31 votes

Non-college educated White men used to be ahead in the American economy. Now they’ve fallen behind.

This topic is locked. New comments can not be posted.

76 comments

  1. [38]
    patience_limited
    Link
    Archive link - note that archive.is doesn't preserve active page elements, so it may be hard to read. From the article: I dithered over whether to post this in ~news. Even though it's on the front...

    Archive link - note that archive.is doesn't preserve active page elements, so it may be hard to read.

    From the article:

    As the American economy has shifted over the past 40 years away from manufacturing and toward services and “knowledge” work, this less visible hierarchy within the economy has shifted, too. Jobs that helped build the nation, like the machinists and metalworkers who were mostly white men without college degrees, today make a shrinking share of what the average American worker does. Newer kinds of work, like financial analysis and software development, have come to pay much more.

    The economy has effectively devalued the work and skills of some Americans, while delivering mounting rewards to others — reordering the status of workers along lines that increasingly shape the country’s politics too.

    This Upshot analysis of four decades of census income data provides a window into these changes, by education and gender, but also by geography and across hundreds of occupations. It seeks to size up the economy as many voters do: by whether they — and people like them — are falling behind or pulling ahead as the economy changes around them.

    I dithered over whether to post this in ~news. Even though it's on the front page, this story should come as a surprise to no one who's been paying attention for the last 40 years. On the other hand, the graphs are an informative visual representation of the magnitude of the transformation of U.S. income redistribution from manufacturing to services, at the expense of laborers.

    Before Donald Trump's demagoguery, no one addressed this enormous dislocation politically in a way that connects with those who legitimately perceive that they've been dispossessed. The same trends are visible in developed nations around the world, creating vulnerabilities to right-wing populism.

    If I was a BDFL, I'd probably prescribe a WPA-style mobilization and paid training for renewable energy, housing construction, disaster relief, climate resiliency, teaching, replacement of lead pipes, bridge renewal, etc., financed by a hefty wealth tax on those who've benefited most from American disinvestment and low wages. The Biden administration has snuck in pieces of this under the Green New Deal, but nothing like the scale needed. I'd also legislate in sectoral bargaining for unions.

    [I'm off shortly to another former manufacturing town where healthcare is now the biggest employer, and may not be prompt in responding to comments.]

    36 votes
    1. [36]
      OBLIVIATER
      Link Parent
      It'd probably be easier to win over lower class white men if most liberal ad campaigns directed at them didn't boil down to"Men, we know you guys suck; you're racist, sexist, rapists... but...

      The same trends are visible in developed nations around the world, creating vulnerabilities to right-wing populism.

      It'd probably be easier to win over lower class white men if most liberal ad campaigns directed at them didn't boil down to"Men, we know you guys suck; you're racist, sexist, rapists... but consider doing something good for once in your life and vote blue" (This is obviously hyperbole, but its not as far off I would have hoped.)

      I'm not saying you have to pull a trump and start pandering to the young white male demographic, but stopping the constant villainization might go further then people might think. Acknowledge that its no longer the cakewalk it once was to be a white man in the US, and for the love of god stop demonizing the south.

      56 votes
      1. kingofsnake
        Link Parent
        What kills me is that whenever you'd bring this up with sensible language over the last five years, you'd get nothing but ire and spite for ignorance of your privilege. I'm very much a left of...

        What kills me is that whenever you'd bring this up with sensible language over the last five years, you'd get nothing but ire and spite for ignorance of your privilege.

        I'm very much a left of centre voter and believer, but the cognitive dissonance between what those interested in fairness, equity and good treatment practice versus preach was very very disappointing.

        33 votes
      2. TheD00d
        (edited )
        Link Parent
        Best we can do is play Madden. While I appreciate the attempt this absolutely reads like out-of-touch campaign manager thought "How can we reach the boys? Oh they like football and video games!"...

        It'd probably be easier to win over lower class white men if most liberal ad campaigns directed at them didn't boil down to"Men, we know you guys suck; you're racist, sexist, rapists... but consider doing something good for once in your life and vote blue"

        Best we can do is play Madden. While I appreciate the attempt this absolutely reads like out-of-touch campaign manager thought "How can we reach the boys? Oh they like football and video games!"

        Jokes aside, I do agree. I would like to preface this with I'm a man, I'm highly educated (but still stupid) and I'm voting for Kamala - but like all they need to do to win male voters over is just make good policies that will actually help working class people instead of fixating on the "Trump bad" stuff. That's not going to work.

        29 votes
      3. WordyTalks
        Link Parent
        So I’m Southern and I live well off now, didn’t used to. And I’ll always have a chip on my shoulder for any yanks or Canada-lites that try and make fun of it. There is a lack of real nuance...

        So I’m Southern and I live well off now, didn’t used to. And I’ll always have a chip on my shoulder for any yanks or Canada-lites that try and make fun of it. There is a lack of real nuance talking about how the people who live here have been driven to the worst of the worst due to inbred racism, authority figures making the worse off white people believe that black people were their problem instead of the white authority figures. But also it’s important to acknowledge that the South is absolutely killing this country and the people who live in it. People who live here complain about welfare queens and yet red states (which pretty much all Southern states are red) are the biggest tax takers with not nearly enough economic contributions. Christianity makes this entire sector of the U.S. literally the worst off. We have the highest teen pregnancy rates, the least environmental regulations, worst education standards and let’s not even talk about how we never really dealt with slavery here. Reconstruction failed and Sherman didn’t finish the job. The South is fucked y’all.

        I say this as someone who has literally lived here nearly my entire life with family who were in the literal Confederacy. People in power suck like hell and yanks need to get off their high horses but holy hell the South is a cesspit that isn’t suitable to life and it’s the source of the encroachment of a lot of our problems today.

        17 votes
      4. Eji1700
        Link Parent
        Yeeeup. There's a ton of hypocrisy inherent in that stance, and it just becomes a shit feedback loop that further drives away people who might otherwise vote for you.

        , and for the love of god stop demonizing the south.

        Yeeeup. There's a ton of hypocrisy inherent in that stance, and it just becomes a shit feedback loop that further drives away people who might otherwise vote for you.

        14 votes
      5. FaceLoran
        Link Parent
        The hysteria that white guys have when they have to start living in the same world as everyone else blows my mind. I completely agree that a lack of a left-wing party is leaving these people, who...
        • Exemplary

        The hysteria that white guys have when they have to start living in the same world as everyone else blows my mind. I completely agree that a lack of a left-wing party is leaving these people, who have extremely real problems that they're legitimately mad about, few places that they feel addresses they're problem, but I'm a white guy that's lived in Texas my whole life and have never once been called racist, sexist, or a rapist.

        6 votes
      6. [30]
        GenuinelyCrooked
        Link Parent
        Are these television ad campaigns? Do you have an example?

        Are these television ad campaigns? Do you have an example?

        3 votes
        1. [29]
          OBLIVIATER
          (edited )
          Link Parent
          This isn't the worst one I've seen but it's the first one that comes up when you Google it. https://youtu.be/Hk4ueY9wVtA The message of this one seems to mostly be "vote for Kamala or you aren't a...

          This isn't the worst one I've seen but it's the first one that comes up when you Google it.

          https://youtu.be/Hk4ueY9wVtA

          The message of this one seems to mostly be "vote for Kamala or you aren't a real man" with some bizarre quotes and vibes.

          This one is actually directed at black men (or maybe just men?) saying that if you don't vote you're doomed to not get laid. Again with some really bizarre vibes about how the ladies are taking special interest in how much money he makes (empowering?)

          https://youtu.be/rTUjqqZ7WLw

          I'm sure other people can find some more examples over the years of really just bizarre ads targeted at men which instead of addressing mens issues (crazy thought) they put the spotlight on other people as the reason why men should vote for their candidate.

          Ironically this one ad from the "White dudes for Harris" campaign actually echos a lot of the complaints I made in my comment above, but somehow still manages to ignore mens issues and instead just vaguely throw out "they've got a plan to make things (gestures vaguely) better"

          https://youtu.be/OJbIMF8dTVA

          This is just speculation but it seems obvious that whoever is in charge of these campaigns either doesn't understand or doesn't care about these issues and that reflects poorly on the expectation of the candidate to understand or care about these issues.

          21 votes
          1. EgoEimi
            Link Parent
            These ads are very tone-deaf and giving major "how do you do fellow men?" and "this was thought up in a consultancy in San Francisco by two white and two Black women and they all went to Reed and...

            These ads are very tone-deaf and giving major "how do you do fellow kidsmen?" and "this was thought up in a consultancy in San Francisco by two white and two Black women and they all went to Reed and UChicago together" vibes. (That's a little specific because I'm friends with the type. While they're very intelligent, they're completely clueless about what American men really want but are very insistent that they aren't.)

            The right does a lot better job of engaging contemporary personalities that speak to lost men like Joe Rogan to be the glue between those lost men — whose traditional vehicle for masculinity, a job that can provide for a family, has been eroded by the erosion of labor itself — and the Republican Party.

            The Democratic Party is trying to engage men either through barely-veiled insincerity like having two politicians who clearly don't play Madden pretend to play Madden or by deploying personalities like the Obamas to tell men that it's not unmanly to vote for a woman — an approach I think will backfire, because if you have to reassure men that it's not, it's going to come off as it is.

            21 votes
          2. [3]
            papasquat
            Link Parent
            Here's the problem, that for some reason, the democratic party cannot figure out, despite it being not only campaigning 101, but "being a human" 101: Groups of people, all people, so I'm not just...

            Here's the problem, that for some reason, the democratic party cannot figure out, despite it being not only campaigning 101, but "being a human" 101:

            Groups of people, all people, so I'm not just picking on white men here, without exception, vote primarily out of self interest. "Empathy based politics" does not work. It's never worked anywhere, and it will never work.

            The reason white men by and large vote for Trump is because they think they'll be better off under Trump than Harris. That's it, it's that simple. It's not because they hate gay people, it's not because they don't like women having rights, and constantly painting those types of things as the deep seated reasons behind Trump's success isn't only inaccurate, it's counter productive.

            Black people largely vote D because the republicans are often openly racist. They promote racist policies, they campaign on racist attitudes, and many of them have been caught on recordings being openly racist. They rightly figure that they'll most likely be better off under a Democrat than a Republican. Same goes for women, same goes for immigrants, same goes for young people. Black people aren't voting D because they want better protections for migrant workers. Women aren't voting D because they think race relations are an important subject to be taught in schools. They vote that way out of self interest. Immigrants aren't voting D because they think women have a right to an abortion.

            So if your messaging is "White men, vote for us because we care about women's rights, and we care about anti black racism, and we care about protecting migrants, and you're an asshole if you don't care about these things" will 100% not work whatsoever. I'd be surprised if an ad like that even convinced a single person.

