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

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

#541

Post by Dalewyn » Tue, Jul 23, 2024, 1:25 PM UTC

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #189

Dalewyn wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

32%->27%->28%->30% appear to be just rounding errors, especially considering the number of individuals concerned. If anything, such numbers indicate to me that homeownership rates haven't meaningfully changed and the only thing that did change is the advent of noisey narratives.

> appear to be just rounding errors, especially considering the number of individuals concerned Isn't it in fact the opposite? The bigger population, the easier to find a significant signal? Those are variances of millions of people. We wouldn't treat a 5% swing in unemployment as a rounding error, would we?

>We wouldn't treat a 5% swing in unemployment as a rounding error, would we?

If unemployment keeps hovering around 29% +/-3% over basically a century, that variance is a rounding error.

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

#542

Post by em-bee » Tue, Jul 23, 2024, 1:35 PM UTC

southernplaces7 wrote: post #506

em-bee wrote: post #502

Earlier quoted context omitted.

nor does dating make you responsible for financially supporting your partner. but if you do financially support her, then you have to consider that her financial needs include supporting her children. if your goal is to meet her needs then you must cover that, or change the goal and agree to only cover part of her needs.

You're essentially stating the obvious of informal adult relationships: Communicate what each is offering or can offer and see if it works for both for the sake of an agreement. The previous comment I replied to bothered me specifically because it seemed to take the position that by dating a woman, a man is automatically obligated into supporting her children and childcare needs, which is... plainly ridiculous.

how is that ridiculous? if you intend to enter into a long term stable relationship, then that is effectively starting a new family. and if one partner in that new family already has children, then they are part of it and you are on the way to becoming a step parent. do not date someone with children if that is not what you want.

this is different if it is a casual relationship, then whatever. but then at least be clear from the start that this relationship will not be more than that.

there seems to be a disconnect of expectations here.

how is a relationship supposed to work if the parent has to take care of the children all the time? you'll be lucky if you get to see each other even once a week. and what are the children going to feel if they see their parent with someone who does not care about them at all? they are going to think that this person is just as bad as the other one that left them, or worse they are going to steal the other parent away from them too.

it's not rational, but children who lost one of their parents are not rational. they have experienced trauma and have anxieties. you are going to have to work with that. children need all the love they can get.

it is asking a lot. i grant you that. and it is certainly not for everyone. but it is what the children and that parent need. so it's not ridiculous at all.

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

#543

Post by acdha » Tue, Jul 23, 2024, 1:35 PM UTC

Dalewyn wrote: post #541

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> appear to be just rounding errors, especially considering the number of individuals concerned Isn't it in fact the opposite? The bigger population, the easier to find a significant signal? Those are variances of millions of people. We wouldn't treat a 5% swing in unemployment as a rounding error, would we?

>We wouldn't treat a 5% swing in unemployment as a rounding error, would we? If unemployment keeps hovering around 29% +/-3% over basically a century, that variance is a rounding error.

> If unemployment keeps hovering around 30% +/-5% over basically a century, that is in fact a rounding error.

“rounding error” isn’t typically used to describe double-digit percentage changes. You might say within normal variation but it’s a significant change and, ignoring the fact that those numbers are much greater than the actual unemployment rate, it’s well over the measurement precision and real shifts of millions of people are going to be scrutinized.

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

#544

Post by acdha » Tue, Jul 23, 2024, 1:40 PM UTC

formerly_proven wrote: post #535

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Record pace for only the last two generations: > Roughly 30% of 25-year-olds in 2022—the oldest of the Gen Z (born between 1997 to 2013)—owned their home in 2022, a slightly higher percentage than the 28% of Millennials (born between 1981 to 1996) who owned homes at that age and the 27% of Gen Xers (born between 1965 and 1980)—but lower than the rate for Baby Boomers (born between 1946 and 1964), 32% of whom owned ho…

I'll be honest, how is it physically possible for a 25yo to own a home?

Family wealth is the most common. That doesn’t mean “mommy and daddy gave me a house” as often as it means things like living rent-free on your parents’ property so you can save money, having them co-sign a loan, or cash gifts helping with the down payment.

The other thing is remembering that cost of living varies significantly. Even 25yo FAANG engineers struggle in San Francisco but there are other parts of the country where someone with middle class income can buy if they live modestly and are thinking along the lines of a basic condo in a non-luxury neighborhood.

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

#545

Post by Dalewyn » Tue, Jul 23, 2024, 2:11 PM UTC

acdha wrote: post #543

Dalewyn wrote: post #541

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>We wouldn't treat a 5% swing in unemployment as a rounding error, would we? If unemployment keeps hovering around 29% +/-3% over basically a century, that variance is a rounding error.

> If unemployment keeps hovering around 30% +/-5% over basically a century, that is in fact a rounding error. “rounding error” isn’t typically used to describe double-digit percentage changes. You might say within normal variation but it’s a significant change and, ignoring the fact that those numbers are much greater than the actual unemployment rate, it’s well over the measurement precision and real shifts of milli…

>“rounding error” isn’t typically used to describe double-digit percentage changes.

