* "Women held 50.04% of nonfarm payroll positions in December, the highest share since 2010."
* "Over the past year alone, they’ve taken on a greater share of positions traditionally held by men: they make up 13.8% of mining and logging jobs, up from 12.6% a year earlier, as well as a growing share of manufacturing work..."
* "Women have the biggest presence in education and health services -- holding more than three-quarters of those positions -- and government services with about 58%. They account for 56% of positions in financial activities."
The labor force participation rates for men and women are currently at 69.2% and 57.7% respectively. They arbitrarily exclude farming positions but cite mining, logging, manufacturing, transportation, and warehouse roles traditionally occupied by men. This article doesn't really seem to paint a full or accurate picture.
FWIW I see "non-farm employment" rather often when anything related to unemployment happens. From what I gather, it's how all the data has been categorized forever.
So while I can't give you the reasoning behind it, and don't know if it's still valid or now just being done to make the data comparable, I can assure you choosing this statistic wasn't a bad-faith attempt to manipulate.
Farm employment has always been more informal, harder to track, and rife with illegal practices (child labor, illegal immigrants, minimum wage violations) that make reported data hard to trust/reason from.
Even here in Canada farm related employment is classed separately for a variety of things including taxes and employment insurance. I've never really thought much about it, but every employment related government form I've ever filled out is like that.
I doubt the exclusion of farming positions is arbitrary, the area is full of self/family employment and illegal employment that probably caused the exclusion. It does paint a false narrative though.
It's a longstanding measurement, yeah. And it's not actually just excluding agriculture, the definition removes a whole cluster of jobs that are especially hard to track accurately, including all of nonprofit employment and unincorporated self-employment (i.e. most of construction, handymanning, etc.)
Of course, farm labor and unincorporated self-employment are heavily male, and nonprofit work is heavily female. So it's a useful statistic for accurate change-over-time data, but stories like this treating 50% as an inherently meaningful tipping point are wildly misleading.
There are still family farms BUT they are farms where you have multiple people in the family that have gone to university, even have masters, phd, law degrees, business degrees.
They don't treat it as a family farm anymore. What people used to call a family farm year/decades ago is now more likely classified as a hobby farm.
They still have many members of their family working for a nontraditional salary, often including teens. The traditional family farm is gone, farm families are still a thing.
Wait, so women make up the majority of the non-farm labor force, but the labor force participation rate is 12% higher for men? How does that work? Are 12% of men either in the military or on disability? Or what?
I found three big factors. First, the "labor force" has no age cap, so there are lots more women alive than men. Second, lots of adult men are in the military or prison, so equal numbers of jobs would mean higher male labor force participation. Third, "nonfarm payrolls" doesn't just mean nonfarm, and excludes more employed men than women. But there's one big issue with nonprofit labor I couldn't sort out.
From the BLS stats in question (https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm), the total "civilian noninstitutional population" (i.e. labor force) is 260 million. Of the 244 million who are ages 20+ and broken out by gender, there are 117.4M men and 126.0M women.
Why the difference?
- Disabled people are still included for the labor force cohort unless they're hospitalized/institutionalized, so the gender-gap impact is relatively low.
- Active-duty military service covers 1.3M adults, 90% male.
- Incarceration covers 2.3M adults, 90% male.
- The "labor force" has no upper age boundary, so the 20+ cohort has about 6 million more women. (1.5M people are in nursing homes and not counted, but the gender split is fairly even.)
That's 6 million more women total, and 3M more men than women excluded from the pool, against a laborforce gap of ~9 million. Looks pretty complete for the denominator. But the raw number of total nonfarm payrolls listed is 76.2 million per gender. That would be 66.9% male LFPR, and 62.3% female LFPR, which we know isn't right.
The BLS report instead has a male 20+ LFPR of 84M (71.5%) and female 20+ of 74.5M (59.2%), which is that 12% gap. What gives?
- Farm labor is part of the LFPR. That data is extremely messy, but there are ~3M farm workers who appear to be ~75% male.
- Multiple jobs count as multiple payrolls, but one employment. This adds 6-7M non-employment payrolls per gender to help explain why the employment counts don't match payrolls, and up to 0.5M more female payrolls than male. (Although I can't tell what percentage are nonfarm payrolls.)
That correction gets us to 70.7% male LFPR and 60.7% female LFPR, which is much closer to correct. Correct for the 16-19 numbers at it gets even closer. Looks good!
...except that apparently nonprofit jobs aren't included in nonfarm payrolls either. And that's 12M people, ~73% female. Which completely blows out the stats, so badly that I can't find any way to fix it. All I can say is either seasonal adjustment, or major differences in raw population counts between the methods (e.g. response rate gaps). Does anyone else know what's up?
Why does being in the military matter? Why would men in the military not count as being part of the labor force? It's a job, that you get paid for. There are plenty of other government jobs that count as being in the labor force.
Active duty personnel isn't in the labor force in either status. The full name for the widely quoted BLS stat is "noninstitutionalized civilian labor force".
If I have my numbers right, there are ~120M men ages 20+ and ~125.5M women 20+ in the US. That's basically equal to the BLS female labor force stat, but about ~3M too high for the male labor force stat, with prisoners and military personnel making up the vast majority of the difference. It's not a huge gap in numbers, but both exclusions are overwhelmingly prime-age people and skew the male LFPR towards retirees.
(I should have been clearer, but my first set of bullets are about exclusions from the LFPR, and my second are about data in the LFPR but not in nonfarm payrolls. "Nonfarm payroll" appears to be a strict subset of the labor force "employed" pool. Both measures exclude active military personnel, although nonfarm payrolls uses a slightly broader standard which also covers intelligence agencies.)
As far as impact, soldiers (and handymen, etc) aren't counted as "not participating", they're pulled out of the denominator also. But yes, the different pools mean that if men and women have equal LFPR percentages, the in-dataset workforce would be 51.7% female. Even weirder, the "prime-age" and overall labor force participation rates can't simultaneously be equal between genders. All of which contributes to news stories like this one misusing random benchmarks.
Why measure it that way?
The BLS started collecting civilian labor force data in 1948. Participation rates had a gender gap of more than 50 points, so the implications of equal participation weren't very relevant. But 10 million soldiers had been raised during the war, many by conscription, and that same 10 million were decommissioned between 1945 and 1947 - all against an adult population of 100 million. So it was clear that during wartime any military-included statistic would have no real bearing on what potential workers at home were choosing to do.
It's not totally clear to me why government workers were counted at all. They don't get drafted and their numbers don't vary wildly in wartime, so it's less of a data issue, but it would include explicit make-work projects like the CCC. I suppose that if the point is to measure which available workers are choosing to work, CCC employment is more "valid" than conscription?
Why keep the stat that way with a comparatively small, all-volunteer military?
Continuity, pretty much. Changing definitions or abandoning stats ruins change-over-time data, so the BLS almost always adds new stats instead of changing old ones.
Average IQ is [1]98 and decreasing. Don't think it would be statistically possible for everyone to have 110 as IQ in workplaces.
[2] For your other claims about low IQ. It is "correlated" with lower lifespan (bit different than what you claimed but causes are similar) since you didn't cite.
You can find studies explaining high IQ with differences in environment or income and others point to genes. Some studies claim the choice of [3]toys your kids play with correlates to their IQ and success in life while others ask you to find a good genetic match.
Depending on which camps you are in, IQ could be highly related to the poor condition of the society.
* -15 points for not getting a healthy diet and regular health check ups in your childhood.
* -15 points for lack of proper education, social and family structure in your childhood.
* -17 points for mental health problems, unemployment, poverty and limited freedom after you become an adult.
Those issues overlap with each other regardless of IQ. Although, you can argue Intelligent parents can change these outcomes and if you believe IQ is heritable, then it makes perfect sense. You can use that to explain your bias.
Historically, evidence has been carefully crafted to promote products, services, aristocracy and many other things. I believe a lot happens now too with a different vector (China manipulating their averages) so I think IQ is not a good metric for looking down on people and explaining other circumstantial problems.
Farm work much of the time is ephemeral. There is a small window for goods to be picked. There is a small window for the tractors to be up kept post or pre harvest/planting.
And, as others have said it can be a paper money transaction business.
I find this fairly astounding. The typical stay-at-home parent is the mother and while it's getting closer to parity I don't think it's anywhere near even. For that reason alone I would expect more men in the work force. What are men doing if not working? On disability? Homeless? Retiring earlier?
>> What are men doing if not working? On disability? Homeless? Retiring earlier?
Some are living in their parents basement until they're 30 to 40. It has been hypothesized that with the breakdown of families in the US, men are giving up, and that includes efforts to build a stable foundation for their family. See MGTOW but dont read too much, it can be kind of depressing.
I agree with Esther Perel's thinking[1] that the next century is going to involve a broadening on what society deems a positive life is for straight, cis men. In the same way that we consider it acceptable for women to express themselves or live differently than the gender roles of the past, I think we'll start to do the same for men. I already see this with my millennial or genZ peers.
It's not uncommon to read comments on Hacker News or twitter from men feeling that they seen as less valid for doing less traditional activities[2][3] (eg: caring for children, prioritizing their careers less, being less traditionally forward, etc.) and I think society is going to need to change to acknowledge this better for both men and women.