            It's one of the most spectacular fumbles I've ever seen, especially because the data is on the democrat's side. Every time a republican leaves office, the economy is trashed, either unemployment or inflation is through the roof, the deficit is higher, and we usually have a couple more wars to deal with. All of those things are terrible for uneducated white men, who very quickly feel the brunt of economic issues.
            Hunting, fishing, and camping spots are trashed by a weakened EPA. A weakened IRS is less able to a actually collect taxes to shrink the deficit. There are literally hundreds of ways republicans are demonstrably worse for blue collar white men, but for some reason, the democrats (not even just Kamala here) are not interested in speaking about those things. Instead they're interested in making men feel bad about culture war issues that, if you're viewing social progress as a confrontational, zero sum game, (which most of these people do) white men are on the losing end of. Even though white men imagine they're on the losing end of social justice, what they're actually on the losing end of is corporate greed. Their jobs get automated by the tens of thousands every year. Their wages continuously drop. They're less and less able to provide for their families, and the messaging from the democrats has consistently been "actually, you run society and are at the top of the food chain, you need to be knocked down a peg. Don't you care about all these other people?"

            Why on earth would you focus on that, instead of the actual long term benefits of responsible governance not only to everyone, but to white men specifically?

            18 votes
            1. [2]
              sparksbet
              Link Parent
              Ah yes, immigrants, famously a group that consists exclusively of men. I agree that most people vote purely out of perceived self-interest (perceived is important, because poor white people voting...

              Immigrants aren't voting D because they think women have a right to an abortion.

              Ah yes, immigrants, famously a group that consists exclusively of men.

              I agree that most people vote purely out of perceived self-interest (perceived is important, because poor white people voting for Republicans even when Dem policies are in practice more favorable to them is absolutely a thing). But I think this is kind of a shitty example.

              2 votes
              1. papasquat
                Link Parent
                And some white men are immigrants, and some are young. Voting blocs aren't mutually exclusive, nor are they supposed to be. They're useful groupings of people with a similar characteristic that...

                And some white men are immigrants, and some are young.
                Voting blocs aren't mutually exclusive, nor are they supposed to be. They're useful groupings of people with a similar characteristic that tend to vote in similar ways. Immigrants are one such bloc, as are women.

                3 votes
          3. [2]
            TheD00d
            (edited )
            Link Parent
            The first video you posted was the one that immediately came to my mind. I legitimately did not know if it was a real ad or fake. But again, I get the point, but I'm going to go out on a limb and...

            The first video you posted was the one that immediately came to my mind. I legitimately did not know if it was a real ad or fake. But again, I get the point, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say most guys on the fence about voting for Harris probably is not going to swayed by an ad like that. But also, the tongue and cheek nature is probably off putting to some guys as well. Reminds me of the weird Gillette ad from a few years back. Anyway!

            The most recent example I can think of is from when I watched parts of the rally with Michelle Obama the other day. I think she was in Detroit? Not sure. But she was essentially making the case for Harris because of how reproductive rights impacted women and how it affects men. Which again, I get. It's important. However the voter block they are trying to persuade, probably isn't going to land with them. But if you tried telling them how Harris will improve their lives with %XYZ% and how that might like lower healthcare costs, improve housing costs or increase manufacturing etc. As some folks have said earlier, most of the Harris ads seemed to not really address any issues facing men. Focusing on real policy might reasonate better. Again, just speculation from my end.

            12 votes
            1. krellor
              Link Parent
              I agree, where I have been most frustrated with the Harris campaign has been in their inability to just come out and address the working class workers who have seen their earning power decrease,...

              I agree, where I have been most frustrated with the Harris campaign has been in their inability to just come out and address the working class workers who have seen their earning power decrease, acknowledge that, and speak to them about how they will be helped.

              That's what Trump is doing when he goes out and tells people the economy is terrible. He's connecting with the people who can buy less today than they could 20 years ago in the same job.

              For once it would be nice to see the Democrats message that.

              15 votes
          4. CptBluebear
            Link Parent
            American politics would be so incredibly funny if their stupid choices didn't affect the entire world. These ads are so so so stupid. Not just these by the by, all of them. They're so outrageously...

            American politics would be so incredibly funny if their stupid choices didn't affect the entire world.

            These ads are so so so stupid. Not just these by the by, all of them. They're so outrageously blatant with their targeting of "the others" that I generally do not see anything about actual policies or belief. It's incredible.

            11 votes
          5. [21]
            GenuinelyCrooked
            Link Parent
            I can see how these adds fail to address men's issues (although, is there an issue particular to men that they could be addressing right now?) But none of those videos seemed critical of men to...

            I can see how these adds fail to address men's issues (although, is there an issue particular to men that they could be addressing right now?) But none of those videos seemed critical of men to me, either. The first video doesn't say you're not a real man if you don't vote for Kamala, it just says there's nothing unmanly about doing so. It also seems to play on the protective instinct that a lot of men have, which you might find to be stereotyping or otherwise unfairly pigeonholing, but it's not insulting.

            The second one is pointing out a real phenomenon of women not being attracted to guys who, uh, aren't voting in a way that protects pur rights, which seems fair and realisitic to me. The money question is kinda gross but that's a common question in the videos that one is mimicking.

            On the third one, again, what are the men's issues that you want them to bring up right now? I don't think we have good data, let alone a decent potential political framework, to address things like high rates of suicide and lonliness. Abortion is a huge issue that they're prepared to address right now that indirectly affects a lot of men. It makes sense for them to hammer it.

            10 votes
            1. [18]
              OBLIVIATER
              (edited )
              Link Parent
              I'm not sure if this is a joke, but yes they are. Note this does not apply to everyone, there are still plenty of men doing fine right now, and I'm not discounting issues that other groups of...
              • Exemplary

              (although, is there an issue particular to men that they could be addressing right now?)

              I'm not sure if this is a joke, but yes they are. Note this does not apply to everyone, there are still plenty of men doing fine right now, and I'm not discounting issues that other groups of people are facing by pointing this out

              Men, especially young men are facing a huge amount of issues right now in the US, and in the wider world. A huge and growing percentage of young men are not attending colleges, not entering the workforce, and living at home with their parents until older and older ages. 20% of men ages 25-34 are living with their parents (compared to 12% of women.) College demographics alone are closing in on 60% women to 40% men, which is further exacerbating the issues outlined in this article where men without degrees are losing ever increasing wages and opportunities.

              Young men are also now much more likely to be be unmarried or without a partner, something that has been increasing for all genders over the years, but has disproportionately affected young men. While this isn't a political issue, it is the result of some of the issues we've discussed in this thread where men who are NEETs (neither employed, in school nor in workforce training) make up 8.6% of the entire population of men ages 16-29.

              This all culminates in the most depressing statistic where men, and especially white men are finally on top! White men are the big winner in suicide statistics making up nearly 70% of all suicides in the United States. Men are almost 400% more likely to die by suicide than women (though this stat is slightly skewed as women are 60% more likely to attempt suicide, the reason behind this is men are more likely to choose more final methods like firearms. This does NOT discount the fact that these men are DYING at insane rates and these numbers are growing every year.) This is a topic near to my heart as I work in suicide prevention, so I always feel obligated to bring it up in conversations like this.

              All of these things and many more are issues facing young men that feel like they're being ignored in the wider social climate. This is one reason why younger men are more likely to turn to the right for guidance, because people like trump and other right wing pundits are at least talking about these issues and acknowledging that they exist, and not just telling them to do what's right for the women in their life.

              29 votes
              1. [8]
                GenuinelyCrooked
                Link Parent
                My apologies, my intent wasn't to imply that there aren't issues specific to men. The second half of my sentence was the most important part, but I didn't put enough emphasis on it. There are...

                My apologies, my intent wasn't to imply that there aren't issues specific to men. The second half of my sentence was the most important part, but I didn't put enough emphasis on it. There are issues facing men, of course, but are there any that could be effectively addressed by the executive branch of the government at this time? Do we even have decent data on what some solutions to these issues be, let alone frameworks that we could use to build policy?

                Abortion is not just a problem that affects women, it's a problem that the executive branch can make significant positive change on in a way that's easily communicated to voters. These issues facing men, while very real and very serious, don't have those same easy solutions.

                The only one I can think of that comes close is gun control that would prevent so many successful suicides among men, but that tends to be unpopular with exactly the people that would benefit from it.

                Do we have data on how to attract more men to colleges? We know that the education gap starts as early a grade school, and it's not just colleges choosing to accept more women in a way that the executive branch of the government could penalize in some way. It's got to do with the entire way that schools in our country are structured. Last I checked, we have some ideas about how we could make things more equitable for boys (bring back recess and don't penalize them for not sitting still and quiet for 8 hours a day at 9 years old) but we don't actually have much data, and even if we did, how is the president going to implement them? We have lots of data about how to make things better in schools that we can't implement because the funding isn't there, we're losing teachers because we refuse to pay and support them, and it's not top-of-mind for most voters. If they do speak to improving education generally, that's going to be a benefit to everyone, not just boys. If they talk about making changes that will specifically stop disadvantaging boys, that's going to seem super granular in the face of all of the other issues in education today.

                When it comes to loneliness, aside from things like improving the economy and opportunities for homeownership that would help everyone, what can the president do?

                Would it be better if they brought up these issues and said "we've got no what we can do about these things, but we know that they're problems"?

                Trump and the right have the luxury of just lying, or offering solutions at the expense of women and other non-men. "We're going to get you a wife by fixing the culture so that women want to be wives and mothers again". That's not a thing they can do without enslaving women, so that's either a lie or a threat. I'm not going to pretend the democrats have always been completely truthful, but they can't be that blatant, and I wouldn't want them to.

                10 votes
                1. [7]
                  OBLIVIATER
                  Link Parent
                  You're right, these are complicated issues and there isn't an easy solution like there is with abortion (just legalize and subsidize abortion, make it available, safe, and private for anyone who...

                  You're right, these are complicated issues and there isn't an easy solution like there is with abortion (just legalize and subsidize abortion, make it available, safe, and private for anyone who needs it.)

                  I don't pretend to have the solutions to any of these issues and I don't expect politicians to be able to campaign on any singular one of them as effectively as they can on issues like healthcare, Palestine/Ukraine, gun control, etc.

                  But I don't think ignoring them completely like has been happening for decades and pushing them under the rug is going to do us any favors as these issues are growing statistically year after year after year. Eventually we're going to have to do something about it, or we'll risk having this same goddamn dance every 4 years where we have to "save democracy" because some grifter like trump is the only one who is even pretending to care about this demographic. Cynically, I guess the solution most of these politicians are going for could be just wait until you've disenfranchised these people to the point where they've withdrawn from society completely or just killed themselves or others... because that's happening too.

                  12 votes
                  1. [6]
                    GenuinelyCrooked
                    Link Parent
                    I completely agree that these issues need to be addressed, I'm just not sure if campaign ads are the place to do it. These are nuanced, complicated issues, and many of them could theoretically be...

                    I completely agree that these issues need to be addressed, I'm just not sure if campaign ads are the place to do it. These are nuanced, complicated issues, and many of them could theoretically be solved by disenfranchising other groups that have fought for their rights for decades. A 30 second clip that addresses these issues, honestly implies or states a reasonable solution but doesn't even accidentally imply a solution that disenfranchises someone to do it seems like a nigh impossible task to me.

