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

131–140 of 147 posts

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

#131

Post by dragonwriter »

enraged_camel wrote: post #122
kidsthesedays wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Complete BS. I've known many men who have sole or primary custody of their children including my sister in law's former husband. I also grew up with some kids who lived with the dads most of the time. This meme has to end because it isn't true. Sure, maybe most of the time the woman gets it but always is a complete lie.

You missed the point entirely. The contention is society's automatic assumption that it's better to give custody of children to the mother, as opposed to the father. That's why women end up with the kids the vast majority of the time, and the only time they don't is when there's seriously wrong with them (e.g. abusive, mentally ill, etc.).

> The contention is society's automatic assumption that it's better to give custody of children to the mother, as opposed to the father. That's why women end up with the kids the vast majority of the time

Or, the vast majority of the time, men use custody of the children as a bargaining chip to secure a better financial settlement, which is why they mostly don't end up with custody.

In contested divorces, there may be a presumption operating that the person who acted as the primary caregiver is most suitable custodial parent, and traditional gender roles means that that will often be the mother.

But that's not a gender-based assumption, that's a gender-neutral assumption applied to facts that happen to be influenced by traditional gender roles.

Now, if men who were the primary caregiver during marriage were generally losing custody in contested custody proceedings, that would be a different story.

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

#132

Post by fweespeech »

Omniusaspirer wrote: post #47
fweespeech wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 you choose to do so. That is really only true for households above the median income. So "most" is not a factual statement. About ha…

If you can only save a few thousand a year then you fall firmly into the "living above their means" category in my personal opinion. Having children you cannot afford is a common way that lower income people live above their means, even if it sounds crass to word it in that way. My anecdotal experience working alongside lower class workers is that most of them run into trouble through trying to live a middle class li…

> If you can only save a few thousand a year then you fall firmly into the "living above their means" category in my personal opinion.

The living wage project from MIT is designed to be the minimum viable estimate with no savings and living paycheck to paycheck.

http://livingwage.mit.edu/counties/06037

$23,640/year

http://livingwage.mit.edu/places/1308904000

$21,007/year

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/cpstables/032011/perinc/new01...

http://livingwage.mit.edu/places/1324504204

> $17,640

Btw, Augusta, Georgia is literally one of the 10 cheapest cities [and if you read the Household Income as a "well they can do it!", remember the living wage is a single adult, two adults is double and they can't again]:

http://www.kiplinger.com/slideshow/real-estate/T006-S001-10-...

~36% of the population is below the living wage number in major metro areas.

52.16% make less than $30,000.00

> My anecdotal experience working alongside lower class workers is that most of them run into trouble through trying to live a middle class lifestyle without the income to support it. They buy new cars, they eat out often, they refuse to work more than 40 hrs/wk, and they live in pricier apartments without roommates. All of these mistakes tie into the financial illiteracy that plagues people who were never exposed to those with good money habits.

> The basic framework of early retirement is pretty simple: cut way down on your spending, then invest your savings. High savings rates can lead to surprisingly fast retirements. For example, if you save half your income, you'll be ready to retire in around 17 years.

http://www.vox.com/2015/5/1/8518455/extreme-early-retirement

The majority of the population can't save half of their income like Mr Money Mustache and other FI people suggest.

It isn't even mathematically possible for most of the country.

Your moralizing is proof you are ignorant and don't have a real argument.

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

#133

Post by seestheday »

kidsthesedays wrote: post #93
bigtunacan wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no way around it; kids ARE expensive. The bulk cost of raising kids is not all of the unnecessary things, even with all of the crap kids have today compared to prior generations, that is all incidental costs. The real costs of kids are the necessities. Child care, clothing, food, medical & dental expenses. I live in the midwest and send/sent my children to a daycare that is extremely price conscious even for…

This is what confuses me, when I was growing up there was poor kids childcare that I went to that was dirt cheap. Don't they exist anymore? Our (lower income) city offered free summer camp and I went to a variety of after school programs. Sure you can't do that with babies though (I don't think). The vast majority of my clothes were hand-me-downs or thrift store or sometimes sales rack stuff. My mom and her sisters a…

What state/city? I'm assuming you live in the US. I live in Canada and I've never heard of a poor kids childcare of free summer camp paid for by the city even here.

