Men Not Working

[GreenGreen]

Given the media buzz about declining men’s labor force participation, it is common knowledge that the employment situation for men today is less than ideal.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/19/janice-shaw-crouse-men-not-working/

One of the trends which is most frightening is the percentage of young people (not just young men but more often than not young men) between the ages of 18 and 24 who have "disappeared" from the economy. They are not enrolled in higher education, not in the military.

 

[boomerang]

That must be some bad info there. The government tell us unemployment is under 6%.

 

[fskimospy]

That must be some bad info there. The government tell us unemployment is under 6%.

You either didn't read the article or you're an idiot.

Maybe both.

 

[Ancalagon44]

You either didn't read the article or you're an idiot.

Maybe both.

*whoosh*

That is the sound of his point going over your head.

 

[Blanky]

It's quite remarkable how the tables have turned against men compared to women in the past several decades. Of course, they still enjoy many apparent perks, but in a lot of ways boys are turning into collective losers. They have higher rates of juvenile delinquency (though I assume they always did), lower graduation rates, significantly lower odds now of having a degree, etc.

Sometimes I wonder if men's propensity to physicality is simply a hindrance in the modern age, their hormones influencing behavior that is less acceptable as we move away from a physically-based society.

I guarantee if you polled expecting parents 50 years ago and now you'd find a wild difference in the preference of sex. I bet, on the whole, more people want a boy now than a girl, but I bet that number is much closer to parity than it used to be.

 

[fskimospy]

*whoosh*

That is the sound of his point going over your head.

Hey look, another person who doesn't understand labor force participation.

If you think he made a good point you didn't read the article or you're an idiot.

 

[highland145]

Hey look, another person who doesn't understand labor force participation.

If you think he made a good point you didn't read the article or you're an idiot.

Aaaand we're off on a Friday morning.



Time for a coffee break.

 

[Sonikku]

Today’s young men have their own set of excuses for their idleness and their own blame shifting tactics for their failures to get an education and inability to hold down a job. These are young men who, through media, have seen the lifestyles of the rich and famous. They’ve seen privileged kids enter the Ivy League world, seen neighborhood athletes move up from high school sports to the college or professional level. They’ve seen the “get rich quick” path via music or rap, drug dealing or pimping. They don’t want to become minimum-wage working stiffs starting out at McDonald’s or Jiffy Lube. To get the jobs they think they deserve, they need a college education, a master’s degree, even a doctoral degree, something totally out of their reach.

This. Young men today don't work less from a lack of career paths or living wages or jobs that have been abruptly abandoned and offshored to other countries over the past twenty years. Nor do they pass on going to college due to the skyrocketing tuition costs and debt and diminishing value relative to their parents and grand parents' day. Nor has automation and dramatically increased productivity expectations destroyed jobs and reduced what is available or had a tangible impact on the size on the market. No, they're just all lazy and star struck by thug life.

 

[Genx87]

I do think there is a sense of entitlement among many in this country when it comes to jobs. Why this is affecting men more than women I don't know. But there is a huge demand for skilled laborers in this country. And that demand will grow as more men retire.

 

[Nograts]

Aaaand we're off on a Friday morning.



Time for a coffee break.

Woooo! P&N!

18-24s are worthless anyways. Bunch a hippies need to get off my lawn.

 

[unokitty]

From the original article:

It is only a matter of time before policy makers – contending with lagging economic growth that both puts a crimp on the growth of tax revenue while driving up social welfare expenditures – will have to face up to the drag on the economy created by having more than 10 million unmarried men of prime working age not working, the vast of majority (nearly 70 percent) of whom are not looking for a job and hence not counted as unemployed.

Obama's Spokesman
Jay Carney claimed that 2.5 million Americans leaving the workforce was a good thing, because they would no longer be “trapped in a job.”

Don't know what is wrong with the lady that wrote the original article. Maybe she is bitter because she has to pay more taxes for those young men that in her words 'are not woking.'