I admit that I haven't read much on the subject, but it feels to me that, at least in American society, it has long been considered more acceptable for men to have various social arrangements than for women. My impression is that it's considered far more acceptable for a man to be working and unmarried well past the average marriage age than for a woman. Compare the words "bachelor" and "spinster."
> it's considered far more acceptable for a man to be working
That last word is the key point. Men receive less judgment for remaining single than women, but they also receive more judgment if they don't work. That's a reason we're much more willing to code an unemployed or underemployed man as a "loser" than we are to do so a woman.
That's very true. We definitely are more lenient towards people in different ways depending on their gender, and there are a lot of relaxed social expectations that men have compared to women.
Still though, I think there are dimensions of this where this is less true, perhaps in ways that men are expected to seem "confident" or "strong" or "independent" which I think can be stiffing. The typical men's section of a clothing store normalizes a lot more conservative wardrobes compared to women. I wish I had better words to explain it.
>perhaps in ways that men are expected to seem "confident" or "strong" or "independent" which I think can be stiffing.
Yep, and women demand this too: many women's dating profiles talk about how they want a guy who's "confident but not cocky", who "makes a plan" for dates, who "takes the lead", etc. Basically, American women want hyper-masculine men who look like George Clooney (when younger), but then they sit around complaining about "toxic masculinity" and how they're mistreated by men.
>The typical men's section of a clothing store normalizes a lot more conservative wardrobes compared to women.
Men's fashion is truly horrible compared to women's fashion. Men basically have the choice of either a stuffy suit that look like it hasn't changed in a century and is completely impractical, or baggy pants and a baggy hoody. Women get all kinds of choices in clothes, including lots which show off their bodies, while men's clothes are basically designed to hide our bodies completely and look as boring as possible. I guess that's helpful if you're fat, but if you're athletic and toned, it's really not.
>Men's fashion is truly horrible compared to women's fashion
I don't believe men's fashion is horrible, but I think the sheer variety and design quality of clothing available to women is pretty impressive.
But then, to be honest, that's consumer driven. Some will harangue me for pointing out that a great majority of women love looking good and put vast amounts of time and money into it, between clothing, accessories and makeup. As such they've a much wider market of choice as producers try to attract that demand.
Men have nice options. As I brought up a stereotype above, I'll bring one up now which holds as true - a vast majority of men put little or no effort into their own appearance and with obesity rates heightening it's only getting worse.
I've only briefly touched it but check out the Thread app if you want an idea of good looking outfits available to guys at various price ranges. I'm not sure of alternatives, as I generally just shop / dress myself with some effort, but it certainly looks like it both offers great variety while also taking out a lot of the guess work, an example being you can state if you've wide thighs and they won't show you pants that won't accommodate that.
> Men's fashion is truly horrible compared to women's fashion. Men basically have the choice of either a stuffy suit that look like it hasn't changed in a century and is completely impractical, or baggy pants and a baggy hoody. Women get all kinds of choices in clothes, including lots which show off their bodies, while men's clothes are basically designed to hide our bodies completely and look as boring as possible. I guess that's helpful if you're fat, but if you're athletic and toned, it's really not.
Strongly disagree—you may just not have been exposed to all the options in men's fashion. There are tons, without even deviating too far from traditional/normal.
Sure. Women are limited to painted-on pockets for pants, while men get the entire gamut from painted-on leghuggers to many-small-knapsacks cargo pants.
Right now, most men's fashion is terrible in terms of how it models the waist. Put on anything that you consider to be fashionable, and then see how well your hip-hinge and thighs-parallel squats do. No wonder the Scottish loved their kilts!
Women have a choice of what they want to wear. If they want to wear leggings with no pockets, they can. If they want to wear "boyfriend" cut jeans with exactly the same pockets as men, they can. If they want to wear a dress with pockets, they can.
A trip to a women's clothing store would disprove the notion that women don't have choices very quickly.
Exactly. If a woman wants to wear jeans, it's OK. Or slacks, or a skirt, or a dress, or shorts, or leggings/yoga pants these days.
What choices for bottoms do men have that aren't trousers? There's shorts if the weather's warm enough (though there seem to be a bunch of weird men out there wearing shorts in freezing weather for some reason), but that's it.
Don't forget the colors. Dress too colorfully as a man, and people think you're gay. So we usually end up sticking with darker, solid colors.
> Men basically have the choice of either a stuffy suit that look like it hasn't changed in a century and is completely impractical, or baggy pants and a baggy hoody.
I don't wear either of these on a daily basis, nor my birthday suit, and people think that I dress nice. Men have a plethora of clothing options that are stylish, comfortable, and appropriate for work situations. I'm currently wearing slacks that are designed to feel like sweat pants and a thick cotton button up shirt.
Women have it pretty bad when it comes to clothes shopping. Men take for granted that we all are roughly the same shape, so most of us can shop at the same stores. It's not like that for women.
Women come in many different shapes. So you look and see that a clothing store has twice as many jeans for women as they do for men, but don't realize that all of those are split over four or five styles that are mutually exclusive: most women can only fit into one, maybe two styles. But for men, most of us can wear slim fit, regular fit, bootcut, etc jeans.
This same phenomenon extends to stores as well. Lots of women's clothing brands specialize in a certain shape of woman.
> Men take for granted that we all are roughly the same shape.
I read this frequently, but it just seems flat wrong, I think men just have lower expectations about how clothes should fit, and there is less expectation that men stay slim. I’m trim and fit, and I can only buy from a couple of brands if I want clothes that fit me well without being skin tight. I’m not alone. There is a great variety of shoulder geometries for men, I remember hearing on JRE, but I can’t find a source to link, that their is a huge of amount of variation in men’s(everyone’s?) shoulders, probably due to Homo sapiens evolving to hunt with overhand thrown rocks. I could be flat wrong, but I detest this, “men’s bodies are mostly the same” attitude, you can definitely tell the difference between someone wearing a well tailored suit and someone who isn’t. I’m pretty sure men just have lower standards/expectations.
Decent (read: donated to by people with money) thrift stores are a great place to find one's sizing. Go in with a few brands in mind and an understanding of how their sizing works (they may have cut variations in addition to just small/medium/large, like trim/slim/regular, for instance) then just start trying on anything from those brands until you narrow down your correct sizing. If you get very close you may be able to guess for e.g. online sale orders from that brand (say, a pair of chinos at the thrift store is a tiny bit too tight but looks alright otherwise, so you're very confident 1" more in the waist would fit well, so you catch the next sale from that brand and order their chinos in the size you're almost sure will fit)
Difficulty: you have to know what to look for in fit so you can diagnose what's wrong with a given article if it's not quite right.
I duno, what you say sounds right but my experience seems to be the opposite, i can never find anything that fits in physical shops, everything seems to be stocked for either obese or tall people, i'm slim and on the shorter side (but not very short)... alternatively perhaps I just expect shopping to actually be efficient, i hate spending ages shopping, but perhaps frequency is the only way you can find a good fit... and the only thing I have managed to figure out so far is that fit is important.
My theory right now is simply that on average women have the will power to spend enough time and energy on the task regardless... men might have the desire to look good, but when faced with the reality of time and money required to achieve it say fuck no, it doesn't hold their interest enough.
It takes some combination of time and money. On the high end of the money side you know nothing about fashion and pay someone to dress you well. On the low end you have to learn a bunch and spend serious time so you can buy pieces via thrift, sales, and seconds, that'll actually fit, look good/appropriate, and last.
> Men take for granted that we all are roughly the same shape, so most of us can shop at the same stores.
As a trim, broad-shouldered 5'2" guy, I had to laugh at your entire comment. I have literally never found a shirt or jacket that fits off the rack from... dozens? Hundreds? of different brands.
My bet is that you fall into a conventionally masculine body shape, and you universalize your own experience to all men.
I'm 6' tall and I have trouble many times finding shirts to fit these days, because they seem to be cut for fatter men than myself (I'm rather thin). Most shirts and other tops seem to be really baggy to me.
I'm 6' as well and 75 lbs overweight (working on it). If I find dress shirts that fit my neck they are basically potato sacks on me. And it has always been that way, even when I wasn't overweight. The only option I've ever had if I've wanted to look sharp was to get shirts tailored.
Your best bet is to find some kind of East Asian brand(Uniqlo or H&M for example but they are fast fashion tier places so I'm not actually recommending those specifically) where smalls are actually small and fit nicely on smaller frames.
I actually do have a bunch of shirts from Uniqlo. The problem, however, is while they mostly fit nicely (i.e., they aren't designed for fat people), they're not quite long enough for me, so they frequently become untucked. Their idea of a "medium" guy is a guy who's 5'7 at the most, I'm guessing, and I'm over 6'. This isn't that much of a problem, though, compared to the long-sleeve shirts: on those the sleeves are an inch or two too short, because again they're not thinking a "medium" is a guy who's over 6' with long arms. I have gotten pretty lucky with some of the short-sleeve shirts though.
Have you looked into Everlane? They're quite more expensive but there's a range of sizing that they provide with exact measurements and from what I read their clothes are designed for more European/Asian bodytypes instead of Americans. I also like the philosophy behind their company/brand which you can read on their website.
I find branching outside big-box stores and seeking out smaller brands will impress you - just in San Francisco, Taylor Stitch makes handsome quality clothes and Marine Layer clothes look and feel great.