People talking about saving money by not spending money on clothes and toys really don't know what they're talking about. Brand new clothes and toys today are super cheap compared to what they were when I was a kid. For example, I just bought some brand new baby shoes and shirts on sale for $2 at the grocery store. If I was poor it would cost me more in bus fare to get to the used clothing store than I would have saved had I just bought stuff new at the grocery store. The biggest cost for me _by_far_ is childcare and summer camps.

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

#134

Post by Kalium »

zzalpha wrote: post #55
Omniusaspirer wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you can only save a few thousand a year then you fall firmly into the "living above their means" category in my personal opinion. Having children you cannot afford is a common way that lower income people live above their means, even if it sounds crass to word it in that way. My anecdotal experience working alongside lower class workers is that most of them run into trouble through trying to live a middle class li…

Or, alternatively: the erosion of wages in the face of rising inflation has placed a reasonable lifestyle out of the reach of many people. No longer can a household function on a single income while owning a home and raising a couple kids. Unfortunately society demands such a lifestyle from folks in order to be deemed a "success" and so people life beyond their now eroded means because they only alternative is to giv…

How about we admit to ourselves that the "American Dream" lifestyle was only workable because most of the rest of the first world was a series of smoking craters? It's not sustainable going forward. It's not a sane goal. Abandon it. Reshape our goals around what can be reasonably accomplished.

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

#135

Post by atomicUpdate »

andreyf wrote: post #130
enraged_camel wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Assets in a marriage belong to the legal union of two people, so it's not surprising that everyone loses roughly half of what they co-owned. Is there a law somewhere which is preferential for one gender over another in divorce? The separation of assets depends on a lot of factors, but gender is not one of them, afaik.

That's assuming both sides brought an equal amount of equity to the union in the first place. However, if the man brings more to the union (which I suppose is typically the case, based on this fear existing in the first place), he stands to lose more when it dissolves.

The obvious solution is to separate the assets proportionally based on how much was put into it in the first place, though I'm sure that's much easier said than done (and a bit of an oversimplification of most situations).

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

#136

Post by Omniusaspirer »

fweespeech wrote: post #132
Omniusaspirer wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you can only save a few thousand a year then you fall firmly into the "living above their means" category in my personal opinion. Having children you cannot afford is a common way that lower income people live above their means, even if it sounds crass to word it in that way. My anecdotal experience working alongside lower class workers is that most of them run into trouble through trying to live a middle class li…

> If you can only save a few thousand a year then you fall firmly into the "living above their means" category in my personal opinion. The living wage project from MIT is designed to be the minimum viable estimate with no savings and living paycheck to paycheck. http://livingwage.mit.edu/counties/06037 $23,640/year http://livingwage.mit.edu/places/1308904000 $21,007/year http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/cpstables/03201…

I like the personal attack at the end.

The figures given by the living wage calculator are assuming a middle class lifestyle which is obviously ignorant when discussing lower class economics. Plugging in my own city of Ann Arbor, Michigan gives wildly inflated figures that fall in line exactly with my claims up above. The rent figure given is for having your own one bedroom apartment with no roommates, the food figure is hilariously overstated ($242/month), transportation assumes a pretty new car or very long commutes ($306/month). These figures simply are not realistic for a lower class individual.

I am living a lower class lifestyle right now as I type this. I live in a shared home with 2 other people. I drive an older but reliable car I purchased for $2.2k cash (a luxury expense, I could have kept taking the bus/biking to work). I rarely eat out, and I avoid expensive items at the grocery store barring a few healthy choices like nuts. I split a $45/month 50 mbit internet connection with both my roommates. No cable. $30/month cell phone bill (another luxury). I have health and auto insurance.

Overall, I have a pretty comfortable life for less than EDIT:

After seeing your comment above I want to point out that at no point did I assert you could retire by 30 years old on this kind of income. If you're trying to argue that point then it's a strawman. I will also add that if you're still making ~20k/yr all of your life then you've made some financial mistakes in regards to your actual career choices, even janitorial staff end up around 35k/yr after a while.