What? We're talking about a 5 percentage points variance, that is a single digit percentage point change. This is regarding a 29 percentage points average over a span of like 80 years concerning millions if not billions of people.

That is a rounding error, whether it's home ownership or unemployment or whatever you want those numbers to be.

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

#546

Post by acdha » Tue, Jul 23, 2024, 2:20 PM UTC

Dalewyn wrote: post #545

acdha wrote: post #543

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If unemployment keeps hovering around 30% +/-5% over basically a century, that is in fact a rounding error. “rounding error” isn’t typically used to describe double-digit percentage changes. You might say within normal variation but it’s a significant change and, ignoring the fact that those numbers are much greater than the actual unemployment rate, it’s well over the measurement precision and real shifts of milli…

>“rounding error” isn’t typically used to describe double-digit percentage changes. What? We're talking about a 5 percentage points variance, that is a single digit percentage point change. This is regarding a 29 percentage points average over a span of like 80 years concerning millions if not billions of people. That is a rounding error, whether it's home ownership or unemployment or whatever you want those numbers…

35 is 15% larger than 30. Our measurements for unemployment are precise enough that it’s not just margin of error.

At the moment, that’s a change of 16 million people. A century ago, it was 5 million people. Both of those numbers are large enough that they absolutely would get attention and public discussion.

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

#547

Post by carlosjobim » Tue, Jul 23, 2024, 2:52 PM UTC

smegger001 wrote: post #463

carlosjobim wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's called eugenics and was widely practiced in the 20th century against the exact people you propose. Edit: Down vote as much as you want. Eugenics is the above. Doesn't mean I'm for or against it. It was promoted at the time as a way of protecting children from growing up with "unfit" parents.

The difference is eugenics involved forced sterilization against your will, where what people here seem to be calling for is a free voluntary sterilization option.

I think the lines are very blurred in reality. Doctors and social services didn't always sterilize by force. Many times it was a matter of convincing a person, or outright tricking them.

Just the threat applied today of the government taking away your children unless you can provide a minimum standard for them, is enough to convince many people to not procreate. Ie eugenics with a different process.

If you read the above paragraph and think "what's wrong with that", then you're in company with a lot of people who are not unreasonable. But it springs from the same idea as eugenics. Now consider the above paragraph applied to minorities or the indigenous population. Suddenly it is an awful thing.

You can also argue that nobody should have the right to pass on hereditary diseases and conditions to a child. What do you do if they want to do it anyway? Etc, etc. There are arguments for and against. Well being of the child vs human rights of the parent.

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

#548

Post by piuantiderp » Tue, Jul 23, 2024, 2:54 PM UTC

ashf023 wrote: post #392

unpopularopp wrote: post #344

I 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.

But the article talks about how the men are basically doing whatever they want and women are left as single mothers with multiple kids...

There's a biological reality. Which btw, has been greatly tamed with contraceptives and what not, so the only thing left is individual failure.

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

#549

Post by Dalewyn » Tue, Jul 23, 2024, 3:15 PM UTC

acdha wrote: post #546

Dalewyn wrote: post #545

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>“rounding error” isn’t typically used to describe double-digit percentage changes. What? We're talking about a 5 percentage points variance, that is a single digit percentage point change. This is regarding a 29 percentage points average over a span of like 80 years concerning millions if not billions of people. That is a rounding error, whether it's home ownership or unemployment or whatever you want those numbers…

35 is 15% larger than 30. Our measurements for unemployment are precise enough that it’s not just margin of error. At the moment, that’s a change of 16 million people. A century ago, it was 5 million people. Both of those numbers are large enough that they absolutely would get attention and public discussion.

I think you are failing to understand my point:

If something trends give or take 30% for 80 years or more, a +/-3% variance is a fucking rounding error. I don't care if it's home ownership or unemployment or whatever the number is, it is a rounding error not worthy of concern.

It's like the lowering and rising of the tides. It goes up and down, but the sea level remains basically the same overall; thus, nobody cares about the exact tide at an exact time for figuring out sea level because it's a rounding error.

Put more bluntly: The trend has not changed, what is there worthy of my concern?

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

#550

Post by trealira » Tue, Jul 23, 2024, 3:19 PM UTC

fragmede wrote: post #437

anal_reactor wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah yes. Whenever someone asks me what can we do about poverty I'll just reply "I know plenty of people with lucrative jobs, get off the internet and touch grass". We've been telling people for years already that them being lonely is their personal failure, not some systematic problem, yet people, on average, keep getting even more lonely. What makes you think that continuing to present loneliness as a personal failur…

And on a societal level it's an interesting philosophical question, but waiting around and hoping that something external comes along to magically fix the problem that you're experiencing personally isn't a plan for success. That feeling of loneliness isn't going to go away sitting at home, playing another single player video game by yourself, it's going to go away by socializing with people, in some sort of fashion.…

> And on a societal level it's an interesting philosophical question, but waiting around and hoping that something external comes along to magically fix the problem that you're experiencing personally isn't a plan for success.

Yeah, I suppose the only reason to point out that a problem is systemic and therefore requires a systemic solution is if you're part of a group or movement that is proposing a systemic solution. Otherwise, there's no point, because the only other solution is to solve the problem for yourself at the individual level anyway.