Something that won't crush my balls when I sit down. If skirt-like or kilt-like, it would also be a lot cooler than pants in the summer, if it was acceptable in an office.
I think that comes from biology, many men can have children in their 70s, most women have problems past 35 (my piano teacher almost died in the age of 41 while giving birth, 3 years ago). Maybe medicine in the future would allow it, but as far as nature goes, there are different limits.
Just because you can have an erection and produce sperm at 70 doesn't mean you can have children and if you do they'll most likely suffer from down syndrome or other conditions.
Having kids after 45 as a male carries risks for the children as well.
>if you do they'll most likely suffer from down syndrome
Please cite something for this assertion or delete it, as it is not in line with anything I've read on the matter.
Increased paternal age carries some potential for increased side effects for their children, but it is absolutely nowhere near the risks involved in a delayed pregnancy for women [0].
Though there's some biological risk[1], it seems obvious the real problem is that you'll be dead before your kid is in college (and I am skeptical about how involved you could be in parenting before that...)
Men are too dependent on women and work for validation for «society» to allow a broader expression of the male gender role. Those who can’t get fullfilment through their job won’t get it any easier, and I don’t see women’s tastes in men changing much.
It hasn't happened yet. Meanwhile I feel like as a man I'm expected to be sensitive yet rugged, muscular yet not aggressive, strong but not a gym rat, have good skin but not use skin care products.
> It's not uncommon to read comments on Hacker News or twitter from men feeling that they seen as less valid for doing less traditional activities[2][3] (eg: caring for children, prioritizing their careers less, being less traditionally forward, etc.) and I think society is going to need to change to acknowledge this better for both men and women.
That is an interesting angle. What do you think is going to change, and what is going to cause it to change?
I think it's obvious this is already changing rapidly. Maybe certain antiquated standards of masculinity still reign supreme in rural Indiana (or wherever), but in major metros there is an constantly expanding spectrum within which gender can be expressed without drawing criticism.
It may be unusual for a man to stay home and take care of the children while his wife works. But the idea that I could ever stigmatize or criticism someone for this life arrangement is ridiculous to me. I'm sure that 40 years ago most men would only be able to respond with criticism. But these days that kind of reaction is laughable. And the men who have that kind of reaction would be viewed as backwards simpletons.
I think a growing cohort of men will start to live their lives and express themselves in ways that are fulfilling to them and know it’s worthwhile despite society’s expectations. This might involve being more “feminine” in a lot of ways or place less importance on their careers or seeming successful by traditionally masculine traits. I think men will recognize this in each other and support one another when their peers or women won’t necessarily like the untraditional new lives they’re leading. This might be like women having careers in the 1960s or LGBT people being out in society. It can be untraditional, but ultimately a fine and healthy way to live your life. I think social media or online communities will help with this too.
In terms of what is causing it to change, I think is deindustrialization and the nature of a capitalist, individualist society. If your peers or culture are asking you to be “masculine” as a hunter gatherer, Breton-Woods-era American tradesman, or Jay Gatsby-type, you’re going to feel out of place if you don’t feel like that’s how you want to live your life.
Few things to be said here as I think this comment is unbelievably misguided.
Much like how first wave feminism was a response to advanced in pressure vessels producing distilled alchohols, and second wave was a response to the obsolescance of muscle in manufacturing, so too is 3rd wave feminism the response to the key technologies of social media and contraceptives.
We've replaced the concept of a couple investing in eachother from a young age to build a nuclear family with college, debt and a status symbol competition; Social media and dating apps have cast relationships and sex as something that you purchase like a product, and they advertise to women that they too are a product, and that they are more valuable than 90% of men. When you remove the risk of STD's and pregnancy, advertise to women that the ability to act like a masterbation toy improves their "social worth" with no consequences. It's a disgusting trade but it has prooven unbelievably effective. The business model of OKCupid is to dissaude their audience from viewing relationships as investments so they instead invest time in OKCupid. Many women have shut themselves off from men approaching them entirely until they can fully vet them online first. The flip side of this is the "top dogs" become unbelievably pessimistic about, and often abusive of, women.
Today a newborn male child has a 1 in 2 shot at procreating (US Census data for Males never married, no children; look at the growth rate); that's 60 to 100 million men, TODAY, who are in search of a purpose in their lives that won't be fulfilled by a family. Ever. Replacement fertility is 2.1 births per women; we're at 1.7. When the USSR Collapsed they were down to 1.3. The dislocation this has produced is absolutely massive and is what is behind birth rate declines in western countries.
What nobody wants to talk about is how much of a powderkeg that will become when those men reach the end of their economic and reproductive utility and determine, rightfully so, they have been been screwed over. The reason you get the CEO of cloudflare blanning white supremacist material isn't because he REALLY hates those kinds of people; it's because the population is becoming a powderkeg and group identity politics is a VERY bad way for that to go. Every revolution has been predicated upon the concept of society losing it's concept of self-respect and dignity, and so devoid of those concepts, unable to engineer them into the solutions they impliment. After the french killed the aristocracy, they engaged in the reign of terror.
No amount of engaging in psychological warfare exercises selling information pollution such as the concept of a "CISGender" or taking down websites is going to change billions of years of evolution or the consequences of bad policy. I'm all for studies on sexuality but they have to be realistic; it is, like psychology, a complex topic.
If you like malthusianism, the approach of allowing the next wave of feminism take it's toll is about as tactful of a way of going about doing it as using a AAMRAM to kill a baby. The kind of generational complex trauma and resulting child maldevelopment this is going to create is not what suites any kind of functioning society well; all you have to do is look at the chicago ghetto's and the never-ending cycle of violence to understand that. The Chinese with their 1 child policy is far wiser for contrast. Think about it; you allow nuclear families and hey they really invest a heck of a lot into that one kid with the government stepping in to ensure it works out.
As far as the roles go in relationships, the correct way to look at it is, the two people in the relationship make the decisions, and if you have something to say about it, go to hell.
Real housewives of x city...??? I just don't get it! I feel autistic.
You can really see how far we have fallen when this type of stuff turns people on, and not only does it make a buck but so much more.
How is it that people don't see the narcissism and immorality that is portrayed and profited off of.
I mean, how can someone like teresa and joe giudice get caught doing things with loan applications and financial fraud that lead to our(usa) economic implosion, yet they still have a viewership and profit off of this.
Sorry to rant but I have to.
I have a therory and would like opinions. In a semi-perfect economic system all actors trying to start and run a business would play by the rules.
In the system today we know people are not perfect. Some are flawed and make decisions they know are illegal because of the situation their companies are in. Others just want to be on top and will do what they can as long as the scales will tip in their favor in the end, ie fines are less than profit.
As the number of people increase and the market increases the number of actors who are willingly doing these actions becomes more and more. In the end the only ones on the top, the only ones with money, are the ones who are willing to take calculated risk that include breaking the law and the morals of the society they live in.
I claim we live in a time where the vast majority of those in power and those with money have gotten there by the use of illegal means.
If you look at the bush family their great grandfather ran drugs into china illegally. A lot of beer and hard liqueur companies started out during or continued during prohibition. Walmarts own Sam walton under paid employees and then when the feds said he had to pay them he threatened that any one that cashed the check would be fired.
They say with that the milk cream rises to the top, and that is true for a certain amount of time.
If you wait longer it is the stench of rot and decay the comes to the top.
A stable system will always be over taken by rule breakers, hacker, criminals, an immoralist.
To be honest, I’m a little confused about your response. There are a lot of points related to things like feminism as a dialectic, a “meat market” perspective about online dating, social unrest for single men, and trauma. I’m not sure how they connect as a rebuttal, if they are one.
My point was that I think society will broaden its view on what a good life for men looks like. I think it will help a lot of the difficult things you mention. I think people will eventually agree with your closing statement much more than they do now. Could you help me understand what you think I’m misguided about? I genuinely don’t understand.
> Some are living in their parents basement until they're 30 to 40.
I understand this is considered a bad thing, and it makes sense at a societal level, but honestly it sounds like a pretty amazing life. Maybe that would have been boring and depressing pre-internet, but it seems pretty good now.
I know one dude who essentially grifted his way into the disability system, and I've watched him go from an anxious mess to a budding artist, literally living in his mom's basement. All he does is read the internet, take classes, and paint. His art keeps getting better. If he lives in his parent's basement for another decade, he might emerge as a great artist. Frankly, I'm kind of jealous.
The obvious down side is that he has a hard time finding a date, and family interaction is not optional. IMO those are both relatively minor penalties for a lifetime of freedom.
The real inexplicable thing here is how parents are letting this happen? I was never under any illusion that I'd be able to receive indefinite support from my parents, and society has given me every possible indication that this isn't an acceptable strategy.
Maybe we need an acceptable way for people who can't mentally handle work to be able to exist in society.
It's extremely American (not sure about other western countries) to judge people, especially men, who are living at home in a very negative light.
Old reference but the classic song "Scrubs" by TLC is is about not wanting to date a "scrub" and describes a "scrub" as "lives at home with your mama"
Conversely, in many Asian countries it's common to live at home until well into your 30s and 40s. In know families in most Asian countries where 3 generations live in the same house.