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

#137

Post by fweespeech »

Omniusaspirer wrote: post #136
fweespeech wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you can only save a few thousand a year then you fall firmly into the "living above their means" category in my personal opinion. The living wage project from MIT is designed to be the minimum viable estimate with no savings and living paycheck to paycheck. http://livingwage.mit.edu/counties/06037 $23,640/year http://livingwage.mit.edu/places/1308904000 $21,007/year http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/cpstables/03201…

I like the personal attack at the end. The figures given by the living wage calculator are assuming a middle class lifestyle which is obviously ignorant when discussing lower class economics. Plugging in my own city of Ann Arbor, Michigan gives wildly inflated figures that fall in line exactly with my claims up above. The rent figure given is for having your own one bedroom apartment with no roommates, the food figur…

Okay, so your argument is you know better than a professor at MIT who studies this stuff.

K.

You may want to consider:

1) If I had to rely on a bus/bike for work, I would not have a job.

2) If I did have a reliable cell phone with data capable of providing a wifi hotspot in an emergency, I would not have a job.

3) If I did not have a solid internet connection, I would not have a job.

A number of things you claim are luxuries, really are not luxuries if you want to be employed in a number of fields. Even the guy that does the basic helpdesk stuff needs that and he only is paid $30k a year.

You also are ignoring one-off costs like repairs and medical costs when you quote these numbers and thump your chest. I have annual medical costs [beyond insurance] of 10% of your claimed spending. For fuck's sake.

http://www.nasdaq.com/article/mcdonalds-sample-budget-sheet-...

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/07/mcdonald...

> McDonald's Can't Figure Out How Its Workers Survive on Minimum Wage

Hell, even the McDonald's Sample Budget everyone calls a joke has over $12,000 in annual expenses.

http://livingwage.mit.edu/places/2616103000

> The rent figure given is for having your own one bedroom apartment with no roommates

> I am living a lower class lifestyle right now as I type this. I live in a shared home with 2 other people.

$649 is the housing budget including utilities, cleaning supplies, and all other related expenses not just rent.

https://annarbor.craigslist.org/sha/5024320646.html - $500 https://annarbor.craigslist.org/hou/5025045124.html - $400 https://annarbor.craigslist.org/sha/5024006969.html - $400

Yeah, these people are renting one bedrooms. Sure buddy. $400+money for utilities,etc. puts them safely within the $649 budget and they aren't renting one bedroom apartments now are they?

I honestly don't even believe you at this point because you are clearly oblivious to the going rental rate in your own f'n city.

> EDIT: After seeing your comment above I want to point out that at no point did I assert you could retire by 30 years old on this kind of income. If you're trying to argue that point then it's a strawman. I will also add that if you're still making ~20k/yr all of your life then you've made some financial mistakes in regards to your actual career choices, even janitorial staff end up around 35k/yr after a while.

You support the prevailing view of /r/FinancialIndependence and their idols who make claims about retiring in their 30s like that.

That isn't a strawman and I quoted an article where they did exactly that. How am I supposed to read your mind and realize the very group you chose to use as a benchmark to discuss:

> 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 you choose to do so.

Maybe you should be more specific then rather than cry strawman when those FI folks talking about "very early retirement", its retirement in their 30s.

Cry strawman if you want but by the standards of the community you were talking about, 30s is what that phrase means and I can point to a ton of posts/blogs in relation to that group of people.

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

#138

Post by andreyf »

atomicUpdate wrote: post #135
andreyf wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assets in a marriage belong to the legal union of two people, so it's not surprising that everyone loses roughly half of what they co-owned. Is there a law somewhere which is preferential for one gender over another in divorce? The separation of assets depends on a lot of factors, but gender is not one of them, afaik.

That's assuming both sides brought an equal amount of equity to the union in the first place. However, if the man brings more to the union (which I suppose is typically the case, based on this fear existing in the first place), he stands to lose more when it dissolves. The obvious solution is to separate the assets proportionally based on how much was put into it in the first place, though I'm sure that's much easier…

separate the assets proportionally based on how much was put into it in the first place

The convincing argument I've heard against that is that it gives someone leverage to keep their partner in a relationship against their will, once they are used to a certain standard of living they can't have on their own. If someone with significant assets marries someone living paycheck to paycheck, for example.