                    One option is addressing the issues in ways that would benefit everyone, of which there are many. To name a few:

                    • Increasing opportunities for homeownership,
                    • Stronger labor unions and more opportunity to join which would lead to more stable, comfortable employment and better work-life balance.
                    • Better opportunities for gaining an education without going into debt.
                    • Better and more affordable access to mental healthcare.
                    • Reasonable gun control measures

                    But because these issues benefit everyone, will white men feel like their issues are being addressed when they see this messaging? And would they be on board with what's being offered? A lot of these options are exactly the progressive policies that the Dems are scared to push for fear of alienating exactly these white men. As with gun control, will offering solutions to their problems potentially anger them? That's a genuine question, and I think it rests somewhat on exactly how it's messaged, but it's a dicey proposition.

                    4 votes
                    1. [5]
                      OBLIVIATER
                      (edited )
                      Link Parent
                      Well yes, I'd be fine if these politicians addressed it at all not just in political ads. I'm not intimately familiar with the Harris campaign but has she ever publicly spoken about any of the...

                      Well yes, I'd be fine if these politicians addressed it at all not just in political ads. I'm not intimately familiar with the Harris campaign but has she ever publicly spoken about any of the issues I mentioned in my previous comment?

                      I even tried to Google "Kamala Harris speaks on young mens issues" and literally the first thing that came up is Michelle Obama telling young men that they need to vote for her because of abortion issues and if they don't their wives/sisters/mothers might die

                      In fact, I'm having a hard time finding any liberal politician who will even acknowledge these issues whatsoever, let alone say that they need to be addressed. Why are they so scared to say anything about something that is affecting such a large percentage of the population?

                      10 votes
                      1. [4]
                        GenuinelyCrooked
                        Link Parent
                        They've definitely spoken about education, homeownership, and the economy. I think they're afraid to speak about issues that they don't have some sort of proposed solution for, because the other...

                        They've definitely spoken about education, homeownership, and the economy. I think they're afraid to speak about issues that they don't have some sort of proposed solution for, because the other side does have proposed solutions for those things. Their solutions are based on lies and the stripping away of rights for other groups, so they aren't solutions that we'd want dems to emulate, but they exist.

                        If I'm trying to get you to choose between me and another guy, why would I say "hey, I know you've got problems, and I'm sorry but I don't really know what to do about them." When the other guy is saying "I can fix all your problems! And it'll only cause problems for people you already don't like." Better not to bring up those problems.

                        3 votes
                        1. [3]
                          OBLIVIATER
                          Link Parent
                          I said any of the issues I mentioned, not any of the issues you mentioned. Yes, the issues you mentioned may be some of the cause of the issues I mentioned, but they're not specific to the young...

                          I said any of the issues I mentioned, not any of the issues you mentioned. Yes, the issues you mentioned may be some of the cause of the issues I mentioned, but they're not specific to the young men demographic that Harris is obviously trying so hard to win over (with everything but actually addressing their issues)

                          Honestly I think it would go a long way with more moderate young men if they did acknowledge that there are problems, and that they want to work with young men to try and find solutions to these issues. We all know its happening, and it's shameful that it's being ignored because it's not politically easy to talk about.

                          I find it really hard to believe that there's nothing that can be done politically to address these issues just because I can't come up with any easy answers. There has to be a middle ground between the deliberate ignorance of the current liberal party and the outright pandering lies of the current conservative party.

                          The reason the other guy is saying he can fix all the problems is the same reason liberals (or better yet actual leftists) need to get their shit together and make a real plan.

                          Also, just to be pedantic, when has not having a proposed solution ever stopped politicians (Democrat or Republican) from making campaign promises? I've heard of nicety BS for years from every candidate on every side and rarely do those ever make it to even a planning phase let alone on to an executive order or a bill.

                          The real reason I believe Democrats are so scared of talking about these issues is that it's simply not popular to acknowledge that most men aren't in the same privileged position they once were. It's difficult to go from campaigning for the rights of women, lgbtqtia, minorities, etc for decades and then all of a sudden try and start a movement to help men who historically have been one of the major reasons why these rights had to be campaigned for in the first place. I understand that it's not an easy sell, but it's also the truth and if Democrats want to try and reach those young men they need to go further than pathetic political ads telling them to "man up and vote for Harris"

                          6 votes
                          1. [2]
                            GenuinelyCrooked
                            Link Parent
                            That was my point. The things they talk about are the things they have answers for, which are things that benefit everyone, not just men. How many older men and women of all ages are they going to...

                            Yes, the issues you mentioned may be some of the cause of the issues I mentioned, but they're not specific to the young men demographic that Harris is obviously trying to hard to win over (with everything but actually addressing their issues)

                            That was my point. The things they talk about are the things they have answers for, which are things that benefit everyone, not just men.

                            Honestly I think it would go a long way with more moderate young men if they did acknowledge that there are problems,

                            How many older men and women of all ages are they going to alienate by doing so? To be honest, if I heard "we're looking to address the issue of young men's loneliness. We aren't sure where to start but we're open to working with young men on the issue." I'm going to be immediately on guard. I'm going to need to hear specifically that they are not open to solutions that would prioritize mens' desire for companionship over womens' right to self-determination, and if they bring that up they're going to alienate some of those men by making them feel like women's needs are still being centered, alienate women by "protesting too much", and not actually get any closer to solving anything.

                            Also, just to be pedantic, when has not having a proposed solution ever stopped politicians (Democrat or Republican) from making campaign promises? I've heard of nicety BS

                            Exactly, you've heard nicety BS. That's what's missing here. There's no nicety BS on this. There's nothing you can say that even sounds good to the people that you're trying to appeal to, unless you're willing to alienate a different huge chunk of the population.

                            The real reason I believe Democrats are so scared of talking about these issues is that it's simply not popular to acknowledge that most men aren't the same privileged position they once were. It's difficult to go from campaigning for the rights of women, lgbtqtia, minorities, etc for decades and then all of a sudden try and start a movement to help men who historically have been one of the major reasons why these issues had to be campaigned for in the first place.

                            I think that's true, but inextricably entwined with the biggest problem, which is that a solution for these men sort of exists. It's just a terrible solution for everyone other than men. That's to go back to the way things were. It's a lot easier to bring up a problem with no easy solution, like climate change, when there actually isn't an easy solution. But if you want to solve men being single when they don't want to be, you could just go back to women being unable to have their own bank accounts. That'll motivate them. And the right is more than willing to push in that direction, if not outright make that offer. So you're not just saying "I see the problem, I don't know how to solve it, but I'm listening". You're saying "I see the problem, I see them telling you they can solve it, but I'm not willing to consider that solution so I'm listening to see if you can come up with something else." That's a much harder sell.

                            I want to frame my position on the subject, just so you understand where I'm coming from. I don't have much love for the democratic party, I just find the republican party to be monstrously worse. I'm also extremely frustrated by the democrats unwillingness to take bold stances and make an actual effort to improve things rather than simply trying to cling to the status quo. I completely agree that these issues facing men should be addressed despite their complexity. I think what you and I are disagreeing on is primarily the feasibility of a marketing strategy which includes highlighting those issues. I'm open to admitting that I'm wrong here, I have no education in marketing, and a lot of this is largely a matter of perspective.

                            I also think that while men are less privileged than they used to be, there's still a pretty huge amount of privilege there. That doesn't mean that men don't need help or that their issues shouldn't be addressed, and it doesn't mean that gender guarantees any sort of ease in life (the most important aspect of privilege will always be class) but it's also important to recognize that just because your life is harder than it used to be, doesn't mean that it's harder than the lives of the people around you. Just because you have new problems, doesn't mean that the problems of the people around you have been solved. It's not a zero sum game, we can and should be able to focus on multiple issues at the same time, especially when they have common roots, but it's still important to recognize that working on the problems that other people face is not a slight against you.

                            3 votes
                            1. OBLIVIATER
                              Link Parent
                              I did read your full comment but it's bed time and I know I won't remember to respond tomorrow, so I'll leave it here. I enjoyed this discussion and I think you made a lot of good points, you...

                              I did read your full comment but it's bed time and I know I won't remember to respond tomorrow, so I'll leave it here.

                              I enjoyed this discussion and I think you made a lot of good points, you definitely educated me on some aspects of the issue I didn't consider (or didn't want to consider) and I think you're correct that we weren't really that far apart on the important parts.

                              Most of my annoyance on this subject is tied to what you said, Democrats are not putting their foot down and taking bold stances on anything. It is refreshing to see abortion actually having such strong support from the liberal party (although it sucks that it has to be the main focus of yet another election.) I just hope that one day we can move past the issues that divide the nation and start to focus on the issues that unite us. Things you mentioned like the economy, healthcare costs (outside of abortion), the housing and homeless crisis, and of course climate change and ecological pollution.

                              I still believe that there is hope for the future through democracy, and that hope will hopefully be strengthened after November 5th. But every passing year makes me more and more cynical that these issues are being manufactured by the ruling class in order to keep us divided and and not focused on the soon to be trillionaires siphoning off every single dollar they can.

                              7 votes
              2. [4]
                Light_of_Aether
                Link Parent
                Why are these men not going to college or vocational schools (electrician, plumber, etc.)? Why are they not employed?

                Why are these men not going to college or vocational schools (electrician, plumber, etc.)? Why are they not employed?

                4 votes
                1. [3]
                  MimicSquid
                  Link Parent
                  Lack of perceived opportunities for a good life, lack of resources to take advantage of the opportunities that do exist, lack of social support to handle unfortunate occurrences, lack of community...

                  Lack of perceived opportunities for a good life, lack of resources to take advantage of the opportunities that do exist, lack of social support to handle unfortunate occurrences, lack of community investment by the government, various addictions... There's a lot of reasons why someone wouldn't end up engaging with society, and there's been a good bit written in the topic in the last few years.

                  12 votes
                  1. [2]
                    GenuinelyCrooked
                    Link Parent
                    But addressing any of those things would benefit the population as a whole, not just men, so would bringing up those solutions be seen as addressing a Men's Issue, or just speaking to the economy?

                    But addressing any of those things would benefit the population as a whole, not just men, so would bringing up those solutions be seen as addressing a Men's Issue, or just speaking to the economy?

                    1. MimicSquid
                      Link Parent
                      I think that's a matter of messaging. It's possible to say that men are particularly vulnerable to these factors and this will benefit them in particular, while it will practically help everyone.

                      I think that's a matter of messaging. It's possible to say that men are particularly vulnerable to these factors and this will benefit them in particular, while it will practically help everyone.

                      5 votes
              3. [5]
                Moonchild
                Link Parent
                this confuses me. assuming most people are straight, neither gender should be disproportionately single—they should be single at the same rate. if young men are single and young women are not,...

                Young men are also now much more likely to be be unmarried or without a partner, something that has been increasing for all genders over the years, but has disproportionately affected young men

                this confuses me. assuming most people are straight, neither gender should be disproportionately single—they should be single at the same rate. if young men are single and young women are not, then it must be because the young women must be with older men, and so the older women must also be disproportionately single. but i haven't heard anybody talk about that. i suspect 'young men are disproportionately single' is a cover for a slightly different problem, but i'm not sure

                4 votes
                1. [3]
                  OBLIVIATER
                  (edited )
                  Link Parent
                  The following comment has not been deeply researched and contains speculation, reader discretion is advised. I believe there are a number of reasons that affect this. Feel free to jump in and...

                  The following comment has not been deeply researched and contains speculation, reader discretion is advised.

