and relatively cheap and sex isn't tied to marriage. You can lounge around and be if not exactly satisfied, at least not terrible wanting for stuff. Of course these guys are screwed when it comes to retirement.

Shortly before meeting m'lady, I'd nearly paid off the house and otherwise driven my expenses to near zero. The prospect of withdrawing from the system ("going Galt") was becoming a realistic option; grow much/most of my food (as my folks had growing up), find a mundane job in walking/biking distance (notable as I lived in the country), and spend my time writing what software I wanted and puttering in a back-to-basic…

Are you saying 'm'lady' unironically?

Re: The Rise of Men Who Don’t Work – And What They Do Instead

#210

Post by morgante »

return0 wrote: post #206
morgante wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> just "these guys"? everyone will be screwed. Why? I'm pretty sure I'll be totally fine in retirement (predicted savings of $5M+).

I was having in mind europe's imminent pension fund tragedy a few years down the road. Even if americans don't have statewide retirement funds, when a crisis erupts, pensions are one of the first things that does get cut. These costs, and also healthcare will eventually be shared by everyone. This has already happened in europe's southern bankrupt economies

Obviously the solution is to not depend on pensions (which I don't think most young Americans are planning on anyways). It's awfully hard to lose your own savings though.

Basically, "everyone" is hyperbole. Obviously many people can retire fine, if you live within your means and consistently save.

Post reply on HN