You can go through the dating sites in various countries here and see 30, 40, 50yr olds still living in their parents house. (it's a standard question on many Asian oriented dating sites) They may have studied abroad, or lived else where for a while but moved back in and no one blinks an eye. There's no or very little stigma unlike the USA.
It is a direct result of marketing by 3 Industries
Banks, Weddings, and Real Estate. Those 3 combined have made it the "American Dream" to buy a girl a fossilized carbon rock "worth" several times your monthly income, throw a big party at a cost exceeding most peoples yearly income, have 2.5 kids, and buy a home several times more than your yearly income
Anything less that massive debt and obtaining this "ideal" "American Dream" means your a loser
I can understand suicide rather than work, but that only takes you as far as "not working". I want to get to "not working so I can follow my passions".
> Maybe we need an acceptable way for people who can't mentally handle work to be able to exist in society.
That is in part exactly the purpose of a UBI (or Andrew Yang's Freedom Dividend(tm)). To provide people with basic necessities so they can minimally survive without work.
Another option is to be so toxic about the situation that you force the child out of the house. That's what would have happened to me, so I left before that.
>Maybe we need an acceptable way for people who can't mentally handle work to be able to exist in society.
I initially felt on-the-fence about this but upon further thought I absolutely disagree with the idea.
Society works and thrives when we've a common goal (all working to make things slightly better for everyone one bit at a time) and honest reciprocal agreements as one.
I am happy to partake in a society where the majority are trying their best for themselves and others, to support them when they fall down and want to get back up, or to step out of the workforce to procreate or retrain, to provide healthcare for all, access to housing, education etc.
I don't mind paying a little more if everyone who's willing to try their best to lean in to society and contribute gets the support and opportunity to do so, even if there's a disproportionate difference in outcome i.e. if all you're capable of doing is flipping burgers, parking cars, collecting trash, etc. then that's fine, just do your best at it.
I absolutely will not support those who just want to opt-out, unless safeguards were put in place to ensure their malignant genes stopped with them at the end of their days. I would also absolutely not support extending the right to vote to such people.
You get out what you put in. It's ok to try and fail, or fall ill, or struggle with a mental illness. It's good for a society to be there to help you pick yourself back up, to become well, and try again. It's the intent that counts. If you (the rhetorical you) merely want to sit on the sidelines because "life's too tough" then I'm sorry but you won't be doing it on my dime, or trying to sway the direction of my society with voter rights.
I used to have your view about this too, but I've lost confidence in your premise that "society works and thrives when we've a common goal".
I don't think we can really know what makes society thrive, and some of the traditional measures like unemployment and productivity may not be the right ones to use.
I think the answer is in some sort of UBI, where everyone can have a base level of existence for "free", but if you want nice things, you have to work for them. It seems to me that we would hit an equilibrium where everyone who's content not working can leech a little, but people who do want to work will have much greater rewards and would be higher quality workers.
Based on the number of people that I've met who are concerned about status symbols and having the latest and greatest toys, I suspect we'd see most people actually working in a UBI scenario. We would certainly see more risk takers, which could be the best possible thing for society.
I'd like to think that I would have founded a startup by now if I didn't need an income.
Status symbols and shiny toys aren't the only reason to want a job, unless you consider wanting a house large enough for each kid to have their own room a status symbol (rather than a basic improvement in living conditions). Or living in a big city with lots of cultural events (and compatible mates) but an expensive housing market. The biggest reason is that as long as you're dependent on UBI or other forms of welfare, you are dependent on the goodwill of the government and your fellow citizens, none of which are guaranteed indefinitely even in a liberal democracy. To be truly and completely "free", you need economic freedom too.
That's not an argument against UBI - I mostly agree with your analysis and solution - but I wouldn't be so dismissive of individuals' desire to improve their lives directly. It's not "greed" to want some control over your living standards and situation.
> unless safeguards were put in place to ensure their malignant genes stopped with them at the end of their days.
As if it’s their genetics and not their disenfranchisement from society that makes them want to drop out. We allow cheap foreign labor to displace these people, if we had stricter immigration I can guarantee that there would be less people in poverty, business would have to pay more to incentivize people to work there.
And we hardly help men “pick themselves back up”.
>you get what you put in.
lol, that’s a good one, I’m sure the Koch brothers would agree.
Plenty of people put in a lot and don’t get much back. Just because life worked out great for you—you put in effort and saw a return—doesn’t mean it works that way for everyone. I personally worked my ass off for 5 years and then got screwed out of my work by people with more money.
>voter rights
Am I getting trolled? You seriously want to associate voting rights with employment? Here I thought we left those sorts of attitudes in the last century.
> Plenty of people put in a lot and don’t get much back. Just because life worked out great for you—you put in effort and saw a return—doesn’t mean it works that way for everyone. I personally worked my ass off for 5 years and then got screwed out of my work by people with more money.
Dude, I worked especially hard for 13 years and got screwed badly. You are lucky that you got that knowledge in 5 years that hard work does not equate to anything and did not waste a lot of time.
Most of the people who graduated with me found loopholes in the system and are more successful exploiting it. Very few people took hard work route and even less became successful. (Note: I am not from the US)
Is this intended shallow provocation or is it an earnest attempt at discussion? You seem to have, intentionally or not, taken a discussion about a hypothetical direction for the generic future and plastered the shortcomings of modern America onto it, and took offense for it.
>As if it’s their genetics and not their disenfranchisement from society that makes them want to drop out
Some traits are heritable. We know intelligence certainly is. The "highly intelligent, just not driven" thing is a trope. I've lived and spent considerable time in European countries, particularly the British Isles, where they not only have a working class but also a welfare class made up of multi-generational families on welfare and have no intent on giving it up. It's not a significant amount of welfare recipients, but there are many and it's not something that should be encouraged.
Again, society is give and take. Fostering a sub-society of people who merely want to take and not reciprocate is unfair on the rest of society supporting them.
>And we hardly help men “pick themselves back up”.
I don't disagree with that. I'd argue that instead of enabling them to comfortably check-out, do nothing and live off others that the money would be better spent helping them become productive contributors to the society they've asked to be a part of.
>lol, that’s a good one, I’m sure the Koch brothers would agree.
Finding edge cases to point at does nothing for an argument talking about society (and the economy) in general. What I said holds true for the majority of the people.
Even if you want to self-select for an outlier like the Kochs, they're the beneficiaries of the hard work that came before them and whose lineage has both managed their work-earned money well, and taught their descendants to do the same.
Even then, the Koch's provide employment to roughly 100,000 people, 60,000 in the US alone[0], and give billions towards charity.[1]
Charles Koch's monetary charitable contributions alone top a $1bn, or ~2% of his fiscal net worth. How much of yours are handing over in the name of good?
I'm not even advocating for that kind of wealth, but simply pointing at the outlier you've chosen to show that my point actually does hold true - the Koch's employ and pay 100,000 people, people who use that pay to undoubtedly support countless others, while also giving large sums of effort and indeed cash to good causes. They are reaping the benefits from participating in society in an outlandish manner, but they're also contributing in one, environmental issues aside.
>Plenty of people put in a lot and don’t get much back. Just because life worked out great for you—you put in effort and saw a return—doesn’t mean it works that way for everyone. I personally worked my ass off for 5 years and then got screwed out of my work by people with more money.
What you've said is in support of my points, not against it. As I said, trying is what matters. Yes, some people work harder than others. Some people work smarter than others. Some people work harder and smarter. What's important is that everyone is giving it their best. I'm giving it my best, you've given it your best.
Again, as I said, a just society looks after those who are trying. The US, if you want to bring a single country into this (which I have tried to not, as I'm generalizing about society with hypothetical situations, some of which apply to some countries, some to others) is not a just society. I'm not going to sit here and singly talk about the USA.
The discussion came from a statement that society, en large, should facilitate those who don't want to participate. I see no reason why that should be US-centric.
>Am I getting trolled? You seriously want to associate voting rights with employment? Here I thought we left those sorts of attitudes in the last century.
No. I said that in the hypothetical situation that we create a class of people who want to permanently disengage and no longer contribute what they can to society, in doing so rejecting the responsibilities of being part of society, that they should not be extended the same rights as those participating in the society they're opting out from.
An entity who promises to rob Peter to pay Paul can always defend on the support of Paul. Conservatives who promise to reduce welfare or taxes in order to return money to those most affected can always depend on the support of those who will benefit. Leftists who promise to increase welfare and taxes to provide more social services can always depend on the support of those who already receive both. Both are fine, in a society where everyone is trying to do a little better one bit at a time.
People who could hypothetically opt-out permanently and rely on a life provided for by those who are not opting out is not someone who should be empowered to weigh in on decisions affecting those whose charity and good grace they're essentially still breathing from.
I hope none of the above is too outrageous to you, and it shouldn't be if you can sway yourself toward the hypothetical brought up and not concentrate on January 2020's America.
The article is about the USA, and the problem is specific to the US. It seemed natural that we were still talking about US society. I didn’t intend to provoke you with my bombast, I simply misinterpreted your argument, my apologies.
The first post didn’t elucidate your points well enough for me to put them in context, and it makes a lot more sense given this additional information. I actually agree with almost everything you said in principle! :) But the ambiguity of your previous post left me genuinely upset, as this particular issue hit close to home. I’m glad to have this sorted.
