This whole article is talking about absentee fathers, but every example is listing why the mother left or kicked out the father. Nowhere in the article is mentioned the obvious common denominator - women are no longer utterly dependent on their husbands. People didn't stay together more often in the 50s because the couples were better, or because people were held to higher standards, it was because getting out of a t…
> this disadvantage disappears once you normalize for the socioeconomic conditions of the mother Link?
No one expects young men to do anything and they respond by doing nothing (2022)
341–350 of 600 posts
Re: No one expects young men to do anything and they respond by doing nothing (2022)
#342Earlier quoted context omitted.
But that's the thing. Most people can't afford a home here; we're renters. The exception is upper class people riding stock market hype bubbles.
I can easily afford a home, but I have no interest in buying one. I'd rather take all the extra money I save by renting and invest it in other assets. I also value my time and I don't want to have to do all the chores and upkeep a house needs. Sure I could pay someone to do all those things I suppose, but then it makes renting even that much cheaper. Owning a house used to be a goal of almost everyone? But I wonder i…
You could hire your landlord to do all the chores and upkeep for your house. I'm sure he would do it for cheaper than your rent. How many times has he been around this year to fix things for you?
Re: No one expects young men to do anything and they respond by doing nothing (2022)
#343Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.)
Having done both I vastly preferred the service industry. Factory job had more unpleasant coworkers and boss (thanks to grueling physical labor) plus a submissive attitude towards unpleasant machinery. The factory money was better though.
> a submissive attitude towards unpleasant machinery.
Are you referring to litteral or methaphorical machinery here? Actual machinery can be a pain.
Your 'a submissive' attidude is a good wording for the 'are you a fag or what' mindset many seem to have to work conditions that suck.
I worked a summer mounting rear axis on trucks, so my experience is kinda limited. But it was really bad and the clock was ticking for each axis in a way that made you hate your job in a week. The first day was fun...
Re: No one expects young men to do anything and they respond by doing nothing (2022)
#344I see this as the victory sign of feminism. Women doesn't need men anymore so men are left on their own. Nothing wrong with that.
Re: No one expects young men to do anything and they respond by doing nothing (2022)
#345> 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.
You and OP seem to be missing the author's point: the rich are lying to the poor. Whole families for me, broken families for thee.
(I don't think there's anything in it but that's what the author is saying.)
Re: No one expects young men to do anything and they respond by doing nothing (2022)
#346Earlier quoted context omitted.
A hundred years ago, the average person had little free time, little spending money, and little to actually spend that money on, if they had any. Human attention is absolutely not a finite resource. Or at least companies haven’t come close to monetizing all of it.
I think you need to take your comparison further back. As I understand it, before the Industrial Revolution, people had plenty of free time. For instance, looking at the Middle Ages, many spent the morning tending to their fields and then the rest of the day was theirs.
Yes but my point was not about a specific time in the past, it was about how that free time wasn’t captured by the market - in ways it is now and will continue to be in the future.
Re: No one expects young men to do anything and they respond by doing nothing (2022)
#347What I took away from this article is that many low-income men have no real interest in being fathers or raising children. Yet, they tend to produce children anyway. We should focus on making birth control more accessible, instead of trying to make people take responsibility for raising children they obviously don't want. That guy who spends all his money on weed and booze while his kids go hungry? He should have got…
A lot of men, particularly less educated men, have bizarre beliefs that vasectomies harm sexual performance or make them less of men. I saw the other day a person asking on the biohacking Reddit if a vasectomy would harm testosterone levels. Asking poorly educated, poorly read, and low-skilled men to make highly informed decisions is going to be a losing battle. I'm willing to bet the rates of vasectomy are highly co…
There are chances for chronic pain though. A few people on HN said they wouldn't have done that if they knew what would happen
Re: No one expects young men to do anything and they respond by doing nothing (2022)
#348This whole article is talking about absentee fathers, but every example is listing why the mother left or kicked out the father. Nowhere in the article is mentioned the obvious common denominator - women are no longer utterly dependent on their husbands. People didn't stay together more often in the 50s because the couples were better, or because people were held to higher standards, it was because getting out of a t…
> This whole article is talking about absentee fathers, but every example is listing why the mother left or kicked out the father.
Because the article takes the very rational and supported by the article side that these mothers were actually founded in kicking them out.
> The article also simply takes for granted that it's a bad thing that these nuclear families do not stay together.
No, the article goes much further that that. It points out that upper-class and middle-class people like to pretend and promote that the nuclear family doesn't matter while themselves acting like it does.
The main thesis of the article is that modern culture is actually undermining the poor while being mostly posturing.
> You can't simply say that men aren't stepping up
It's a good thing that it's not what the article is saying then.
Re: No one expects young men to do anything and they respond by doing nothing (2022)
#349This 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.)
>> 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.)
The sentences literally following this quote have an idea on the question:
"It used to be high-status to hold a job and take care of your family. Not so much anymore.
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."
As a meta aside, not specifically reacting to you, the amount of people commenting on article they haven't read at all is bothering me more and more.
Re: No one expects young men to do anything and they respond by doing nothing (2022)
#350Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Not if the investors are willing to warehouse units to keep prices high, rather than lower prices in order to sell. Source this is happening? >Why lock in a loss or low profit (and, in doing so, hurt the value of your other holdings)? Because you have to pay upkeep on those units so they don't fall apart, and repay the bonds you raised to build those luxury condos in the first place?
>Source this is happening? Here is a conservative think-tank using its existence as the premise for arguing against rent control: https://www.aei.org/op-eds/want-to-end-apartment-warehousing... >Because you have to pay upkeep on those units so they don't fall apart, and repay the bonds you raised to build those luxury condos in the first place? If you raise rates on the buyers that do exist, you can cover these expen…
>Here is a conservative think-tank using its existence as the premise for arguing against rent control: https://www.aei.org/op-eds/want-to-end-apartment-warehousing...
Your claim:
"Not if the investors are willing to warehouse units to keep prices high, rather than lower prices in order to sell."
Their claim:
"If it costs more to maintain a unit — and keep it in compliance with housing codes — than rental income justifies, it only makes sense to padlock it.
In other words, an anti-warehousing law would force owners to lose money every month — or rent a substandard unit at the risk of being in violation of housing laws."
Those aren't exactly the same thing. You're talking about developers/owners refusing to sell a luxury condo, whereas the "conservative think-tank" is talking about landlord refusing to rent a unit below his costs. Besides the difference between selling a unit vs renting it out, there's a huge gap in the middle between "minimum cost to the landlord of having a tenant" and "whatever the market rate for rent is". Even if we assume whatever the "conservative think-tank" said is true, it doesn't apply above that lower bound.
>If you raise rates on the buyers that do exist, you can cover these expenses.
Are you talking about renters or buyers? Your usage of "rates" imply that you're talking about renting, but "buyers" implies you're talking about buying.