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

81–90 of 147 posts

Re: The Rise of Men Who Don’t Work, and What They Do Instead

#81

Post by BurnWhenRead »

matthewmacleod wrote: post #42
M8 wrote: post #12

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.

I find that a pretty suspect statement, and I'm not sure I've ever encountered any man who's decided to avoid starting a family for that reason.

I am one of those people, to an extent. Or rather, I largely avoid the dating scene because of the dangers involved.

Up to and including paying child support for someone who isn't even yours. Or paying child support for a child resulting from you being raped.

And there's no way around it currently. Currently, even if both parties agree, there's no way for them to actually form a binding agreement. It's gotten to the point where prenuptials are essentially useless. They are far too easily thrown out.

However, I would not tell you as such in person unless specifically asked, and possibly not even then. It's a good way to get ostracized.

Though there's also a moral component for me, but that is another matter.

Re: The Rise of Men Who Don’t Work, and What They Do Instead

#82

Post by caseysoftware »

learnstats2 wrote: post #72
caseysoftware wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some portion of them, yes. But something as simple as cutting cable can save $500+/year, usually over $1k/year. And to someone who is below the median, either of those numbers is non-trivial. Exclude a few other optional behaviors and the numbers shift more positive pretty quickly. Examples: smoking, iphone plans, pets. Someone doesn't have to go without those things forever but cutting out all the non-necessities fo…

In my experience, a typical person under median income has never owned a pet or an iPhone or had cable or gym membership, or they have already cut those things, just to keep afloat. It's poor form for a rich person to say "just stop doing [luxury that I consider a social norm]" when a person on median income most probably doesn't do [luxury] to begin with. You are really saying that poor people are not welcome to tho…

I specifically said "to stabilize and build a little savings" and nothing about retirement.

It's great that you've cut unnecessary things. But I'm not talking about you, I'm talking about the overall trends and data:

According to Mintel[1][2], 57% of those making less than $35k own pets. Further, 34% of people without a high school diploma and 31% of those with only a high school diploma smoke[3]. Odds are those two groups are also low income.

Social norm or not, you have to prioritize and make hard choices.

[1] - http://www.marketingcharts.com/traditional/3-in-5-americans-...

[2] - Updated report: http://store.mintel.com/americas-pet-owners-us-september-201...

[3] - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stanton-peele/why-do-poor-peop...

Re: The Rise of Men Who Don’t Work, and What They Do Instead

#85

Post by ashark »

Clanan wrote: post #65
Omniusaspirer wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a subreddit dedicated to this idea, although I warn you it's largely terrible. http://www.reddit.com/r/financialindependence Basically the only reason most people struggle financially in the US is due to their own financial illiteracy and living above their means. If you manage not to fall victim to either of those then you can save a substantial portion of your income towards a very early retirement should y…

As a parent I've found that "kids are pricey" can easily stem from financial illiteracy as well. It's easier than people think to have kids and not blow the budget. Don't go crazy on Christmas gifts, limit eating out, buy secondhand clothes (which are usually in great condition), etc. We always chuckle when our friends talk about how expensive their kids are, right before mentioning their three cross-country trips. F…

Yeah, all that stuff isn't a big deal, but health care and (especially) child care are a huge expense.

For child care, either a parent stays home (cost = what that parent would be making, including retirement and benefits) or you pay (around here) ~$600-$1200/month per kid for day care, depending on the quality/reputation of the place.

Tax credits help a bit, but not much.

Re: The Rise of Men Who Don’t Work, and What They Do Instead

#86

Post by williamdix »

BurnWhenRead wrote: post #81
matthewmacleod wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find that a pretty suspect statement, and I'm not sure I've ever encountered any man who's decided to avoid starting a family for that reason.

I am one of those people, to an extent. Or rather, I largely avoid the dating scene because of the dangers involved. Up to and including paying child support for someone who isn't even yours. Or paying child support for a child resulting from you being raped. And there's no way around it currently. Currently, even if both parties agree , there's no way for them to actually form a binding agreement. It's gotten to the…

GOOD CALL BRO. YOU GOTTA PROTECT YOUR FEDORAS AND YOUR BITCOINS BRO!!!! HOW WILL YOU REWARD OTHER ASSHOLES WITH REDDIT GOLD IF YOU DONT.

Re: The Rise of Men Who Don’t Work, and What They Do Instead

#87

Post by bruceb »

caseysoftware wrote: post #66
matthewmacleod wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find that a pretty suspect statement, and I'm not sure I've ever encountered any man who's decided to avoid starting a family for that reason.

The numbers are there to support it. I don't believe it's getting widespread coverage because it's considered anti-feminist to believe that women want to find a man to marry or have kids. Look at how Joss Whedon was thrashed for having Black Widow even suggest that. Check out "Men on Strike" by Helen Smith. She highlights the trends and proposed a number of theories to explain it.

"...it's considered anti-feminist to believe that women want to find a man to marry or have kids."

Where is this said? Straw man runs wild.

Re: The Rise of Men Who Don’t Work, and What They Do Instead

#88

Post by learnstats2 »

caseysoftware wrote: post #82
learnstats2 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my experience, a typical person under median income has never owned a pet or an iPhone or had cable or gym membership, or they have already cut those things, just to keep afloat. It's poor form for a rich person to say "just stop doing [luxury that I consider a social norm]" when a person on median income most probably doesn't do [luxury] to begin with. You are really saying that poor people are not welcome to tho…

I specifically said "to stabilize and build a little savings" and nothing about retirement. It's great that you've cut unnecessary things. But I'm not talking about you, I'm talking about the overall trends and data: According to Mintel[1][2], 57% of those making less than $35k own pets. Further, 34% of people without a high school diploma and 31% of those with only a high school diploma smoke[3]. Odds are those two…

> Social norm or not, you have to prioritize and make hard choices.

Yes, my point is that you have to prioritize and make hard choices to live at that level of income; not to build savings.

(I edited my parent comment because I didn't feel my personal data was really relevant, sorry for any confusion.)

Re: The Rise of Men Who Don’t Work, and What They Do Instead

#89

Post by anon4 »

djrogers wrote: post #53
humanrebar wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And is it really plausible that more men are disabled today compared to 15 years ago? Sure. The population is much older than it was 15 years ago. I wouldn't care to speculate whether that makes up all the difference, but having a disability and trying to overcome ageism at the same time sounds pretty brutal.

Except that the 50% growth has occurred in a specific age window (~20-55), and not just the population as a whole. Something hinky is going on here - we live in a bubble-wrapped safety-first society, yet disabilities jump 50% in 15 years?

I think it's because certain psychological conditions are now classified as disabilities and make you eligible for government assistance. See the so-called "autismbux" -- people presenting mental disorder symptoms to a doctor with the purpose of being classified as disabled, so they can have an income. The amount involved is pretty small, but it can be the difference between a sort-of normal life and homelessness for some people.

Further reading: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Autismbux http://4chandata.org/adv/Has-anyone-here-followed-Remus039s-...

Re: The Rise of Men Who Don’t Work, and What They Do Instead

#90

Post by peter303 »

The labor-particpation-rate of working taxpayers fell about 7% (relative to itself 1-.63/.68) during the 21st century. This means fewer people paying social security taxes and three major programs those taxes support. This graph tries to explain what happened. Its was blamed on old people retiring early or becoming disabled. However, decreased working is spread across all age groups.
Post reply on HN