I tend to see a welfare class as an unfortunate inevitability of social welfare programs. The best thing we can do is have strong public education and holistic healthcare system to try and combat a multi-generation welfare class. It’s a difficult problem.
I’ll leave my original post as is, for the sake of prose.
You think a life where the only people who really know you and care about you actually kind of just loathe you? Contriubting nothing back to the scioety that created you? Leaving nothing on this earth after your gone then a collection of garbage?
> Maybe we need an acceptable way for people who can't mentally handle work to be able to exist in society.
What does mentally can't handle work even mean.
Animals can work, its that people don't want to work. Just because the reasons are probably more related to society than the individual doesn't mean they can't work.
> You think a life where the only people who really know you and care about you actually kind of just loathe you?
You mean my coworkers?
> Contriubting nothing back to the scioety that created you?
Sorry, I'll get right back to selling ads.
> Leaving nothing on this earth after your gone then a collection of garbage?
Don't forget a pile of proprietary code.
> What does mentally can't handle work even mean.
It means that some people feel cornered and constant anxiety and occasional panic attacks due to their work obligations. Those people can't handle work.
Purely anecdotal, but some men I know who haven't started families* are coasting along and are less aggressive to seek career opportunities. Uber, part-time work, etc. Why put your nose to the grindstone if you don't need to provide anymore?
*either by choice or because they don't live up to society's standards (e.g. hypergamy)
Not all men that have chosen not to have a family are "living in their parent's basement" or have "given up" on life.
I made the choice about 20 years ago to never marry, and never have children. I own my home, have an amazing career full of growth and future potential and currently am in the top 20% of wage earners.
Had I made a different choice 20 years ago I likely would be married with 2 kids right now, and be making significantly less income likely living paycheck to paycheck struggling to pay rent
What is depressing to me is the belief that family is the only way to have fulfillment in life, and if you choose not to have children you have "given up" on life
Another anecdotal point is I know men that do have families or partners but the woman is the primary or only breadwinner. Sometimes they are active stay at home dads, sometimes they are coasting/given up or in school or working on a startup but in all cases they are financially supported by a woman.
"Basement" is not usually bad in these cases. The image that comes to mind is a finished basement with a separate (or at least semi-private entrance).
I think "basement" has become synonymous with these cases because:
1. It reflects that the person is at least semi-independent (as opposed to children who live within the same space as the parents)
2. It is a bit insulting, reflecting society's view of the situation (it subtly implies antisocial behavior... The basement gamer, for example)
Basements are usually a fairly large single room, usually well away from the commonly traversed areas of the house. These things appeal to grown males living with their parents because they can be louder, have more space, be more private, etc.
While the expression is living in your parent's basement, I don't think the kids are literally living in the basement unless the parents happen to have a home with a nice finished basement which is nicer to live in than an upstairs bedroom. It's just an expression.
I second this. Unless the person has lived their entire life in the basement (which seems a little cruel) why has the person been moved to the basement after reaching adulthood? Why can't they keep their room?
Basements in the US are really nice. As other have said, they are typically really big (usually the entire foot print of the house above), isolated and sometimes have their own entrances.
My parents moved my sister into the basement when she grew up because it was basically an apartment. It was a lot bigger than her bedroom, and offered her the chance to accumulate some furniture and stuff that she would need when she moved out.
The basement is an upgrade. It's virtually a bachelor apartment (or a flat, for the Europeans reading), often with its own access, a private bathroom and often a kitchen or kitchenette. They're actually lux enough that they do very well on the rental market in busy cities.
For the child of the adult owners, it's a sort of independent-dependence. Some move down there while trying to save money for their own dwelling, which is probably the most often case, and others move down there, never strive for independence and become the stereotype talked about in this thread.
I'm not sure how it is in other countries, but if you look at the rental market in the US, it is fairly common to see the basement rented out as an entirely seperate unit.
Do you think US is moving towards Japan? I.e. a significant population of herbivore men (60%?) that get no benefit from associating with women, losing this motivational signal and dropping out of society?
I think it's both; I spent some time in Kyoto and have clearer perspective. Both genders there grew apart from each other, pursuing different, incompatible goals, with huge cumulative effects on society.
I've seen a few too many women where they honestly are better off when they don't have a male romantic partner: the men they choose end up being a burden to them. For younger women, it's because they keep choosing men who just cause them problems and can't support themselves. For older women, there's a common pattern where the man dies very quickly when his wife dies, but if the man dies first, the wife can live many years or even decades because now she's free, and doesn't have to take care of him.
Honestly, the whole 2-married-partner relationship thing seems to only work out well in a small minority of cases.
Honestly, I can't blame a lot of these men for feeling that way and not wanting to feel like they're repressing themselves. In some ways Japan's gender roles can be quite conservative, and I wouldn't blame someone for saying it's not for them.
As a non-American, what's up with this basement meme? Do American homes have furnished rooms in the literal basement or is it just a joke? Or are they like half basements with small windows?
Both are possible. Or the kid could be in the same bedroom they had since 10.
Houses built before about 1980 has basements best described as a dungeon: you store the harvest down there over winter, and the furnace is there, but you don't go down for any other purpose.
About 1980 styles started changing. Most basements in newer houses are living space - one wall might have no windows (even then there is a fire escape window large enough for that purpose that lets in useful amounts of light), but the other wall is not less than half above ground, and often entirely at grade with a complete door outside. In these newer houses there is often a complete (but small) kitchen, used only for entertaining for those rare times where the entire extended family comes to visit. There will be bedrooms down there. It isn't uncommon to have the parents live there for a few years when they cannot live alone but are not bad enough for the nursing home.
Structurally, the purpose of basements is mostly to get the foundation below the frost line so frost doesn't move the house. That can be covered by one meter or less, which leave plenty of space for windows above ground if you want to use the space. Making the space useful is pretty cheap when you have it anyway.
Note that basements are NOT universal. If there is no frost to worry about they are expensive and not worth it. If the ground water is too high there are other ways to deal with frost.
Yeah, in the US, if you have a basement, it's most often finished or at least partially finished, with walls and insulation and so on. Teenagers often like to hang out there because it offers semi-private living.
See TV shows like "That 70s Show" for a prime example.
Most basements have small windows at the top and many have light wells, where the ground outside is dug away to allow light in (and to make a place for a ladder for fire safety).
>I cannot imagine living in a windowless room, feels like a dungeon or torture room.
The vast majority, if not all, of basements I've seen in North America have their ceiling above ground level and as such tend to be surrounded with small windows.
Many, but not all, will have their own separate entrance also.
In places where it gets cold, single houses have basements (that go below usual freezing line I think). Often those are developed with bedrooms, toilets and stuff. They have small or tiny windows. Sometimes they have their own exit too (if house is built on a slope).
Some perhaps they lost prior jobs and did not regain positions of parity, now they're disenfranchised, socially isolated, in some form of despair, or even homeless.
Anecdotally, the homeless populations I see everywhere in the west coast are 99% males aged 25-50.
I'm seeing a lot of this in my extended family. If society isn't telling you that you have a primary role in creating and supporting a family, and that you're necessary for the future of society itself, it turns out that you need a lot less money to survive, and you have a lot more time on your hands.
I'm part of the problem I suppose, in so much as one can call it a problem. I gave up dating a decade ago because being in a relationship was not necessary for my life goals and dating was a pain in the ass, plan to semi-retire early with a relatively minimalist lifestyle and part time job, etc.
When you don't have someone to spend your money to keep up with the Joneses you suddenly need a lot less: less space, less home decoration, less clothes, less going out for food, a smaller ride.
Yep, you "need" a lot less money when you don't have someone insisting that you buy her a diamond ring, a BMW, designer clothes, a big house, maid service, give 10% of your income to some church, etc.
I dislike this kind of cheap generalization which only look skin deep and don't even try to find common behavior between genders.
Young men spend about an 2 hours on games per day, and the numbers for young women is much lower. Young women however spend about 2 hours more on their phones per day more than men. Something seems very similar here if we look at the two activities together rather then in isolation.
I would instead ask what gendered benefit men get from gaming, and women from doing social activities on their phones, and I would guess the answer has something to do with inter-gender competition and status.
> I would guess the answer has something to do with inter-gender competition and status
And simply socialization. Gaming is socialization for many male gamers - it is their primary or only social circle and friends. It is the main thing they talk about even in person (what tv used to be).
Exactly: this is what I've found with my younger coworkers. I played video games a lot when I was young, but it wasn't that much of a social thing because the internet wasn't commonly available (we had BBSes) and the games were all single-player DOS or console (NES/SNES) games. Now it seems video games are a social outlet for men under 30, and as you said it's what they talk about in person a lot too, unlike TV.
>Young women however spend about 2 hours more on their phones per day more than men
What does "on their phones" mean? This is like saying they spend time "reading books." There are good books and bad books. There are edifying and educational books and pulpy trash books. Just saying "books" says nothing about the productivity.
You know, it'd be nice if they'd look at the cultural aspects of gaming as opposed to just assuming all videogames are bad. It's like being in the 1920's criticizing someone spending time reading as opposed to working in a mill.
But what can you expect from a clearly biased news source that, while possibly not wrong, is likely not going to give any benefit of the doubt to people who live life differently from the "good 'ol christian boy" fashion.