                  I believe there are a number of reasons that affect this. Feel free to jump in and correct me if this is wrong, but these speculations appear to be supported by the data I can find online.

                  1. Young women are more likely to date/marry someone older, sometimes significantly older. This isn't the only reason but I believe it's one of the larger contributors. Women sometimes date/marry older men for a variety of reasons that are too complicated to go into in this comment.

                  2. Most people are straight, but young people are much more likely to be queer than any other generation (that we have accurate statistics for) 20% of Gen Z people identify as LBGTQA+ and with growing numbers of people who are asexual (86% of people who identify as asexual are AFAB individuals!)
                    Gen Z AFAB individuals are also twice as likely to be queer than their AMAB counterparts, leading to further discrepancies between the sexes.

                  3. For people under 40, there is actually more men than women, not a significant amount more, but it is 3.2 million individuals which is not nothing and surely helps to contribute to the issue of male loneliness. Not so fun fact, the major reason women outnumber men in the United States is because men are much more likely to die at a younger age, leading to discrepancies in population numbers as we get above 55.

                  4. Miscellaneous other contributing factors that I thought might be worth mentioning. Women are more likely to not be actively seeking a partner more than ever before. With more women joining the work force than ever before it's more likely that they want to focus on their career, themselves, their friends, and their family. It's no longer expected that they need to settle down and have a family (to be clear this is a good thing, but it certainly is moving the needle.)
                    Women make up a small minority of dating apps (some estimates put these numbers as low as 10-30% of dating app users) which like it or not are the main way that younger people have been meeting for the past 10 years. This actually shows signs of changing as more and more young people are becoming disenfranchised with predatory dating apps and turning to more traditional methods of meeting new potential partners.

                  This comment ended up being longer than expected as I did some digging, but I'm sure it's not the limit of what might be causing these discrepancies. I'm sure it's more complicated than I portrayed here too, there are obviously social and personal reasons why a portion of these young men can't find a partner, but it's probably not productive to speculate on them at a population level.

                  13 votes
                  1. [2]
                    sparksbet
                    Link Parent
                    Some of those queer afab individuals are men. Some of their amab counterparts are women. If you're going to bring queer people into this, dividing things by gender assigned at birth like this is...

                    Gen Z AFAB individuals are also twice as likely to be queer than their AMAB counterparts, leading to further discrepancies between the sexes.

                    Some of those queer afab individuals are men. Some of their amab counterparts are women. If you're going to bring queer people into this, dividing things by gender assigned at birth like this is nonsensical -- unless you think trans men don't suffer from any of the loneliness and other social problems cis men suffer from, but trans women do? Which is both nonsensical and transphobic.

                    2 votes
                    1. OBLIVIATER
                      Link Parent
                      The only reason I did such is because that was the stats I found during my rudimentary research. I did my best to be inclusive and respectful of gender identities in this comment while still using...

                      The only reason I did such is because that was the stats I found during my rudimentary research. I did my best to be inclusive and respectful of gender identities in this comment while still using the statistics that I was able to find.

                      The whole point of including that point in the topic is to correct the original assertion by moonchild that queer people wouldn't factor into this discussion because they didnt make up a statistically significant amount of the population to sway anything.

                      This was not an attack on anyone who identifies as any gender.

                      2 votes
                2. sparksbet
                  Link Parent
                  I think the big demographic change is that it used to be much, much harder to live a good life as a single woman. That has changed a lot over the past ~50 years. More women are single (and,...

                  I think the big demographic change is that it used to be much, much harder to live a good life as a single woman. That has changed a lot over the past ~50 years. More women are single (and, despite what misogynistic men will sometimes say, plenty are single but don't want to be), but more importantly, a huge group of women who would've otherwise needed to get married for financial security no longer need to. Men whose only advantage is as a source of said security are having more trouble with women than ever before.

                  Of course, there's no "solution" to this "problem" that doesn't involve extremely regressive, misogynistic legislation. The idea that the epidemic of male loneliness is solved by getting these men wives rather than improving male friendships is similarly rooted in extremely regressive ideas about men, women, and society in general. But, unfortunately, a pretty substantial chunk of the guys who complain that men are being neglected politically are actually totally fine with or even supportive of these kinds of regressive, misogynistic ideas. This makes having a productive conversation on these issues as someone who isn't a cis dude an absolute minefield, because you can never be sure whether the person you're talking to is arguing in good faith because he wants to improve things for straight cis white men without making things worse for other groups... or whether he thinks women shouldn't be allowed to vote or own property.

                  3 votes
            2. [2]
              Moonchild
              Link Parent
              i found the comments on those youtube videos somewhat illuminating. also these videos (from a conservative woman) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhvJ-4xqx4A...

              i found the comments on those youtube videos somewhat illuminating. also these videos (from a conservative woman) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhvJ-4xqx4A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4n3kEXR2boM. i think it is not so much direct criticism as perceived condescension, which reads indirectly as criticism but also profound disconnect

              second one

              the main thing i find gross about that one is the implication that you should compromise on your political beliefs in exchange for sexual validation. and i think that might be why that ad didn't land. either way, even if that could improve turnout in the short term, it is not how you solve the problem

              9 votes
              1. OBLIVIATER
                Link Parent
                God, I tried to watch these videos but they were just terrible. This lady seems like Ben Shapiro in female form, but somehow more annoying. I wasn't able to dredge up ad campaigns that better fit...

                God, I tried to watch these videos but they were just terrible. This lady seems like Ben Shapiro in female form, but somehow more annoying.

                I wasn't able to dredge up ad campaigns that better fit my example that easily (its a surprisingly hard thing to google, especially because a lot of them tend to get disappeared by the companies once they're no longer relevant) but I'm sure other people have also seen and experienced the type of ad I'm referring to. The one that immediately comes to mind is the comically bad Gillette ad from last election cycle which, while not a political ad, obviously had a specific message in mind. It may have been the peak of the issue as well, I have to admit I don't follow political advertising nearly as closely as I did a few years ago because its exhausting and demoralizing.

                4 votes
  2. [16]
    DefinitelyNotAFae
    Link
    I don't understand why that chart only shows a line for White Men without Degrees and the racial categories of "Women with degrees" Later they look at "workers without a degree" but don't specify...

    I don't understand why that chart only shows a line for White Men without Degrees and the racial categories of "Women with degrees"

    Later they look at "workers without a degree" but don't specify gender or race.

    How are women without degrees doing? White men with degrees? Any other category of men with or without? Why does the first chart only contrast with women anyway?

    There's a single parenthetical that says that women without degrees are consistently on the bottom and men with degrees are consistently on top... So why did they show them on these charts? Because this looks like "men without college degrees are losing jobs to college educated women" and that doesn't make sense.

    This feels intended to foment anti-woman (and anti-Asian woman) attitudes in white men.

    15 votes
    1. [15]
      krellor
      Link Parent
      Because those are the subgroups with the largest changes over the period of time. Just like the article doesn't intend to foment anti-programmer sentiment by plotting them as the biggest winners...

      Because those are the subgroups with the largest changes over the period of time. Just like the article doesn't intend to foment anti-programmer sentiment by plotting them as the biggest winners of the economical shuffle vs machinists, the article isn't targeting women.

      Like any analysis, it is looking at a specific set of things in a context. That seems to be explaining what the big economic changes are that are driving the electorates attitudes.

      The NYT in general, and the UpShot in particular, are not a channel that I would be particularly suspicious of driving anti women's attitudes. And I don't see that reflected in this piece.

      17 votes
      1. [14]
        DefinitelyNotAFae
        Link Parent
        It's not clear to me those subgroups do in fact have the largest change because they're not contrasted with the other ones. I don't see anything in the article saying that is why they chose those...

        Because those are the subgroups with the largest changes over the period of time. Just like the article doesn't intend to foment anti-programmer sentiment by plotting them as the biggest winners of the economical shuffle vs machinists, the article isn't targeting women.

        It's not clear to me those subgroups do in fact have the largest change because they're not contrasted with the other ones. I don't see anything in the article saying that is why they chose those populations in the top graph.

        Like any analysis, it is looking at a specific set of things in a context. That seems to be explaining what the big economic changes are that are driving the electorates attitudes.

        Yes but it's choosing its lens deliberately. Because they want to talk about zero sum thinking and the resentment of non-educated white men, as they do at the end.

        The NYT in general, and the UpShot in particular, are not a channel that I would be particularly suspicious of driving anti women's attitudes. And I don't see that reflected in this piece.

        I see a piece that created a graphic that will contribute to the same problem they identify in the piece. I don't think that was intentional, but I do think the graph/chart feels like it's designed to stoke that resentment by only choosing the slices of the population it wanted to. Never mind that uneducated women are doing worse, never mind that educated white men are doing better... I think this was poorly done and will be misused.

        From the article:

        If you feel like you’re declining, you have this tendency to now start seeing the world in zero-sum terms,” said Stefanie Stantcheva, an economist at Harvard. You might agree that if immigrants do better economically, it must come at the expense of U.S. citizens, or that if some ethnic or racial groups or nations do better, others inevitably do worse — views Ms. Stantcheva and colleagues have tested in a large-scale survey.

        Or you might believe that if women are doing better, it must come at the expense of men.

        Zero-sum thinking exists on the left and right. But among Republicans, those who hold zero-sum beliefs were likelier to have voted for Mr. Trump in 2016, according to the survey. And many of the Democrats who voted for him, including previous Obama voters, shared this trait.

        Economists and politicians often counter that it’s possible to have an economy where everyone rises together, where relative position matters less than everyone’s absolute growth. But that is not how many voters see it today.

        Because it's about how they feel, not what is true.

        12 votes
        1. [13]
          krellor
          (edited )
          Link Parent
          And Let's be careful not to conflate intent with whether something can be misunderstood, misused, or would benefit from additional context, especially if taken out of context. However, I don't...

          This feels intended to foment anti-woman (and anti-Asian woman) attitudes in white men.

          And

          I see a piece that created a graphic that will contribute to the same problem they identify in the piece. I don't think that was intentional, but I do think the graph/chart feels like it's designed to stoke that resentment by only choosing the slices of the population it wanted to. Never mind that uneducated women are doing worse, never mind that educated white men are doing better... I think this was poorly done and will be misused.

          Let's be careful not to conflate intent with whether something can be misunderstood, misused, or would benefit from additional context, especially if taken out of context.

          However, I don't find it fair to judge articles without the context of their intended reader anymore than I find it fair to judge the terminology or vocabulary used in feminist or LGBTQ+ spaces without acknowledging the context of those forums.

          From the memo that launched the UpShot:

          The New York Times (NYTimes.com) today launched its new politics and policy website, The Upshot (NYTimes.com/upshot), the goal of which is to help readers better navigate the news using data, graphics and technology.

          To the targeted reader, who is actively engaged in news through the lens of policy and politics, I don't think there is the issue or concern that you raise. That those outside the target audience might misrepresent it is a fair opinion. But so what? Does every article ever, in every forum and every context need to include every caveat and context just in case it is picked up by a wider audience? Of course not.

          You might feel different. That's fair.

          However, as a regular reader of the Upshot, who has also done my own spelunking in the census data they use, I don't have any concerns and don't see the intent you see.