If you don't want to merge your equity with someone, either don't marry them or sign a prenup. I don't think people with significant net worth go into marriages without understanding what they're doing.

Also, the original logic that any of this will have anything to do with a man's willingness to work seems really quite over-stretched.

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

#139

Post by kidsthesedays »

enraged_camel wrote: post #122
kidsthesedays wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Complete BS. I've known many men who have sole or primary custody of their children including my sister in law's former husband. I also grew up with some kids who lived with the dads most of the time. This meme has to end because it isn't true. Sure, maybe most of the time the woman gets it but always is a complete lie.

You missed the point entirely. The contention is society's automatic assumption that it's better to give custody of children to the mother, as opposed to the father. That's why women end up with the kids the vast majority of the time, and the only time they don't is when there's seriously wrong with them (e.g. abusive, mentally ill, etc.).

>The contention is society's automatic assumption that it's better to give custody of children to the mother, as opposed to the father.

1) That's 100% incorrect

2) That isn't even what was said.

>women end up with the kids the vast majority of the time, and the only time they don't is when there's seriously wrong with them (e.g. abusive, mentally ill, etc.).

Once again, completely and totally incorrect. The "vast majority" of people that I personally know about don't have the woman ending up with the kids. I know of one guy whose ex-wife took off halfway across the country and left him with the kids.

I also know (and hate) someone who is male and did the same - took off halfway across the country and left his ex (girlfriend) with the kid.

I would say that women can tend to be unfair with the kids. Insisting "I'm going to get my way" and the father just giving it to her rather than fight in court over it.

My sister in law isn't abusive or mentally ill.

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

#140

Post by Omniusaspirer »

fweespeech wrote: post #137
Omniusaspirer wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like the personal attack at the end. The figures given by the living wage calculator are assuming a middle class lifestyle which is obviously ignorant when discussing lower class economics. Plugging in my own city of Ann Arbor, Michigan gives wildly inflated figures that fall in line exactly with my claims up above. The rent figure given is for having your own one bedroom apartment with no roommates, the food figur…

Okay, so your argument is you know better than a professor at MIT who studies this stuff. K. You may want to consider: 1) If I had to rely on a bus/bike for work, I would not have a job. 2) If I did have a reliable cell phone with data capable of providing a wifi hotspot in an emergency, I would not have a job. 3) If I did not have a solid internet connection, I would not have a job. A number of things you claim are…

Ann Arbor is one of the most expensive cities in the entire state of Michigan and is often compared to places like Boulder, Colorado. Most lower class individuals would live somewhat in its periphery, almost certainly not adjacent to the UofM campus or downtown. I personally pay $440/month with utilities included and I've seen many places become available in the 2 years I've been here at similar prices. Like everywhere it takes some patience and planning to get a good deal- this is par for the course for anyone looking to minimize expenses. Poor planning is expensive. If you choose not to believe this that's fine, but I have zero reason to lie.

Even paying a bit more on rent a roommate scenario with split utilities is never going to add up to $675 a month if you're at all savvy and modest in the residence you choose.

If your job requires a car and phone but doesn't pay an amount that allows you to afford those things then you should get a different job. $40/month will get you unlimited everything phone wise, or if like me you rarely call then you can do T-Mobiles $30 a month 5gb 4g plan w/ 100 calling minutes.

I'm in no way trying to thump my chest here, I'm trying to provide a detailed look at this lifestyle within the overall context of FI's ideas regarding saving and well planned finances. I also apologize if I somehow led you to believe I was saying anyone regardless of circumstance and income could retire at 30.

I'm genuinely a little puzzled as to why you're going at me so aggressively, would you mind going into your own lifestyle and why you feel I must be lying to you?

EDIT: As far as being mad I wasn't more specific, pay some mind to the demographic that visits this site. I would be surprised if even 1 in 10,000 visitors to this site will never in their life have a job paying more than ~20k/yr (assuming they live in the 1st world). My message was obviously directed at this sites prevailing demographic.

Post reply on HN