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

Fewer young men are in the labor force, more are living at home

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

741–750 of 1001 posts

Re: Fewer young men are in the labor force, more are living at home

#741

Post by prestigious »

cjohnson318 wrote: post #718
buildingmateri wrote: post #710

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Especially a problem because for almost all men a career and supporting family (maybe the hardest thing to figure out in life) is non optional, whereas half the female friends I have from college have abandoned careers to saddle up to a breadwinner ... I mean I kind of want that option but men don't really have it. Does anyone ever really discuss this social reality that makes it different for men v women in real wor…

> Especially a problem because for almost all men a career and supporting family (maybe the hardest thing to figure out in life) is non optional... What do you mean? Of course those are optional. If you don't want a career, you're not going to have one. If you don't want to get married and support a family, then you don't have to. I mean, "saddle up to a breadwinner" is an extremely demeaning thing to say about a who…

You are going to have to back up men dominate all desirable successful professions… more women doctors are being produced than men for instance

Re: Fewer young men are in the labor force, more are living at home

#742

Post by zizee »

cjohnson318 wrote: post #725
acituan wrote: post #721

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Men are not doing as well as women in school. Schools are not performing as well for men as they do for women. I'm not just playing with words; it is really important to frame the share of responsibility correctly. It is the school's job to educate the kid, not kid's job to compensate for the dysfunctions of an education system. I'll generalize because I don't have any detailed data; anyone from the front-line educ…

Men run most governments. Men own most companies. Men dominate the higher levels of corporations. Most engineers, doctors, lawyers, investors, and other highly paid professionals are men. Men simply own more capital than women, by a huge margin. It looks like schools are performing better for men than women.

> Most ... doctors, lawyers ... are men.

Today there are more women graduating medical and law school than men. Given the trends the current imbalance (of sheer numbers) will be a thing of the past in a decade or two.

> It looks like schools are performing better for men than women.

Or school isn't the only factor? Schools could be failing boys, and society could be failing women in other ways.

Re: Fewer young men are in the labor force, more are living at home

#743

Post by mdorazio »

cjohnson318 wrote: post #718
buildingmateri wrote: post #710

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Especially a problem because for almost all men a career and supporting family (maybe the hardest thing to figure out in life) is non optional, whereas half the female friends I have from college have abandoned careers to saddle up to a breadwinner ... I mean I kind of want that option but men don't really have it. Does anyone ever really discuss this social reality that makes it different for men v women in real wor…

> Especially a problem because for almost all men a career and supporting family (maybe the hardest thing to figure out in life) is non optional... What do you mean? Of course those are optional. If you don't want a career, you're not going to have one. If you don't want to get married and support a family, then you don't have to. I mean, "saddle up to a breadwinner" is an extremely demeaning thing to say about a who…

Did you really just call out the parent comment for being demeaning when you yourself are sitting here saying that women, as a group, choose undesirable and unsuccessful professions? Please stop.

Re: Fewer young men are in the labor force, more are living at home

#744

Post by aidenn0 »

holoduke wrote: post #395
UncleOxidant wrote: post #113

I've got two nephews aged 34 and 32 who still live at home and play video games all the time and rarely leave their rooms. Neither has ever had a job that lasted more than a month or so. Neither ever learned to drive even though they live in a town with little or no public transit. They haven't had any education beyond high school. They seem wholly unprepared to navigate life without their parents. It's a slow motion…

I had the same life till my 26th. I then stopped watching television, threw all games away and started studying computer science. I am so happy about that move. I am 40 now. Own multiple IT businesses and have a happy family. Game/TV addiction is really dangerous. You don't have to be a depressed person to fall into it.

I personally new almost a dozen people who flunked out of college due to playing MMO games. Probably at least partly my nerdy cohort, but it was more than the total of depression and/or substance abuse combined.

Re: Fewer young men are in the labor force, more are living at home

#745

Post by aidenn0 »

quickthrowman wrote: post #424
emerged wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s like drug or alcohol addiction. People can become somewhat “born again” usually after some kind of catastrophe and/or “rock bottom” moment. Parents allowing this from their adult children are akin to addict enablers.