          13 votes
          1. [12]
            DefinitelyNotAFae
            Link Parent
            Allow me to amend for clarity this feels as if the potential outcome of it was so poorly considered, perhaps in an attempt of misguided fairness, that it feels like it would have to be...

            Let's be careful not to conflate intent with whether something can be misunderstood, misused, or would benefit from additional context, especially if taken out of context.

            Allow me to amend for clarity this feels as if the potential outcome of it was so poorly considered, perhaps in an attempt of misguided fairness, that it feels like it would have to be intentional. It's possible it's just really bad.

            However, I don't find it fair to judge articles without the context of their intended reader anymore than I find it fair to judge the terminology or vocabulary used in feminist or LGBTQ+ spaces without acknowledging the context of those forums.

            I have read the Upshot before, and I'm in that context, not an outsider.

            From the memo that launched the UpShot:

            The New York Times (NYTimes.com) today launched its new politics and policy website, The Upshot (NYTimes.com/upshot), the goal of which is to help readers better navigate the news using data, graphics and technology.

            To the targeted reader, who is actively engaged in news through the lens of policy and politics, I don't think there is the issue or concern that you raise. That those outside the target audience might misrepresent it is a fair opinion. But so what? Does every article ever, in every forum and every context need to include every caveat and context just in case it is picked up by a wider audience? Of course not.

            So this is a really common issue I've been having with the NYT coverage which results in them talking about voter concerns but not actually correcting them, or giving the correct data a line or two and a lot of other "concerns" many more inches. I think it's ironic to poorly portray data in an article by the data people. I saw this chart discussed elsewhere by other intelligent people who expressed how it took a moment to even track what the chart was saying and then had similar questions about the categories. As the target audience, I think it's ill considered and also doesn't convey information well but omitting 60% of the women in the country and at least that many of the men (all the non-white men, and the 30 some percent of college educated white men, I don't want to chase demographics down the well tonight), creating a graph that makes it look exactly like the zero sum game of women taking men's jobs they say isn't happening.

            So yeah, I have a problem with what feels so obviously a bad display of data as to have to be intentional.

            You might feel different. That's fair.

            However, as a regular reader of the Upshot, who has also done my own spelunking in the census data they use, I don't have any concerns and don't see the intent you see.

            You might feel different. That's fair. But I'm well aware of the NYT and the Upshot, and read it despite my concerns because I need to know things. Still concerned.

            8 votes
            1. [11]
              krellor
              Link Parent
              In terms of interpreting what the graphs mean, most of the graphics used at the times sort of suck. The exception is a few of the econ heavy newsletters like Krugman's and a few others where they...

              In terms of interpreting what the graphs mean, most of the graphics used at the times sort of suck. The exception is a few of the econ heavy newsletters like Krugman's and a few others where they are basic plots straight from Excel. The others are too focused on being fancy that they lose readability.

              However, that's a separate issue from data being selected to convey an anti-woman narrative.

              Allow me to amend for clarity this feels as if the potential outcome of it was so poorly considered, perhaps in an attempt of misguided fairness, that it feels like it would have to be intentional. It's possible it's just really bad.

              I don't really know what you are clarifying here. What is it that is so bad in the data presented? Is it just that it is plotting the salaries of men without college degrees against women's salaries with degrees, broken out by race?

              I don't understand the misguided fairness you are talking about. The article seems pretty straight forward. The disaffected portion of the electorate that has swung from Democrat to Republican is also the same that has had a decline in earning potential. They then plot data that correlates. In my mind this pairs well with other articles about the widening gap in religiosity and conservatism between young men and women. It's just trend data. That women have done better over time and continued to stay out become Democrat leaning seems to fit this data well.

              So this is a really common issue I've been having with the NYT coverage which results in them talking about voter concerns but not actually correcting them, or giving the correct data a line or two and a lot of other "concerns" many more inches.

              What do you mean "correcting them?" They are reporting possible reasons for trends. Are you expecting the times to come out and say that one group of people is wrong, like in an editorial board endorsement thing? That's not how the times has ever really operated outside of opinion pieces, which this isn't. However, you can see which way they lean by who they quote, which is economists saying that it doesn't have to be a zero sum game, and you can grow the pie.

              I have read the Upshot before, and I'm in that context, not an outsider.

              I've watched Fox News before, but I'm definitely not the target audience. If you want the times to state which side is right or wrong on a non-oponion piece, or to take a partisan side, or really much of any side, you aren't the target audience. You might still read it, but you're not who they are writing for.

              I'd also keep in mind that while some other major outlets are chickening out on presidential endorsements, the times editorial board hasn't shied away from that, while still reporting critical stories about both parties.

              But clearly we just see this issue differently.

              9 votes
              1. [10]
                DefinitelyNotAFae
                (edited )
                Link Parent
                I feel their choice of these specific populations to portray in this graph, which they do not provide any other reason for, perpetuates the "women and minorities are taking from me in this zero...

                I feel their choice of these specific populations to portray in this graph, which they do not provide any other reason for, perpetuates the "women and minorities are taking from me in this zero sum game" narrative they discuss at the end. Because that is what the data they have shared looks like. The data they shared was an intentional choice. As you noted often times such data is shared poorly. This is, in my opinion, one of those times. I don't think they intended that outcome, but I think the outcome is both likely and predictable.

                I don't understand the misguided fairness you are talking about. The article seems pretty straight forward. The disaffected portion of the electorate that has swung from Democrat to Republican is also the same that has had a decline in earning potential. They then plot data that correlates. In my mind this pairs well with other articles about the widening gap in religiosity and conservatism between young men and women. It's just trend data. That women have done better over time and continued to stay out become Democrat leaning seems to fit this data well.

                They're talking about how voters feel - that this is a zero sum thing and that women's success comes at the cost of men's success - and make the briefest mention that economists disagree but no real factual details that educate on why that isn't true. As I said this is an issue I've been having with the NYT for a while.

                All women aren't necessarily doing better, the majority of adult women are not on this chart. (Neither are the majority of adult men)

                So this is a really common issue I've been having with the NYT coverage which results in them talking about voter concerns but not actually correcting them, or giving the correct data a line or two and a lot of other "concerns" many more inches.

                What do you mean "correcting them?"

                I mean that voter feelings shouldn't be treated as equal in weight to expert analysis and articles about the former should reasonably discuss the latter. And this is about any topic or population. This is the same reason why their trans issue coverage is so bad - they wrote entire stories about some feelings and never sufficiently weight that with the facts and data. Some folks are uncomfortable about X - and that may be a story, but that story shouldn't be about taking those feelings as equal to all the data.

                I have read the Upshot before, and I'm in that context, not an outsider.

                I've watched Fox News before, but I'm definitely not the target audience. If you want the times to state which side is right or wrong on a non-oponion piece, or to take a partisan side, or really much of any side, you aren't the target audience. You might still read it, but you're not who they are writing for.

                I want them to focus on actual truth/facts. And yes because it seems necessary, that's regardless of party. The data people in particular should be good at that, but they're doing the same thing the rest of the paper is doing. I believe I'm actually firmly in the target audience, and I don't really know why you'd suggest I'm not as my trying to "prove" that would sound weird and frankly I'm a better judge of myself than you are.

                I'd also keep in mind that while some other major outlets are chickening out on presidential endorsements, the times editorial board hasn't shied away from that, while still reporting critical stories about both parties.

                The LA times and Washington Post editorial boards were not the cause of the lack of endorsements. Their owners were. The endorsements had been written in both cases.

                But clearly we just see this issue differently.

                Yes.

                7 votes
                1. [9]
                  krellor
                  Link Parent
                  I said their data formatting is often not ideal, and in this case, the graphics are too fancy as they animate while you scroll. Your concern sounds like it is the data itself or that it was...

                  As you noted often times such data is shared poorly. This is, in my opinion, one of those times. I don't think they intended that outcome, but I think the outcome is both likely and predictable.

                  I said their data formatting is often not ideal, and in this case, the graphics are too fancy as they animate while you scroll. Your concern sounds like it is the data itself or that it was presented at all. I disagree with that.

                  They're talking about how voters feel - that this is a zero sum thing and that women's success comes at the cost of men's success - and make the briefest mention that economists disagree but no real factual details that educate on why that isn't true. As I said this is an issue I've been having with the NYT for a while.

                  They sliced and diced the data more than just across gender and educational attainment. They looked at it across regions and hundreds of professions. The word "women" only occurs 4 times in a 2200+ word article about why blue-collar men are feeling economically disaffected, and they give one explanatory backdrop while emphasizing those in battleground states. Frankly, I'd be pretty shocked to see this article quoted by anyone in the future as an example of women taking jobs away from men. That's just not what the article is about, and I just don't see that subtext. Additionally, the article spends between 8-15% of its words about the economy not being a zero sum game, depending on how you determine that thread picks up at the end.

                  I mean that voter feelings shouldn't be treated as equal in wait to expert analysis and articles about the former should reasonably discuss the latter. And this is about any topic or population.

                  [...]

                  I want them to focus on actual truth/facts. And yes because it seems necessary, that's regardless of party. The data people in particular should be good at that, but they're doing the same thing the rest of the paper is doing. I believe I'm actually firmly in the target audience, and I don't really know why you'd suggest I'm not as my trying to "prove" that would sound weird and frankly I'm a better judge of myself than you are.

                  Because what you are asking for seems contradictory to their publicly posted standards and commitment to impartiality. Asking them to report on someone's opinion and then saying that the opinion is wrong or less valid than an expert's opinion isn't impartial. However, reporting the individual's opinion alongside experts' opinions is impartial. And that is what happened here, just in aggregate. The fact that men are leaning more Republican is newsworthy because of its impact on the election. The article digs into the data behind that newsworthy sentiment shift and seeks to explain some of why blue-collar men are leaning Republican, along with expert commentary. This article seems pretty impartial. Calls for them to state an opinion or assert something subjective, counter to their stated goals, does not seem like something their target audience pays them for.

                  The LA times and Washington Post editorial boards were not the cause of the lack of endorsements. Their owners were. The endorsements had been written in both cases.

                  Yes, and unlike them, the NYT's had no newsroom interference from their owners.

                  8 votes
                  1. [8]
                    DefinitelyNotAFae
                    (edited )
                    Link Parent
                    The formatting is also confusing but I believe the choice of what data to present is part of why it is a bad presentation of the data. I'm actually starting to think it was because they highlight...

                    l

                    I said their data formatting is often not ideal, and in this case, the graphics are too fancy as they animate while you scroll. Your concern sounds like it is the data itself or that it was presented at all. I disagree with that.

                    The formatting is also confusing but I believe the choice of what data to present is part of why it is a bad presentation of the data.
                    I'm actually starting to think it was because they highlight that zero sum perception at the end that they used that breakdown. There's really no other reason to only look at those slices of the population.

                    They sliced and diced the data more than just across gender and educational attainment. They looked at it across regions and hundreds of professions. The word "women" only occurs 4 times in a 2200+ word article about why blue-collar men are feeling economically disaffected, and they give one explanatory backdrop while emphasizing those in battleground states. Frankly, I'd be pretty shocked to see this article quoted by anyone in the future as an example of women taking jobs away from men. That's just not what the article is about, and I just don't see that subtext. Additionally, the article spends between 8-15% of its words about the economy not being a zero sum game, depending on how you determine that thread picks up at the end.