India and China both have a problem with large numbers of unemployed or under employed young men. I bring that up because recently there has been lots of talk about WWIII, but many people say that China, for example, would stay out of it. But, what if they saw it as a solution to their abundance of young men problem? Yikes.
I think it's a very reasonable concern, making matters worse their one child policy has shifted the demographic towards a higher percentage of men. In Polygamous societies, civil war is very frequent (meaning men without a chance to find a woman find ways to vent often through violence). Add to that, Chinia is a very fragile state economically. Their banks are extremely overleveraged. This is a historically dangerous situation, and that's not even accounting for the newly minted authoritarian dictator.
"Perhaps one should not dwell too long, however, on the question of what type of leisure low-skill young men are engaging in. The more important fact remains that leisure is slowly replacing work in their lives, as immigrants replace them in the labor force."
That is probably the one part of the article they really should've made more prominent. Yet they didn't. They hammered it home that videogames and young men not getting married and having 12 kids is the problem.
Maybe culturally getting married is incredibly more time consuming and difficult than it used to be? I mean I'm reading George Orwell's Burmese days and the main character was trying to propose (and the girl wanted him to) within 2 weeks of knowing eachother! Granted it's a book, but that doesn't sound outside the realms of normalcy, especially in Burma during the 1920's where there were like 1/1000 ratio of white person to native.
Abusive MEN in particular. Especially radical christians where divorce is stigmatized. It's like they take it as a free pass to just be hateful person. Honestly my dad more than anything made marriage seem worse than it could be that I figured if that's the worst case scenario, hoping for the best isn't even worth the gamble.
Why is this downvoted? Insofar as I understand economics, it’s a factual reality. The middle class and up are benefitting from immigration driving down the price of food and services in this country. If you’re a low-wage-earning-potential male, given our levels of inequality, why would you want to be a wage slave if you don’t have to? You aren’t going to significantly improve your lot in life by throwing 40+ hours a week at a job that barely pays the bills. It makes you feel like a loser doing the work, and you don’t get to bury that feeling in anything, as you spend all your money just getting by.
From what I anecdotally see (outside US) some men got frustrated with society and just don’t want to work. Everything they need seem to be found at home, similar to the hikimori in Japan albeit not so extreme. It’s sometimes (so not always) related to dating failures. I could argue that dating is getting increasingly difficult for the heterosexual male and that paired with bad jobs would make some men think twice about participating in the society game. Some other people linked articles/studies talking about this so my non-scientific observation can be supported somewhat.
I wonder if women are tending toward holding multiple jobs more often than men - and since women live longer on average they may simply be working more years of their lives then men.
I went looking, and found that "unincorporated self-employed" is exactly as you say, and is 2/3 male. Farm employees are roughly 3/4 male. Soldiers (~90% male) are also excluded.
"Nonfarm payrolls" was never meant to be a gender-balanced stat, it just excludes the hardest to track jobs. Which is fine for comparison over time, but makes 50% a meaningless metric.
Apparently this was also true in 2009 and 2010 or at least for parts of those years based on the graph in the article.
Also, it doesn't seem to distinguish between part-time and full-time. So a mother working part-time when her kids are at school would count the same as a full-time worker.
Lifespans are the reason for that, and births are majority-male, so the adult stats are actually even more heavily female. But the 25–54 cohort is gender balanced, and women are the majority starting from 55–64, so the effect kicks in well before retirement.
(This also screws with the labor force participation stats, since unless you check "prime age" there's no upper age boundary.)
This the sort of question economists study, and reading their output may be more informative than forum comments. Keyword is "declining labor force participation rate."
The article specifies payroll positions. I don't know what that means exactly, but I assume it would discount sharing-economy jobs (are we still calling them that?).
It excludes "unincorporated self-employed" people, which I think covers much of the gig economy. Even more relevantly, it means many construction workers, most painters, etc. are excluded.
> What are men doing if not working? On disability? Homeless? Retiring earlier?
The article claims:
> ... close to 100% of working-age men used to participate in back in the 1950s. Now that figure is 89%, and had been falling up until 2014. Economists cite multiple reasons: lower demand and wages for unskilled uneducated workers, retiring baby boomers, and an opioid crisis that disproportionately affects men.
Playing video games, watching porn, etc.? At least a lot of the articles I see about men leaving (or never entering) the workforce - entertainment seems to be the main way of filling up their time.
> Depressed, committing suicide or just doing nothing. But apparently nobody cares.
We've had a decade+ of men being told they're useless oppressors, who've earned nothing for themselves, whose "time is up", and that they haven't a place in the future. Couple that with the loss of shared identity in general, the breakdown of the family, the bias in the divorce process, the disappearance of purposeful work and more and it's no surprise that we're in the situation we're in now.
The ever-changing "ideals" and "values" we're building modern society on are as brittle as a house of cards.
A note: I'm a happily married man with a career I enjoy and am optimistic for my own future, so the above isn't coming from some sense of ingrained / developed resentment, merely observation.
That one you can probably place the blame squarely on the conservatives for. That bias made some sense back in the old days when women couldn't possibly hope to get a job that paid anywhere near what her (now ex-)husband earned. But things are completely different now, but the court system is still stuck in the 1950s. Meanwhile, the men who complain about this bias continue to vote for conservatives.
Well, let's look at examples from other countries. Do liberal western European nations have this same kind of bias in their family courts, or not?
Many "liberals" in America really aren't that liberal, and women in America generally lean conservative from what I've seen, despite their claims of being liberal. For instance, the number of single women attending church is much higher than the number of single men (find a single woman who identifies as active Christian and ask her if she has any luck finding single guys at church).
There was a former senate candidate at a Maine Democrats meeting who joked about how middle-aged white men killing themselves is good for the country, and the crowd seemed to find it pretty funny.
While that's most likely true, it only accounts for a very small amount of the gender imbalance. In reality, men simply choose to commit violent crimes, or get involved in violent criminal careers, far more often than women.
I don't have data to back this up, but it's something I am now going to try to research. However I feel that there is a slight trend away from your traditional payroll job into independent small business careers (youtuber, blogger, streamer, freelancer, etc..). I'm curious how that affects these numbers.
If I had to take a guess I'd say almost not at all. For example, Twitch only has 27,000 streamers with the Partner status, and only a fraction of them make a living off of it. There's enough to be a cultural phenomena but not significantly change the workforce.
Freelance writers, independent consultants/contractors/tradespeople, and some professional jobs like those are probably more significant. But I agree those other categories are almost certainly in the noise for actually making a living. (Though it's not clear that any of these non-salaried jobs count here at all.)
I'm pretty sure self-employed people count towards those numbers, unless they're making hobby-level income.
What's your theory, though? I don't follow what exactly you're getting at? Which gender is supposedly better at those endeavors? Are there a ton of men trying to be successful online entrepreneurs and not making any money so they don't get counted in the workforce stats?
From the Bureau of Labor Statistics: "All employees"
So I'll hazard a guess about a change in what part of those mining and logging industries hired: less manual workers and more office ones as they get consolidated into bigger conglomerates. But I may be wrong.
Assuming a 25 year career, you replace 4% of the workforce every year, so just hiring an even number of females would be more than that. (I don't know what the retirement age is for loggers, I'd guess younger than 65 based on it being a union physical labor job)
A lot of talk about younger men, but what about middle-aged men leaving the workforce? If I don't get married and have children within the next 5 years, I'm out too since I can retire early.
The more interesting thing is the distribution of income. I would happily bet that there still is a considerable gap between women on average and men on average and that the total amount taken home by that majority is significantly less than the total amount for the men.
On average, there is no hourly pay gap for unmarried women and men without kids. After they get married, there is an hourly salary gap, and this gap is even larger for married parents.
As hours worked per day increase, the hourly pay rate also increases and married men spend much more time at their jobs (on average). Hourly pay also increases as experience increases. Married men with children spend more time at their jobs (vs. married women w/ children, on average), so they accumulate more experience over the years. The gap increases when they get older (on average).
This is the same reason I see trotted out by companies looking to defend gender imbalances; but the real issue is that the higher up you go in a profession, the less likely women are to be promoted. Even without kids. And these days in the US, "women with children" only get a few weeks off when they have children before having to return to work. Suggesting the difference in career outcomes is due to this time is ill-informed at best.
The poster you're responding to pointed out that on average, after children, men spend more time at their jobs than women.
It would seem to go without saying that implies all the top performers are going to be men, and if the system is performance based, that means the promotions will tend towards the men.
What about marriage? If a man makes more money and he is married is HE talking more? Isn't that income split (or in reality spent by the women)? I have never understood why data on married men is treated as if the men are single and it's their money alone.
A lot of couples keep separate finances. Money is one of the biggest reasons couples split up, after all. While my boyfriend and I aren’t married, we do split our household contributions and pay from our own accounts.
I think it is also interesting to study the money men and women bring separately into their relationship and how that plays into relationship dynamics.
> Married people BY LAW do not have separate finances.
That's... not true at all.
The IRS tax forms even have an entire category for people who are married but maintain separate finances. It's called "married filing separate".
Now in some states there are laws that property acquired after marriage is shared, you can still maintain separate finances, and then it is up to a judge to figure it out in the case of divorce.