Hey, stop doxxing me! Just kidding, but this post accurately describes my 20s and early 30s. I’ve been ‘born again’ twice, once after opiate addiction and once after alcohol. I had an adult parent enabling me throughout as well. Two rock bottom moments, after the first I decided to disregard the advice I was given, and it didn’t take. The second time, I was humbled and did the work by heeding the advice I was given a…

> ’ve been ‘born again’ twice, once after opiate addiction and once after alcohol. I had an adult parent enabling me throughout as well

As a parent of 4 kids who for various reasons are all at elevated risk for substance abuse, what can I do if/when this happens to one of my kids to not enable them?

Re: Fewer young men are in the labor force, more are living at home

#747

Post by acituan »

cjohnson318 wrote: post #725
acituan wrote: post #721

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Men are not doing as well as women in school. Schools are not performing as well for men as they do for women. I'm not just playing with words; it is really important to frame the share of responsibility correctly. It is the school's job to educate the kid, not kid's job to compensate for the dysfunctions of an education system. I'll generalize because I don't have any detailed data; anyone from the front-line educ…

Men run most governments. Men own most companies. Men dominate the higher levels of corporations. Most engineers, doctors, lawyers, investors, and other highly paid professionals are men. Men simply own more capital than women, by a huge margin. It looks like schools are performing better for men than women.

Allow me to correct the two logical distortions in your proposition.

Distortion 1) You can't take the outliers of a flatter distribution and generalize that to the entire population. You can't even compare the averages of two separate distributions without qualifiers.

It is true, most of the people who run governments are men. Most of the people who own companies are men. Most of the people who dominate C levels are men. Most highly paid professionals are mostly held by men. Most of the top outliers of capital ownership are men.

But it is also true most men don't run governments. Most men are not even remotely close to running companies. Most men are not C level execs. Most men don't have high paying jobs. Most men don't have any capital (if not negative).

Distortion 2) Even if it was true that it was exclusively powerful men's fault that boys are failing, it is completely irrelevant to bring it up when talking about men as victims, unless one would also suggest that boys somehow deserve to suffer educational disadvantages because of those men have a lot of capital, or there is some hidden variable that connects the two events.

Re: Fewer young men are in the labor force, more are living at home

#748

Post by shkkmo »

cjohnson318 wrote: post #630
thepasswordis wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that what I said? I said that these young men don't have strong positive male role models.

> These guys grew up in a school system of almost entirely women teachers... Implies there's something wrong with the way women teach. If you meant to say, "young men don't have strong positive male role models", something most people would agree with, then you should have said that.

> Implies there's something wrong with the way women teach.

No, you are uncharitably reading that into the statement.

Re: Fewer young men are in the labor force, more are living at home

#749

Post by Causality1 »

lurquer wrote: post #353
Causality1 wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's absolutely wild. As far as I knew the most you owe anyone staying in your house is 24 hours to remove their things after which you can call the sheriff to arrest them as a trespasser. I can't believe they had to go to court over that.

Most states require all kinds of hoops to evict a resident. Even without a a lease. You can’t just lock them out. Sometimes the penalties for a wrongful eviction can be severe. And, in some states, there are criminal penalties. (As a practical matter, it rarely comes to this as a couch-surfer will go find another couch instead of wasting money on attorneys and the like. But, typically, the owner of the property can’t…

Depends on the state. New York requires an ejectment hearing since he's family but in most states he doesn't have any more rights than a regular guest, since by his own admission he has never been asked to pay rent or contribute to expenses. Outside of certain cities with local protection laws, you can just change the locks when they leave.

Re: Fewer young men are in the labor force, more are living at home

#750

Post by throwaway306744 »

majormajor wrote: post #125
andrewmcwatters wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does effort mean in this context? I recall friends of mine, young women, who were having the hardest time finding a significant other were just demanding things of men that would have them selecting from a socioeconomic pool of the top 20% of the population, when they themselves were in the bottom 20%. It was my experience that young women in general were asking for too much when I was in my early 20s. They want…

This is talking about two different things, I think. The "I want the total package" unrealistic-expectations person is prominent in both genders, even if "no fat chicks" t-shirts aren't as popular as they once were. The slob-with-hot-wife TV trope probably hasn't helped men's expectations here. The "I'm gonna send a thousand dick pics and see who is down for a hookup" behavior, on the other hand, seems predominantly…

> Those men result in a worse experience for BOTH women and men

Someone at Match Group must have worked out that having these users boosts the bottom line more than it reduces engagement and retention. Maybe these are the guys paying for Premium Platinum with extra InMails each day. (Oops wrong platform.)

Post reply on HN