                    I'm not taking issue, at the point in time, with the rest of the data slicing, just the initial one. I'm aware of the rest of it.

                    I think that initial graph perpetuates the zero sum attitude and was poorly chosen. And I expect that graph to be misused, not for people to read the article. Context is killer to misinformation.
                    .

                    Because what you are asking for seems contradictory to their publicly posted standards and commitment to impartiality. Asking them to report on someone's opinion and then saying that the opinion is wrong or less valid than an expert's opinion isn't impartial. However, reporting the individual's opinion alongside experts' opinions is impartial. And that is what happened here, just in aggregate. The fact that men are leaning more Republican is newsworthy because of its impact on the election. The article digs into the data behind that newsworthy sentiment shift and seeks to explain some of why blue-collar men are leaning Republican, along with expert commentary. This article seems pretty impartial. Calls for them to state an opinion or assert something subjective, counter to their stated goals, does not seem like something their target audience pays them for.

                    Expert opinions should generally be weighted more than random individuals. Evidence based opinions and facts are different than feelings. For example, "Some people are concerned about Haitian immigrants eating cats" should not be taken as seriously as, "This is a racist, xenophobic lie that originated on white supremacist media. " If that is "stating something subjective" then there's no point to the journalism. Every opinion isn't the same. It's valid to understand why people feel a certain way, it's important to provide actual facts about that thing - they did that some here with the data they did provide, but they failed at the end, and consistently do IMO, out of a desire to be "impartial."

                    The LA times and Washington Post editorial boards were not the cause of the lack of endorsements. Their owners were. The endorsements had been written in both cases.

                    Yes, and unlike them, the NYT's had no newsroom interference from their owners

                    We don't know of any, sure, but you credited their editorial board, in contrast with the others, and I'm just making the point that it wasn't the editorial boards of those papers that were the problem. The NYT doesn't get a respect cookie for doing the normal thing, those other papers lose respect. They can do good journalism, but it's become so glaring how often they don't.

                    I know we don't agree, and you've acknowledged it, I expect more out of news organizations than I believe we are getting and believe that the NYT among others is consistently letting down the public in a multitude of ways - cleaning up Trump's wild statements and claims is one. Unless they shared somewhere why they sliced their initial graph in this way, and omitted a huge amount of the population in the process, we're both just guessing about motivation. I'm not inclined to give the benefit of the doubt because I believe they should know better. You don't see a problem. Ok. I'm not really trying to convince you to change your mind.

                    6 votes
                    1. [7]
                      krellor
                      Link Parent
                      Ok, on a less serious note, I'd be a little surprised if that graph was used because it's a pain to copy short of a low quality screen cap. That said, I agree with about 90% of what your are...

                      Ok, on a less serious note, I'd be a little surprised if that graph was used because it's a pain to copy short of a low quality screen cap.

                      That said, I agree with about 90% of what your are saying, but strongly disagree with the other 10%. I pay more for the times than all my other media spend together because I value the impartiality you seem to dislike. And while I agree that not all opinions are equal, you address that by reporting the contrasting perspectives from credible sources, giving the appropriate context. You don't insert yourself into the news by stating an opinion.

                      I'll also make a more fundamental point, which is that it is just as wrong to spin an article about disaffected men as being about women, as is the reverse. Picking out one small slice of the article and saying the article is bad because it fuels sentiment against women is missing the point in an article about the economic decline of a group of men.

                      Likewise, it seems to make sense to lead with a contrast across gender as it is likely the largest comparative set when you are discussing men. The fact that they break it out further by race I think is intended to alleviate part of your criticism by showing that not all women are doting so well.

                      With regards for why women without degrees weren't included, well, they haven't had the same shift in political leaning, and it wouldn't show the relative economic reordering the article is focusing on. That's probably the reason they don't just plot men without degrees against all people with degrees. It wouldn't show the phenomenon.

                      So again, an article about why men are economically disaffected isn't harmful to women just because they contrast the men to the largest comparative set that shows changes in relative economic standing. And the largest cohort to compare with is women with degrees. And programmers, apparently.

                      7 votes
                      1. [6]
                        DefinitelyNotAFae
                        Link Parent
                        Phone screenshot is quick, easy and decent quality, I tried it myself. I don't think what I'm describing is impartiality, for trans folks, it's led to a consistent anti-trans narrative where...

                        Ok, on a less serious note, I'd be a little surprised if that graph was used because it's a pain to copy short of a low quality screen cap.

                        Phone screenshot is quick, easy and decent quality, I tried it myself.

                        That said, I agree with about 90% of what your are saying, but strongly disagree with the other 10%. I pay more for the times than all my other media spend together because I value the impartiality you seem to dislike. And while I agree that not all opinions are equal, you address that by reporting the contrasting perspectives from credible sources, giving the appropriate context. You don't insert yourself into the news by stating an opinion.

                        I don't think what I'm describing is impartiality, for trans folks, it's led to a consistent anti-trans narrative where science is not being given weight and the views of trans people's lived experiences are not given weight but the concerned feelings of anti-trans parents are. The moderators of the debate fact checking were not giving opinions.

                        I think you and I have disagreed about this before when the topic of trans coverage came up and my opinion on the Times hasn't changed. I've seen the same pattern around their election coverage. It's not just them, but it's definitely them.

                        I don't support them because I do not find them "impartial" I find them pretending to impartiality to the point of allowing lies to be unchallenged and expert information and data given little attention. If flat earth is as valid as round earth because anything else is opinion, it's the readers who suffer.

                        I'll also make a more fundamental point, which is that it is just as wrong to spin an article about disaffected men as being about women, as is the reverse. Picking out one small slice of the article and saying the article is bad because it fuels sentiment against women is missing the point in an article about the economic decline of a group of men.

                        Yeah I complained about the beginning chart, I didn't "spin" this article. I don't think it's bad because they didn't talk about women more. I don't think it's bad for talking about white men without degrees solo. I think contrasting those men with only educated women was bad data presentation. I didn't go into any of this detail until you replied disagreeing with me. I have no interest in talking about women here, just the bad data. And me replying to you with more details about my opinion is not spinning nor missing the point of the article. Those discussions about those points are above and/or below my comment which was about the chart.

                        Likewise, it seems to make sense to lead with a contrast across gender as it is likely the largest comparative set when you are discussing men. The fact that they break it out further by race I think is intended to alleviate part of your criticism by showing that not all women are doting so well.

                        But it wasn't a "contrast across gender" it did essentially opposite populations among men and women. They very selectively presented the data they wanted to. The reason for that is up in the air.

                        With regards for why women without degrees weren't included, well, they haven't had the same shift in political leaning, and it wouldn't show the relative economic reordering the article is focusing on. That's probably the reason they don't just plot men without degrees against all people with degrees. It wouldn't show the phenomenon.

                        Once again, you're guessing at the reasons because they didn't provide any. I'm holding them accountable for their choices, not your guesses. I don't think they need random people speaking for them.

                        If you only see phenomena when you omit the majority of the data, I'm not sure it's a real phenomenon. But in this case, I don't think it holds that you couldn't still see the struggle of the men in question with other lines on there. "I had to present the data in an initially confusing way and one that makes it appear at first glance that all men are doing poorly to all women" is bad data presentation.

                        So again, an article about why men are economically disaffected isn't harmful to women just because they contrast the men to the largest comparative set that shows changes in relative economic standing. And the largest cohort to compare with is women with degrees. And programmers, apparently.

                        If you think I've said this article is "harmful to women" then you're not reading my words. Nor was I trying to derail this into a conversation about women instead of men. I think the people that made the chart did a bad job by excluding the data they did, so much so that it felt intentionally bad, because the other option is incompetence which is not the default expectation I had.

                        I don't mind discussing my opinion, obviously, but if you ask me to do so by responding, please don't act like I'm derailing the conversation when I do.

                        6 votes
                        1. [5]
                          krellor
                          Link Parent
                          This article isn't about trans issues. I'm not going to shift topics. What would be a better cohort to contrast with that shows changes in economic standing over 40 years? I suggested why I...

                          I don't think what I'm describing is impartiality, for trans folks, it's led to a consistent anti-trans narrative where science is not being given weight and the views of trans people's lived experiences are not given weight but the concerned feelings of anti-trans parents are. The moderators of the debate fact checking were not giving opinions.

                          This article isn't about trans issues. I'm not going to shift topics.

                          I think contrasting those men with only educated women was bad data presentation.

                          What would be a better cohort to contrast with that shows changes in economic standing over 40 years? I suggested why I thought this was an important group to contrast with to show this phenomenon. I'm happy to pull data to see if the phenomenon exists with a different group.

                          Once again, you're guessing at the reasons because they didn't provide any. I'm holding them accountable for their choices, not your guesses. I don't think they need random people speaking for them.

                          If you don't see how this piece lines up with their other articles and fits in with the overall reporting at NYT right now that is fine. I see how this piece fits in quite well. I'm not guessing at their reasons, I'm looking at it in context of the time and place. If you feel they should be more explicit that is fine.

                          If you only see phenomena when you omit the majority of the data, I'm not sure it's a real phenomenon.

                          What phenomenon are you talking about? Do you not believe the data presented that blue collar men have seen a decline in economic standing, or that they have shuffled around with dental hygienists? Or is the idea that women with degrees might have swapped places with the cohort straining your credulity? What specifically?

                          If you think I've said this article is "harmful to women" then you're not reading my words.

                          You clearly have said this article feeds a zero sum narrative, that the plot at the beginning will be used to argue that women are taking men's jobs, that it was intended to foment I'll will towards women.

                          I don't mind discussing my opinion, obviously, but if you ask me to do so by responding, please don't act like I'm derailing the conversation when I do.

                          I don't believe I said you were derailing the discussion. That said, on this last reply you are by trying to pivot to trans coverage. I'm staying focused on this article.

                          What I did say is that you have interpreted or spun the article to be about women, when it's not. And that is based on the very first comment about how this article was intended to foment ill will against women.

                          5 votes
                          1. [4]
                            DefinitelyNotAFae
                            Link Parent
                            We were discussing two topics or at least I was: this chart, and the NYT reporting overall. I used another example to talk about the latter, not trying to change the topic, because I'm not...

                            This article isn't about trans issues. I'm not going to shift topics.

                            We were discussing two topics or at least I was: this chart, and the NYT reporting overall. I used another example to talk about the latter, not trying to change the topic, because I'm not actually discussing the content of the article, but the presentation of the data and their pattern of reporting choices. I don't want to talk about trans issues here. So please don't shift topics.

                            I think contrasting those men with only educated women was bad data presentation.

                            What would be a better cohort to contrast with that shows changes in economic standing over 40 years? I suggested why I thought this was an important group to contrast with to show this phenomenon. I'm happy to pull data to see if the phenomenon exists with a different group.

                            Including the rest of the population by degree and gender would have been helpful. I'm not interested in you pulling data, I can do that too. My issue is with the Times' actions not yours.

                            Once again, you're guessing at the reasons because they didn't provide any. I'm holding them accountable for their choices, not your guesses. I don't think they need random people speaking for them.