But the reality is that thanks to Obama those are young men are 'no longer trapped in a job.'

Obama won the election. And to quote Obama, 'Elections have consequences.'

The author is welcome to bitterly cling to her job. But she better pay her taxes.

Because if she keeps bad mouthing the President's policies, she's likely to end up talking to IRS auditors.

Uno

 

[Subyman]

That must be some bad info there. The government tell us unemployment is under 6%.

*whoosh*

That is the sound of his point going over your head.

Unemployment statistics are calculated by the number of people actively seeking employment and not being able to find it. The article is talking about men not looking for employment at all and they are not in the military or school.

To me this could mean they are doing more side jobs (handy man, mowing, under the table cash labor) or they are sitting at a house somewhere doing nothing.

 

[rudeguy]

From the original article:
Obama's Spokesman
Jay Carney claimed that 2.5 million Americans leaving the workforce was a good thing, because they would no longer be “trapped in a job.”

Don't know what is wrong with the lady that wrote the original article. Maybe she is bitter because she has to pay more taxes for those young men that in her words 'are not woking.'

But the reality is that those are young men that thanks to Obama are 'no longer trapped in a job.'

Obama won the election. And to quote Obama, 'Elections have consequences.'

The author is welcome to bitterly cling to her job. But she better pay her taxes.

Because if she keeps bad mouthing the President's policies, she's likely to end up talking to IRS auditors.

Uno

Yep...we went over this:

People should not have to work for things, everything should be handed to them while they play xbox.

 

[maddogchen]

Unemployment statistics are calculated by the number of people actively seeking employment and not being able to find it. The article is talking about men not looking for employment at all and they are not in the military or school.

To me this could mean they are doing more side jobs (handy man, mowing, under the table cash labor) or they are sitting at a house somewhere doing nothing.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...eir-weekdays-men-vs-women.html?abt=0002&abg=0

Mostly sitting at home watching tv and movies

 

[Subyman]

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...eir-weekdays-men-vs-women.html?abt=0002&abg=0

Mostly sitting at home watching tv and movies

On their parent's dime? They won't qualify for benefits unless they have children or are disabled. I'm wondering where they get their money, which is why I think they are probably doing gray-market jobs that aren't reported or living off of their parents/girlfriend.

 

[Spungo]

That must be some bad info there. The government tell us unemployment is under 6%.

The article is racist!

 

[OverVolt]

..

 

[rudeguy]

..

Why do you do this?

 

[zinfamous]

Why do you do this?

If you ever get an answer, please fill me in. I'm very curious about it as well.

Personally, I have a problem changing my posts if I have said something that is proven to be stupid. I own it and admit it in those cases, but will always leave my idiotic comments up for posterity...I always assumed that was the proper model for public discussion forums. :\

 

[nickqt]

I blame the feminist feminazis taking all yurrrr jurrbbs.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

I wonder if a significant chunk of those males are involved in the "underground economy" -- drug dealing, working off-the-books, etc.

Oh, and don't just blame outsourcing as a cause. Also consider mass legal/illegal immigration.

 

[rudeguy]

If you ever get an answer, please fill me in. I'm very curious about it as well.

Personally, I have a problem changing my posts if I have said something that is proven to be stupid. I own it and admit it in those cases, but will always leave my idiotic comments up for posterity...I always assumed that was the proper model for public discussion forums. :\

Yep. If I post something that bites me back I leave it. It's part of the nerd code.
There was a thread recently where I totally put my foot in my mouth while flaming another user. By the time I had hit "post" he had posted a link that proved me wrong and made me look like a tool for flaming him.

All I could do was add an edit cursing him for ruining my post.

 

[soccerballtux]

he has a right to edits if he likes.

 

[rudeguy]

he has a right to edits if he likes.

Or he could you know...think before he posts so he doesn't screw up a ton of threads with dot posts.

 

[zephyrprime]

Of course, they still enjoy many apparent perks, but in a lot of ways boys are turning into collective losers.

Tell me what are these apparent perks.