Also, you keep what you entered the marriage with. If you maintain separate finances, it's a lot easier to disentangle if you get divorced.
I have a friend who is on his second marriage, and his wife is also on her second. They maintain separate finances because they were both burned on a divorce, and they are very aware of what is common property and what is not. They could split up pretty much any time without a lawyer because they keep such good books.
There is law and there is convention. I don't know what the legal status of our finances, but practically we have separate finances. Once in a while my wife spends more than her share con groceries and I transfer money to her account to make it up, but our accounts are in separate banks.
In the case of a married couple, it's my understanding that if you refuse to share your earnings with a spouse, the spouse has to either put up with it or divorce you and ask the court to give them a share of it. Absent the nuclear option of a divorce, finances can be kept separate.
Most states, except those listed as community property states below, use the "common law" system of property ownership. In these states, it's usually easy to tell which spouse owns what. If only your name is on the deed, registration document, or other title paper, it's yours. If you and your spouse both have your name on the title, you each own a half interest in the property unless the title document says otherwise. If an item doesn't have a title document, generally you own it if you paid for it or received it as a gift.
Community Property States
If you live in a community property state, the rules are more complicated. But in general:
spouses own equally almost all property either one acquires during the marriage, regardless of whose name the property is in
half of each spouse's income is owned by the other spouse during the marriage, and
debts incurred during marriage are generally debts of the couple.
In community property states, the following is separate property:
gifts given to one spouse
property either spouse owned before the marriage and kept separate during the marriage, and
inheritances.
The community property states are: Alaska (by agreement), Arizona, California, Idaho, Louisiana, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin. (In Alaska, spouses can sign an agreement making specific assets community property.)
It is interesting that California, being an extremely "blue" state (along with Washington to a slightly lesser extent), chooses to retain this antiquated artifact of the days when it was a Spanish colony.
And why would Wisconsin choose this, when it never had any connection to Spain?
Not a lawyer, but my understanding is that this is dependent on if you are in a community property state or not. In a community property state (Arizona, California, Idaho, Louisiana, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, Washington and Wisconsin) all income earned by either partner is automatically community property and owned equally by both parties. In a non-community property state you have the right to keep your earned income separate from your spouse.
This is anecdotal, but men I know have more expensive hobbies then women. Men are more eager to buy what they want while women save money more and feel bad about unnecessary purchases.
Think gaming equipment, steam sales for games they will never play, flying, cars, tech, 3d printer and what not.
Compared to that, feminine hobbies are few bucks once in a while.
That includes being "chief purchasing officer" at home - e.g. women buying things for whole familly including tv, furniture and electronics everyone will use. Someone has to do it.
Similarly anecdotal, women spend a lot on clothes.
My actual point is this type of discussion doesn't really add anything. It's difficult to prove, and prone to an extreme amount of bias combined with generalizing from a small sample.
> Compared to that, feminine hobbies are few bucks once in a while.
Hahah. Sorry, but there's just no way. The entire McMansion industry, the furnishing industry, IKEA, fast fashion brands and high fashion are all driven by women's business.
I'd have to disagree about IKEA actually; IKEA is where you go if you want to get the most bang for your buck with furniture without buying it used. So I imagine it's probably the one part of the furniture industry that has the most balanced gender stats in their customers. How many men want to spend tens of thousands of dollars on furniture or home decorations?
I agree about the rest though, and I think the McMansion industry bit is an insightful comment. I'll also add giant luxury SUVs to this list.
By IKEA I mean especially the idea of disposable fashion applied to home furnishings. That you would update your bedsheets, curtains, napkins, kitchen utensils for the new season every year.
Hmm, I see. Yeah, I can see those sections of the IKEA store getting more sales from women perhaps.
But I'm thinking that someplace like Bed, Bath & Beyond probably gets more female customers, and would be a preferred place to go for the items you list. That store has fancier stuff than IKEA, and is seriously overpriced; it's not a place you shop at to get a good value. I'd also suggest various mall shops or department stores.
Wow, this is some really biased observation on your part.
This is anecdotal too, but in my experience women spend FAR more money on unnecessary stuff than men. Here's many examples:
- donations to churches
- designer clothes
- luxury SUVs
- jewelry (the conflict diamond trade wouldn't exist without women)
- eating at expensive restaurants
- McMansions
- stuff for those McMansions (e.g., custom-made "window treatments": my Mom just spent $15K on "window treatments" for her new house!)
- luxurious vacations (as opposed to, for instance, staying in hostels)
Of course, I'm generalizing, and probably mostly describing the Gen-X to Boomer white American woman demographic, but it's what I've seen the most.
As for men, I work with a bunch of Millennial and younger men, and they spend money on Magic cards and video games, and that's about it. That stuff costs hundreds of dollars, and that's about it usually unless you go really nuts. A woman can easily spend a few hundred dollars on a single article of designer clothing. Meanwhile, these younger men don't seem to really give a shit about cars the way men in older generations did.
And of course the things on my list aren't all exclusive to women; some men like eating at nice restaurants too, some men have BMW SUVs, etc., but in my observation, most of those purchases are either done by women directly, or insisted on by them if they're married.
I can see why you think that women tend not to have "expensive hobbies" the way some men do, but even here you're actually wrong. Here in my metro area, the single women all seem to be members of some kind of exercise class (like Zumba, Barre, Orange Theory, etc.). Those memberships are quite expensive, and easily comparable to men spending money on Steam games. Single women also almost all have dogs, and those can be really expensive too when you account for fancy food, grooming, dog-walking, dog-sitting, etc. The problem is that you're not looking at where people are actually spending money, and you're not counting women's purchases as "hobbies". My most recent ex-girlfriend had two big "hobbies" before I met her: one was her Barre class, which was hundreds of dollars per month. The other was going out to eat: she basically had a hobby of going out every weekend with her girlfriends to some new super-fancy restaurant in DC. That too would amount to hundreds of dollars per month. The other thing I've seen with single professional women is they spend a LOT of money on alcohol: they like to go "out for drinks" a lot, and of course a single drink at a nice DC restaurant will probably run $15. That really adds up over a month. So no, not a lot of women buy 3D printers or fix up old cars, but they do have luxurious things they like to spend $$$$ on.
They're on average more interested in people, so they tend to choose to become nurses, teachers, etc., while men are interested in things and become software developers, engineers, etc.
I have no idea why income HAS TO be distributed equally. Unless you want to force women to become software developers..? But why.
Ignoring everything else wrong with your post, I'll just point out that most software developers were originally women before about 1960 -- it was seen as "woman's work" because it didn't require physical labor. Women were significant contributors to the development of computing from the very beginning -- in fact, "software" as a concept was invented by a woman [1]. The profession didn't become high-status or highly-paid until after men took over (and shut out the women by redefining it as "men's work").
The story is far more complex than this, and the history makes interesting reading. As one might imagine, what we call software development today was really split into an array of roles: some more like mathematicians, some like engineers, some typists, etc.
The idea that women were somehow shut out of the industry doesn't really hold up. My programming classes in the 80s, for example, were about 50-50, and in my early career, I worked under several senior women programmers/technologists.
Back then software development was split over a much bigger amount of roles. The idea of a single person sitting in front of a screen is a modern invention.
One does not need to refute the position that woman are less interested in computer science than nursing or teaching because asserting the personal interest of a hundred million people you've never met is nothing more than made up nonsense. There is of a course a lot of information out there about how societal expectations, existing power structures, gendered use of language, workplace dynamics and many other factors influence things like education and career ambitions. But ascribing it to the idea that "women are more interested in people" is lazy and meaningless.
I was more addressing the habit of colonial power structures to use violence and intimidation to push women and minorities out of positions of economic prosperity.
"Violence and intimidation" in a modern context is exactly what #MeToo was about, so it didn't stop just because women have equal rights under the law. Frankly, a lot of women don't want to put up with that kind of crap and so choose careers in industries where they feel safe (which often pay way less).
One problem I see with this is your example of nurses. Women went into nursing in the past frequently because it was open to them, and being a doctor wasn't. That's changed, and now the only reason to be a nurse is because the educational requirements are much lower, and consequently, there's a shortage of nurses because who wants to do that instead of being a doctor and making more money, unless they don't want to spend as long in school and rack up as much debt?
Also, nurses are some of the least empathetic people around. Don't be fooled by the common misconception; they're usually not caring people at all. "Nurse Ratchet" is not that far from the truth. My mom was a nurse, and I've met many others; they're just not the nicest people around. And there's a good reason for this: a highly empathetic person would not last very long as a nurse. They'd get burned out very quickly, after seeing so many sick and dying people up close day after day.
Unless there's lots of well-known material that I'm unaware of... there seems to be a lot of mind-reading going on here. How can you know what drives people's thinking and decision making?
This is accurate, but not for the reasons you have given.
Think of it this way. Within a profession, say "lawyer", there are different career paths. One career path involves a lot of travel away from home, and one does not. Because traditionally women are expected to be home for children, women tend to more often select the path that involves staying at home more, which tends to also pay less.
So then, when you look at "lawyer", you see a pay gap, and then you dive in and see that the women have chosen the "lower paying job".
But that still doesn't account for the entire pay gap. It still leaves about 7% difference.