                            If you don't see how this piece lines up with their other articles and fits in with the overall reporting at NYT right now that is fine. I see how this piece fits in quite well. I'm not guessing at their reasons, I'm looking at it in context of the time and place. If you feel they should be more explicit that is fine.

                            You're guessing at why they chose the data they did. That's what guessing is. If you write the Upshot or provided these graphs or have spoken with the people that did, then you're not guessing. Let me know if it's the latter.

                            I do in fact think this fits in with their overall reporting right now, I just have a negative view of it. I was pretty explicit about that.

                            If you only see phenomena when you omit the majority of the data, I'm not sure it's a real phenomenon.

                            What phenomenon are you talking about? Do you not believe the data presented that blue collar men have seen a decline in economic standing, or that they have shuffled around with dental hygienists? Or is the idea that women with degrees might have swapped places with the cohort straining your credulity? What specifically?

                            Wow. So, you said they chose this data to demonstrate the phenomenon. I said, if you only see a phenomenon by picking and choosing the data you show, it may not be real. Then I said I think you'd see this pattern with those extra data points present. So I think the pattern, the phenomenon mentioned, is real.

                            Please don't disingenuously pick sentences out of a paragraph and reply as if there's nothing around them.

                            You clearly have said this article feeds a zero sum narrative, that the plot at the beginning will be used to argue that women are taking men's jobs, that it was intended to foment I'll will towards women.

                            I think the chart feeds the zero sum narrative they mention and fail to debunk at the end, yes. That it can be taken out of the context of the article with ease and used to blame women for this phenomenon. You did cut that sentence out of my response though. Demonstrating how easily it is to take something out of context.

                            I don't believe I said you were derailing the discussion. That said, on this last reply you are by trying to pivot to trans coverage. I'm staying focused on this article.

                            What I did say is that you have interpreted or spun the article to be about women, when it's not. And that is based on the very first comment about how this article was intended to foment ill will against women.

                            You implied I was derailing when you mentioned how talking about women was derailing in this discussion of this article. You've now accused me of it specifically. I wasn't pivoting to trans coverage I was providing an example to go alongside their election coverage. I'm not interpreting or spinning this article to be about women. I complained about the graphic at the top and you seem to want to defend the honor of the NYT

                            Agreeing with me 90% and disagreeing 10 sure looks like taking one sentence out of my long posts and ignoring the sentences immediately after that. I've got no interest in continuing with willful misunderstanding. You're demonstrating how easily it is to take a sentence (or a chart) out of context and get mad at a whole narrative that doesn't exist.

                            I don't like much of the Times' reporting, especially on politics and trans issues, this is one of those times. I think the chart they used was bad and will be misused because of that badness. I hold the Upshot to higher data presentation standards because they're the data people. I'm not derailing, I'm not having my credulity strained that certain groups of men and women are doing worse and better.

                            I don't understand exactly your intent here but if you're going to keep yanking sentences of my response to you out and ignore the sentence right after, please save yourself the reading time.

                            3 votes
                            1. [3]
                              krellor
                              Link Parent
                              When exchanging long replies it is difficult to pick out what specifically we are responding to. I'm not trying to take words out of context, but to highlight what I'm responding to. There is no...

                              When exchanging long replies it is difficult to pick out what specifically we are responding to. I'm not trying to take words out of context, but to highlight what I'm responding to. There is no bad faith here, or trying to "win." I'm simply expressing my views and points of disagreement.

                              You're guessing at why they chose the data they did. That's what guessing is. If you write the Upshot or provided these graphs or have spoken with the people that did, then you're not guessing. Let me know if it's the latter.

                              I regularly work with census data, so I'm not guessing as to what is there, qualitatively at least. Maybe I only feel this way about the article because I've already seen much of the data that they didn't include and the choices make sense to me.

                              I'm not interested in you pulling data, I can do that too. My issue is with the Times' actions not yours.

                              It sounds like you are interested in proving a point about the times more than exploring the data and the why of the choices of the article. I personally think it would be fun to do a data dive colab with people on Tildes.

                              Back to the original point, I disagree that the chart in question was intended to create I'll will towards women. Those were your words.

                              This feels intended to foment anti-woman (and anti-Asian woman) attitudes in white men.

                              Much of our back and forth has been over the reasonableness of how the data was contrasted. And if we strip everything else away, I get back to the question I asked earlier of, what is a better cohort to show relative changes in economic standing? And specifically, how does that your into other phenomena around political leaning reported by the times.

                              You implied I was derailing when you mentioned how talking about women was derailing in this discussion of this article.

                              I never used the term derailing. I don't have the intent you seem to have assigned to me.

                              If you aren't interested in discussing that's fine. However I'd note that only one of us has (conditionally) told the other to not bother responding or to question the others intent in responding.

                              I do apologize if the prior quotes I used misrepresented the point you were making. Sometimes it's hard to pick out the most concise bits.

                              5 votes
                              1. [2]
                                DefinitelyNotAFae
                                Link Parent
                                You didn't say derailing, I used that term, because it was a synonym for what you were describing. I don't really feel like going back up however many posts to do so. I've answered the question...

                                You didn't say derailing, I used that term, because it was a synonym for what you were describing. I don't really feel like going back up however many posts to do so.

                                I've answered the question you strip down to multiple times. So I'm really not going to repeat myself anymore.

                                I encourage you to go on a data deep dive with interested parties, my post was about the presentation of that data. I'm not interested at this point. I am also not interested in proving a point against the Times' here, I was explaining my POV but I am not trying to convince you of it.

                                2 votes
                                1. krellor
                                  Link Parent
                                  Understood, sometimes it's just a matter of different views and interests. Have a good day!

                                  Understood, sometimes it's just a matter of different views and interests. Have a good day!

                                  6 votes
  3. [21]
    stu2b50
    Link
    IMO there isn’t really a solution. When you look at it holistically, it’s a good and expected thing that the US economy have more college educated workers, and become more knowledge and service...

    IMO there isn’t really a solution. When you look at it holistically, it’s a good and expected thing that the US economy have more college educated workers, and become more knowledge and service based. When you think of human labor as a resource, you want to maximize its efficiency, and for humans, in the end, that’s our heads.

    Having a significant portion of jobs be ones where the only requirement is a healthy body and a pulse is inevitably going to become a thing of the past.

    It is what it is. Eventually all the workers born in that economy will be retired or dead. That’s the only change I see coming.

    Trump doesn’t offer solutions either - he just represents an outlet for frustrations, to be vented on women, yuppie “liberal” men, trans, etc. But that’s hardly a solution, or something democrats can emulate.

    10 votes
    1. [4]
      TreeFiddyFiddy
      (edited )
      Link Parent
      I don't mean to attack you personally, as this is a widely held attitude, but this is exactly the attitude that drives men towards the right. This is the "elitism" that they mean when they talk...
      • Exemplary

      it’s a good and expected thing that the US economy have more college educated workers
      Having a significant portion of jobs be ones where the only requirement is a healthy body and a pulse is inevitably going to become a thing of the past
      [my emphasis added]

      I don't mean to attack you personally, as this is a widely held attitude, but this is exactly the attitude that drives men towards the right. This is the "elitism" that they mean when they talk about the Democrats or college educated liberals. I think it's pretty easy to falsify this opinion on economic and societal grounds but that it's worth pointing out that to a very large percentage of the population this opinion and associated rhetoric is outright repugnant.

      The effects of the lack of, not just rust belt manufacturing but, all skilled labor are acutely seen in the post-covid world with all the inflation, supply chain disruptions, unaffordability of durable goods, etc. And it is fair to talk about skilled labor in general as the attitude reflected in your post is not limited to the scope of rust belt labor and denigrates all unskilled labor, including the trades.

      To talk about rust belt manufacturing, specifically, there are several compelling reasons why it is a huge economic and security disadvantage to lose these industries. Everyone has seen how Covid exposed wide gulfs in the US's self sufficiency and the overnight lack of all essentials and ability to integrate components into finished products. The US was hamstrung without access to medical equipment, automobiles became unaffordable and unobtainable as various components could not be sourced, aircraft manufacturing likewise was deeply impacted, scarcity drove up inflation that we are still dealing with and that disproportionately affects those without college degrees. The idea isn't so much that you want to create all basic medical supplies in your country but that you do want to support at least a smaller fraction of that industry locally so that in prolonged crises you have not completely lost the skills knowledge to perform this manufacturing and that you can also scale up quickly to meet demand. The loss of manufacturing is a national and societal security issue.

      These issues go beyond meeting basic goods needs and is reflected in the basic national security industrial policy of all major manufacturing nations. Why do nations so fervently protect their auto industries? There are of course many reasons but a main reason is simply to protect the industrial knowledge base. In the event of war what does a country need most other than boots on the ground? Machinists, production line workers, factories, and infrastructure. The story of World War 2 was about America's ability to quickly pivot to wartime production as factories overnight became weapons factories. The US's ability to not only outfit itself and mobilize a massive fighting force but to also supply all of its allies is what ended up winning the war.

      In the US's pivot to confront China, the country has found itself in dire need of ship production capability but is unable to meet even it's minimum needs because of the gutting of heavy manufacturing. The people skilled and knowledgeable enough to build the ships are nowhere to be found as generational knowledge has not been passed on. Shipyards are all closed up and the attempt to meet production goals is now sequestered to two shipyards in the whole country. This is only one, highly specific, scenario where real-world consequences are being seen from our lack of manufacturing ability and the associated knowledge and existing worker base contribute to but we don't need to limit the scope only to military supply, you can already see it in utilities, food processing, almost everything you need that isn't a service or knowledge work.

      Aircraft production, auto production, weapons production, energy grid components, heavy machinery, steel production, I could go on, are all examples of classic manufacturing that are not only direly connected to a country's strategic self-sufficiency but (outside of steel manufacturing) still bring in huge economic returns both in profits and in the maintaining of infrastructure.

      When you think of human labor as a resource, you want to maximize its efficiency, and for humans, in the end, that’s our heads

      Again, this comes off as very elitist and feeds into the narrative that a college degree is more valuable and desirable than working with your hands. We could go into degree inflation, educational attainment as class signaling and mobility, overproduction of elites, overeducation of the workforce, increasing student debt, misallocation of capital required to run an over productive educational system, etc., to talk about why having such a large highly educated populace might counterintuitively be undesirable but it might be better to just focus on what human efficiency and "using our heads" really mean. In the context of the quote it's referring to working in a service and knowledge economy vice a skilled labor economy but that ignores that our heads are more than responsible for this type of thinking and that efficiency also extends to our ability to manipulate with our appendages, conceive of things more in the physical space than theoretical or abstract, or work efficiently within narrow proscribed framework of something procedural, i.e. skilled labor.

      Not everyone's end state of achievement or inherent abilities are to work in abstract knowledge or service fields. Some people don't have that ability but have an amazing ability to work with their hands that someone sitting in an office might not ever be able to match. Letting these people maximize their particular efficiencies adds more to the economy than having them work at McDonalds or barely achieving at an office job that maybe just isn't a part of their inherent skillset. An economy and society is made up of a diversity of skills and natural talents and the economy and the good and expected thing would be to maximize the value of all participants whether in manufacturing, service, knowledge, trades, etc.

