11–20 of 147 posts
You have to wonder which of those trends are "secular" (in the economics sense) and which are indirect causes of high unemployment. The article already hints at this: Apart from the young cohort (until mid-20s), the rise in men going to school is probably less about an increased desire for education and more about an inability to find work. More men caring for their families may be a good thing (increasing equality b…
Partially related to having a family becoming more risky for men. If you are not protected in case of a separation, you are less likely to want to commit to a family. If there is no family, there is less motivation to earn more.
The author doesn't even mention how many more women are in the workforce as compared to 1950. The main loss here is the exodus of manufacturing jobs. No simple way around it.
Partially related to having a family becoming more risky for men. If you are not protected in case of a separation, you are less likely to want to commit to a family. If there is no family, there is less motivation to earn more.
What do you mean by "not protected in case of a separation"?
The author doesn't even mention how many more women are in the workforce as compared to 1950. The main loss here is the exodus of manufacturing jobs. No simple way around it.
Loss of farming jobs is actually a much bigger factor than loss of manufacturing. Farm-related employment has dropped massively. In 1880, 49% of Americans worked on farms. Today, it's just 2%.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you mean by "not protected in case of a separation"?
He's referring to the fact that men lose a significant portion (usually half, sometimes more) of their financial assets during divorce. Protection in this case refers to signing certain agreements before or during marriage.
The author doesn't even mention how many more women are in the workforce as compared to 1950. The main loss here is the exodus of manufacturing jobs. No simple way around it.