That last 7% is what people are concerned about. That women doing the same job with the same experience get about 7% less on average than men, depending on the field. In some fields (I believe medicine is one), there is no pay gap between women and men with equal experience (although there is still an opportunity gap, where men will be promoted more often with equal qualifications).
Then there is tech, where there is a pay gap between people with equal experience. I've seen this personally first-hand (but at least when the manager was called out on it he made it right and gave the woman a raise, but before being called out, it didn't even occur to him that he was making that decision).
> I have no idea why income HAS TO be distributed equally.
Because people doing the same work should get paid the same for doing it. And because you shouldn't be barred from a career for reasons that aren't related to the job (ie. your gender).
Given that women are 1/2 the population, and given the sample size, women and men should on average be making the same amount of money. But they aren't. And study after study show that the reason is bias against women, and not women's choices.
Don't you think that is something that should be changed?
Would you be so kind as to pass along a citation for this?
>But that still doesn't account for the entire pay gap. It still leaves about 7% difference.
My understanding had been that the wage gap was a result of statistical malpractice. Further, I had thought that the intraprofession pay comparison between genders boiled down almost exclusively to (willingness to negotiate) and (taking time off of work to have children).
I would assume if someone did gap analysis they would factor that in. It isn't about the wholistic are women making more or less than men. Rather it's the equality of are women who are the same role of men making the same. There shouldn't be a difference there.
This analysis is continuously being done. You can find it for your country easily. In most developed countries a ~5% gap exists. This is usually attributed to men being more aggressive in negotiations.
I’d also factor in maternity, too. I believe research shows that women’s salaries lag significantly after they give birth, even if they take no time off.
Aren't there laws that prevent discrimination on gender and race pretty much in every first-world country? That would make it illegal to pay a woman less for the same job.
If you consider jobs where the title is the same but the professional works B2B, maybe women are less likely to ask for a better pay? That's why pink razors cost more, after all.
Female soccer players make less money because less people watch and there is less money, same thing for BBC journalists who demanded the same pay even though they got 10% share compared to their male colleague.
> Female soccer players make less money because less people watch and there is less money
I think this is a great example! The US women's soccer team is better than the men's but they make a fraction of the money. It's not their fault that sports have a sexist history that influences viewership, ad revenue, and ultimately their salaries.
It's not "sexist history", it's just that men are better at (almost all) sports. Male football is simply more exciting to watch (I imagine, for broader audiences... it's boring to me, in general). For modeling, it's the reverse.
How is men’s soccer more exciting to watch rather than woman’s soccer? It’s literally people kicking a ball around. Does the ball explode if you are a man and kicking it?
Well, I can tell the difference. Men look more aggressive and professional overall. I mean, the US women national team lost to kids etc, so you tell me.
We have some women teams here in Spain, and while there's some movement in the league honestly it feels... like watching amateurish football. I guess they need time to catch on, but meanwhile it's not very appealing.
Women can be just as athletic as men, and can easily beat them in many sports. It just depends on the sport. If the sport requires upper-body strength, forget it: men will always have a huge advantage here. But if upper-body strength is no help, and lower-body strength and endurance are important, women can do better. Off the top of my head, I'd point to endurance running: women have longer legs proportionally, and more fat reserves, and don't have to waste a lot of energy carrying around a lot of chest/arm muscles and bigger upper-body bones. They can also do well in downhill skiing, bicycling, etc.
Also, over in Tennessee, the UT women's basketball team has been much, much more popular for decades now than the men's team ever was.
Economically, that doesn't make the slightest bit of sense.
If a business pays employees more than the market rate, it will be less profitable and thus more likely to fail. If a business pays employees less than the market rate, it will lose employees to competitors and it is thus more likely to fail.
Also, to say that "men decided" is pretty strange. It suggests a conspiracy, and it suggests that there are no women who could start companies or otherwise be in management.
So you've apparently just proven that no discrimination exists in the business world. South Africa's native population was just too stupid to work any job, until Nelson Mandela was freed, instantly improving their skills to make them eligible for employment.
Nobody would forgo a good bread, so Germans writing "Germans don't buy from jews" on bakery windows were just making the case that the bread had, within a few years, become intolerable. Hollywood studios stopped hiring communists because communists just aren't very funny. etc...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcDrE5YvqTs -- According to the DOL there is a much smaller than typically quoted wage gap, and there are additional variables not accounted for.
The article is stating the exact opposite. In the past, this was true... but it seems like women are now starting to start participate in jobs Men have traditionally dominated.
Not to mention that a lot of farming is done by undocumented workers, who don't necessarily appear on payrolls. It's hard to find people to do hard, dangerous, exhausting work for so little pay.
My guess is the biggest reason that non-farm labor is tracked is because someone decades ago decided to do so and now if we want to do longitudinal comparisons we need to track the same thing.
It's an interesting enough statistic since there are areas that are very heavily agricultural and areas with very few farms and probably not as much mixing between the two compared to (for instance) manufacturing and clerical jobs which may happen in the same building.
"Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents."
Not sure what inequality you're talking about, given that the US population is right at a 50/50 split between men and women. Then again, I'm not sure how genuine you're being here.
Presumably they are referring to the healthcare and education fields being over 3/4 women. In my opinion, whether such disparities are problematic, and in which fields, is a genuine question.
I was under the impression there is, within those fields, significant concern about the way men are treated. Males who are passionate about early childcare education are often viewed as dangerous by the parents. Same for male nurses.
Yes, and not to mention that even within those fields there are sub-fields where there are basically no males (e.g. paediatric nurses).
And of course, the persistent retirement gender gap (men and women retire at the same age and are expected to contribute as if they lived the same lifespans, but women live considerably longer).
But, even though these fields are female dominated, aren’t the leadership and most management positions in these fields held by men? Glass escalator theory is an interesting concept that some researchers bring up when studying these disparities.
I'm pretty sure that the numbers are even more skewed now. They are even more skewed at the elementary level, of course, just like the teacher numbers.
There are some legitimate concerns related to having basically only women teaching young children, but the issue seems to predominantly be that men don't want to do it.
Has that been studied? A more obvious explanation is that most men don't want to sign up for a career of being regularly (if mostly tacitly) thought of as being pedophiles. It's an awful situation, but I certainly wouldn't recommend this profession for men.
If you doubt this, read some of the (fairly heartbreaking) tales of single fathers of small children. Among other things, they have great difficulty getting their friends' kids to come over for play dates, etc.
I don’t want to get too deep into this - but people said the same thing about science and engineering. It’s a little bit sexist to suggest something like that, though I don’t think that was your intention.
I don’t really think there is any rationale that I’ve seen that convinced me that any job should have any gender ratio split, or that we should increase or decrease such ratios that were scientifically based. There are certainly social or political ones, however.
The over medication of young boys with add medications begins with teachers reporting behavioral issues to parents and suggesting evaluations. I hypothesize men are more likely to empathize with young boys and not see hyperactive behavior as a disorder requiring amphetamines, and that an educational system dominated by women will inevitably pathologize the behavior of young boys while elevating the behavior of young girls.
This immediately raises several questions:
1) What are the legitimate concerns with only women teaching young children?
2) What is the evidence that men aren't interested in teaching young children? How can it be shown that the effect wasn't caused by discrimination?
3-infinity) Same questions, but with any field dominated by one gender
1.) Role models - little boys mimic men cause little kids are gender obsessed. E.g. little boys won't think of being teachers if not seeing them.
2.) There is huge bias and stigma against boy acting girl-like. So yes, at minimum little boy playing with baby will be mocked more then girl playing with car.
I'm confused. The headline talks about women holding more than 50% of jobs. But the tagline underneath says females make up the largest share of the labor market! That ain't make no sense! In the current year, not all women have a vagina. I didn't think Bloomberg was transphobic, but now I know better.
"Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents."
Ahem. The topic of equality of outcome is flamebait to begin with. (Why? Because of tiny details like "encouraging" hidden it between the neutral reporting.)
The question is real, though: are trans women counted as women? If not: transphobic. If yes: what do these numbers really tell us? And there's also "non-binary" and "prefer not to say". Making sense of statistics in the current year is f'ing difficult.
So much for diversity and inclusivity. In colleges and universities we are all taught to site our sources but if you are Bloomberg you can just make up data points to push a political agenda. It would be nice if there was a data source to reference to understand how they arrived at their stats. But hey we're just supposed to believe in pretty graphs with no source as being truthful and representative or the facts. Not to mention treading at Hacker News so it must be true.
It's also important to remember that: "76% of all statics are made up including this one!"
Here's something else to ponder!! Where were all of the women over the last 10 years when we were building out all of this tech? We needed women software engineers!! I saw very low numbers in my 13+ years in the bay area. The only women in software engineering roles were here on VISA. Now that we have leadership roles and political narratives.... we all of the sudden have a huge turnout. But hey what do I know. 13 years in the bay area working at top tech companies. No credibility at all. Argue with me and tell me know I am clearly wrong!
* "Women held 50.04% of nonfarm payroll positions in December, the highest share since 2010."
* "Over the past year alone, they’ve taken on a greater share of positions traditionally held by men: they make up 13.8% of mining and logging jobs, up from 12.6% a year earlier, as well as a growing share of manufacturing work..."
* "Women have the biggest presence in education and health services -- holding more than three-quarters of those positions -- and government services with about 58%. They account for 56% of positions in financial activities."