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

No one expects young men to do anything and they respond by doing nothing (2022)

robkhenderson.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 600 posts

Re: No one expects young men to do anything and they respond by doing nothing (2022)

#201

Post by ryandrake »

ptsneves wrote: post #158
brodouevencode wrote: post #62

The author makes good points, but there is no mention of the demise of religion or the social factors leading to the dismantling of the nuclear family as causes.

I was telling my wife about the loss of religion and how that leaves many people without without purpose. Religion is often a precursor to the cultural norms we live, without even being aware of. Sunday is for resting in the west for example. To find a reason to keep living is very hard and may entail an acceptance that all is for nothing and being content with that. Many people cannot walk that path or have deep anx…

> I was telling my wife about the loss of religion and how that leaves many people without without purpose.

The hole left by religion is being quickly filled in by politics, which are taking on increasingly quasi-religious properties.

Re: No one expects young men to do anything and they respond by doing nothing (2022)

#202

Post by TacticalCoder »

addicted wrote: post #177

> Those who sit at or near the apex of the social ladder (who decide what behaviors are prestigious) have decided that family stability is unimportant. The author unironically writes this after pointing out that research shows that affluent families the share of families with biological parents has only dropped to 85% from 95% while the share for poor families has dropped to 30% from 95%. The idea that the social ape…

> ... is disproved by the numbers the author themselves shows.

Yup I just made a similar comment (but using other examples). TFA is contradicting itself and another linked article (from the same author) is also contradicting itself.

Re: No one expects young men to do anything and they respond by doing nothing (2022)

#203

Post by robjan »

Dalewyn wrote: post #162
ro_sharp wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t know why we call having a mortgage “ownership”: it’s not. Across the western world mortgages are getting larger and longer relative to income. More people are in more significant debt bondage than in the past, that’s not an improvement. The proportion of owned outright homes has been declining in the western world for 30 years.

Because you legally own your property. So long as you make your payments on time, the lienholder cannot confiscate your property to make the pie whole. The money might be theirs, but the property is yours.

Depends on the jurisdiction but they are often within their rights to call the loan especially if it goes into negative equity.

Re: No one expects young men to do anything and they respond by doing nothing (2022)

#204

Post by floatrock »

Zababa wrote: post #184
floatrock wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me it's more like slapping an expensive patch on an imperfect solution. Instead of encouraging healthier diets which have lots of follow-on nutritional and long-term medical benefits, we're paying pharma a huge monthly subscription price to keep doing something that's causing the problem in the first place. It's better than nothing, sure, but holistically it looks more like a rent-extraction trap to me.

> Instead of encouraging healthier diets which have lots of follow-on nutritional and long-term medical benefits This has been done for a while and mostly doesn't work.

Cool statement. Why not?

Re: No one expects young men to do anything and they respond by doing nothing (2022)

#205

Post by kelseyfrog »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #196
toomuchtodo wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Getting rid of institutional ownership would increase rental prices substantially, and that's bad for the poor and for the mobile. Extremes are unhelpful, we must find balance. Institutional ownership restrictions reduces monopoly pricing power, and rent controls de-risk against rents rising faster than wages. Outright outlawing of institutional ownership is not a solution, but allowing it to operate in a highly re…

The standard refrain is that the housing market is over-regulated, NIMBY's have made it too hard to build. Adding more regulation discouraging instutitions from building sounds like making the problem worse rather than better.

Could it simply be over-regulated in the housing generation aspect, but under-regulated in the housing distribution aspect?

Re: No one expects young men to do anything and they respond by doing nothing (2022)

#206

Post by Amezarak »

addicted wrote: post #177

> Those who sit at or near the apex of the social ladder (who decide what behaviors are prestigious) have decided that family stability is unimportant. The author unironically writes this after pointing out that research shows that affluent families the share of families with biological parents has only dropped to 85% from 95% while the share for poor families has dropped to 30% from 95%. The idea that the social ape…

I think they're making the argument that the upper classes make the argument that family stability is unimportant and should be de-prioritized in favor of "doing what makes you happy", but they don't actually believe that when it comes to their own families. The effect (according to OP) is that the upper classes are destabilizing the lower classes by advertising norms they don't actually believe in.

> The people with the most money and education—the class most responsible for shaping politics and culture and customs—ensure that their children are raised in stable homes.

> But actively undermine the norm for everyone else.

Re: No one expects young men to do anything and they respond by doing nothing (2022)

#207

Post by silverquiet »

ptsneves wrote: post #158
brodouevencode wrote: post #62

The author makes good points, but there is no mention of the demise of religion or the social factors leading to the dismantling of the nuclear family as causes.

I was telling my wife about the loss of religion and how that leaves many people without without purpose. Religion is often a precursor to the cultural norms we live, without even being aware of. Sunday is for resting in the west for example. To find a reason to keep living is very hard and may entail an acceptance that all is for nothing and being content with that. Many people cannot walk that path or have deep anx…

The problem is that god is dead; we killed him and as far as I know, there is no way to bring him back.

Re: No one expects young men to do anything and they respond by doing nothing (2022)

#208

Post by Tiktaalik »

gruez wrote: post #58
cduzz wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ever wonder about who can afford to make all-cash, above ask offers on houses? Or you can rent that house after the PE firm buys it and rents it out... https://www.propublica.org/article/when-private-equity-becom... https://www.thesling.org/are-hedge-funds-and-private-equity-...

>Or you can rent that house after the PE firm buys it and rents it out... That's fine? It's still contributing to the housing supply, it's not like they're hoarding the houses. Moreover unless you want to ban rentals entirely, you're going by definition need people owning more than one house. Finally, the fact that rents are sky-high as well, suggests that housing is expensive in general, not only home ownership.

Constructing new buildings would be contributing to the housing supply.

Buying an existing home, so long as it's rented out is yes technically providing housing supply, but it is unhelpful rent seeking.

That big investors would rather buy up existing homes rather than invest in building new ones is a pretty clear sign that the housing system is dysfunctional and requires work on the taxation/regulation side that would encourage more productive use of investor dollars.

Re: No one expects young men to do anything and they respond by doing nothing (2022)

#209

Post by rpmisms »

mstipetic wrote: post #172
rpmisms wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please attack substance, not on a personal level.

I am, how is this personal?

You aren't attacking substance, you're mocking the poster, or at best the substance.

Re: No one expects young men to do anything and they respond by doing nothing (2022)

#210

Post by im3w1l »

JKCalhoun wrote: post #32
vegetablepotpie wrote: post #26

This article spells out the incentive structure that leads to low-status men underperforming. > Some of the jobs he can get don’t pay enough to give him the self-respect he feels he needs, and others require him to get along with unpleasant customers and coworkers, and to maintain a submissive attitude toward the boss. > The educated class decides cohabiting partnerships are just as valid and important as marriage. A…

> Some of the jobs he can get don’t pay enough to give him the self-respect he feels he needs, and others require him to get along with unpleasant customers and coworkers, and to maintain a submissive attitude toward the boss. Same as it always was. Or perhaps moving a factory workforce into the service industry has been degrading? (Since of course we shipped the factories overseas.)

> Same as it always was.

I feel like it's an industrialization thing. Before industrialization people would farm their own land, set up their own shops etc. Sure there would be people above you, but they wouldn't and couldn't micromanage you.

The peasant surely didn't have morning standups with their lord.

Post reply on HN