      This also ignores the massive societal destabilization and economic losses incurred by leaving these people behind. What the left traditionally labels as racism, white male supremacy ideals, and anti-intellectualism can, for most of the average-joe population, be traced back to feeling unneeded, undesired, unskilled, and being left economically behind. A lot of these people aren't actually racist but immigrants coming in to take the jobs you used to do because they don't pay a lot due to underinvestment in favor of the service economy becomes a very easy scapegoat and quickly inflammatory when you're being left behind in almost every metric that contributes to life satisfaction and happiness. A lot of swing states find themselves in former manufacturing hotbeds and it should be recognized that this is a very important constituency that should be catered to in order to divert their support away from Republicans. These are people whose cultural attitudes and personal abilities are suited for handwork and they aren't magically going to go away with time or by making universities tuitionless or by destroying the manufacturing industry, these people will always exist because that's just human nature and we need to find ways to keep them valuable in our society.

      Having a significant portion of jobs be ones where the only requirement is a healthy body and a pulse is inevitably going to become a thing of the past

      Then to return to this quote completely ignores the rust belt and manufacturing renaissance that we're seeing thin the US at this very point in time. Biotech, green energy, robotics, electronics, and advanced polymers are all examples of next generation manufacturing that are finding a niche in the US and starting to change the lives of all those people who only have a healthy body and a pulse to work with and actually won't be easily offshored in the near-term because advanced manufacturing requires a basic level of education that is not readily provided in many poorer offshore manufacturing countries.

      Saying that it's good and expected that the US economy rely more on college educated workers (especially when we already don't have enough jobs to absorb them all) is a tacit endorsement of that system over skilled labor. Saying that having a significant portion of jobs be ones where it only requires a healthy body and pulse cast a wide net beyond manufacturing into all skilled and unskilled labor, it's not an apples and oranges argument. Saying that all workers born in that economy will be retired or dead is tantamount to saying that no one is coming to replace them, which completely ignores the exciting economic developments happening all over the Midwest right now.

      Knowledge and education are good but are not the end all be all. Manufacturing is good and desired. Trades work is good and desired. A person can contribute to society and the economy more than just on the basis of their ability to obtain a university diploma and they are just as worthy and desired as someone sitting in an office.

      15 votes
      1. DavesWorld
        Link Parent
        Finally a sensible contribution that's on topic and speaks to the actual issue raised by this article. Well done. This thread has turned into the Tildes version of a dumpster fire. Not much (any?)...
        • Exemplary

        Finally a sensible contribution that's on topic and speaks to the actual issue raised by this article. Well done.

        This thread has turned into the Tildes version of a dumpster fire. Not much (any?) overt flaming, mostly civilized, but definitely a lot of attempts to pivot it away from the article topic and into something else folks would rather talk about instead. By doing so, they're proving they're part of the reason why the article was written in the first place.

        There are men who do not want to sit in an office. They don't consider that work. Further, a lot of these types of men don't even really know how to do that. And couldn't be trained to sit behind those desks pushing those papers with any sort of efficiency or success. They'd be miserable and depressed, because it's not who they are and not what they want to do with their lives.

        They're people who want to work with their hands.

        They want to see what they create. They want to build the house, shape the ground, fabricate the item out of metal or whatever. They want to make stuff, carry stuff, deliver stuff, collect stuff. Physically. They want to plant seed, harvest trees, they want to work with their hands. And yeah, they'd like to take home a paycheck for that, know they're supporting not just themselves but a family with it. They want to have a simple but fulfilling life, and they don't deserve to be ridiculed or crushed for it.

        These are men who, when they were in high school, got a lot of shit from most of their teachers. Who derided them for wanting to make and create, who kept ragging on them to "study harder, go to college, don't you care about your future, don't you want to do something important with your life?"

        That upset them, because the things they want to do, the things they like to do, are important. Houses don't just build themselves, no matter how much money a six or seven figure tie wearing "professional" is ready to throw at the project. Someone has to take actual physical materials and build with them. Shape them into boards and nails and put them together, into pipes and wires that are strung through the walls.

        It pisses these men off when so much of the rest of the country sneers at them, treats them like second class citizens who aren't important. When they're sighed at, when the attitude they're given is something akin to "well, yeah, sure you make things, but what if you'd really tried to make something of yourself?" The constant accusation leveled at them being they're worthless and unimportant and thus irrelevant simply because they don't put on a tie and bang away on a keyboard all week.

        If you're someone who does wear a tie and bang that keyboard in exchange for a paycheck, you don't have to understand their attitude. Odds are you probably don't anyway. You're probably one of the people who sneers at those who work with their hands, who considers those people irrelevant and replaceable, meaningless.

        Which is fine. I mean, it's not, but a person is allowed to feel whatever they feel. But it's hypocrisy to believe that and then have the gall to wonder why tradesmen and others who work with their hands resent being looked down upon and treated like the scum of not just the economy, but society in general. Simply because they're hands-on men.

        That's what this article is touching upon, and it's what most of the posters in the thread don't seem to understand.

        If you treat an entire demographic segment (men who work with their hands) as useless and stupid, you don't get to be surprised when they decide to take you at your face value and assume you hate them. That you don't care about them.

        Who do those men go looking for? The same anyone who's rejected goes looking for; someone who'll treat them better. Here, right now, that's not Democrats. Who are center right and cozying up to big business and wealth without a backwards glance at all the little people being left behind.

        Only, unlike Republicans, Democrats cloak that, try to distract from it, by espousing social issues like gender and sexuality and so on at the top of their lungs. Which is fine, except they do it by putting down men at every opportunity, and while economically talking about how everyone in the country should be a skilled worker because "that's better."

        Trump is a narcissistic, deeply unintelligent idiot, liar, felon, dishonest cheat and crook, arguably a traitor ... but he and the Republicans don't tell hands-on men they're useless bigoted assholes who deserved to be treated harshly and ground into dust. Those ads Democrats and the left like to laugh about, where "old fashioned American values" are waved like the flag, about small towns and hard working folks who build and grow and fix to keep the country running ... the fact the left consider that comedic is part of the problem.

        That's another big part of why men are flocking to the Republicans. They don't get treated like asshole problems there. Why would they want to go Left, hang out with Democrats or Progressives, when those groups treat them like shit? Hint: they don't. When you turn up and everyone yells at you, sneers at you, tut-tuts at you, tells you you're wrong and worthless and a huge negative in general, logically you stop turning up.

        But most people do turn up somewhere. So where do they turn up? A place where they're welcomed.

        Stop belittling men who want to build the country. Skilled knowledge jobs are wonderful. But someone still builds the office that knowledge worker sits in. Someone still runs the plumbing, picks up the garbage, makes lunch, landscapes the grounds, butchers the meat, harvests the vegetables, assembles the computers, trucks in goods, and all those other "useless, worthless, meaningless things that aren't as important as real work like knowledge labor."

        The article has captured a segment of the population, men, who've been purposefully driven off. Who've retreated to any safe harbor because who wants to live a life where they're treated as bigoted, sexist, neanderthals simply for existing?

        Anyone who's surprised that working class men are flocking to Republicans, who don't treat them like that, who do tout and laud the work ethic of a common man doing common but valued work for his community and family, is who needs to sit down and think about the article. Think about the trends it's showcasing.

        Of course Republicans are every bit as committed to big business and building wealth as Democrats. A bit moreso arguably. Of course Republicans have no actual interest in helping men or any other little person in having a better life. But the difference, which this article captures, is where Democrats tell men "fuck you for not wearing a tie and being a gentle feminist", Republicans say "old fashioned values are the heart and soul of America."

        One message resonates better with men than better. Political branding, of course. Obviously. That's what branding is though. The message you parrot to attract voters. Republicans are talking talk men want to hear, so even if voting for Republicans is dangerously misguided, men still want the constant belittling to stop. Democrats are who belittles them, so most of those men drift toward the branding that doesn't proclaim they're worthless problems who deserve a life of misery and poverty.

        The way to reverse those trends is to not drive men off. It'd be nice to actually treat everyone with respect and dignity, to provide for well paying jobs that enable a solid ordinary life, but let's not get crazy. What are we gonna do, eat the rich? No, of course not. But we could at least stop tearing each other down. And here, if it's so important to keep the Republicans from power, finding a way to make rejected men feel worthwhile and valued would remove a key component of the Republican base.

        Which should be the goal. Right? To weaken the right? Finding ways to draw the right in your direction should be a serious thing being seriously worked on, rather than something just left to a shrug and a careless hand wave.

        "Oh, men? Fuck men, they're probably racist sexist assholes anyway. That's why they have dirt on their hands and aren't cultured enough to vote Democrat. Shame really, that they're so stupid and misguided, but there's nothing for it but to ridicule them and make it clear we feel they're worthless. Guess we should get to it."

        And I'd ask this. Very simple. If you'd treat a woman or a minority the way you treat a man, and object, why is it okay to treat the man like that? Are you really surprised the man doesn't think your treatment is fair?

        One of the things standing in the way of political change is how so many on the left assume anyone right of them is a racist, sexist bigot. Stop that. If someone demonstrates with actions they are, that's when you label them and treat them accordingly. After all, they just proved it. But until they do, saying they are, treating them as if they are, isn't just stupid and incorrect.

        It drives them away.

        Drives them from you, from the left. Stop it. Want them to listen? Want them to come away from the right? Treat them like valued members of society, people with dignity and worth. Not like misguided problems.

        8 votes
      2. [2]
        stu2b50
        Link Parent
        On whether or not it pushes "men" to the right, I mean, I'm not trying to convince "men" to go the left, I'm describing what I think is reality. If I were part of Harris's campaign, I certainly...

        On whether or not it pushes "men" to the right, I mean, I'm not trying to convince "men" to go the left, I'm describing what I think is reality. If I were part of Harris's campaign, I certainly wouldn't push for this kind of writing; you should lie and wrap the message in empty platitudes about how you'll do XYZ to "keep manufacturing in the US", although at this point surely everyone knows that the Harris campaign will most likely be able to pass 0 legislation in its duration even if she does win given the dire circumstances in the senate.

        On the rest, I think you're making it all or nothing in a way that makes it sound more reasonable, but isn't reflective of reality. Sure, not ALL manufacturing jobs have disappeared, or are going to in the next decade. That's not the point. The point is that the proportion of manufacturing jobs is NEVER coming back.

        There will still be positions for skilled labor in the economy, but it isn't the majority and will never be the majority again and that's good. Sure, there's a biomed push; but biomed does not need as many manufacturers as the pre-automation auto industry. Just look the employment statistics for Buffalo, NY, which by most accounts has semi-successfully transitioned to being a life sciences hub.

        Manufacturing? Still dropping like a rock. Services and knowledge work? Rising like a rocket.

        There is no developed economy today that has a significant proportion of jobs in manufacturing. Look at Japan; they still have manufacturing, they make damn good cars, but 68% of workers have a college degree, and 80% of the young are seeking one. And that's what I'm saying - if you're born today, you're not going to have any delusions that you'll make your fortune making cars anymore. Everyone knows it's joever. That's what I mean by "retire or die". There'll still be some proportion of skilled labor, but permanently shrunk.

        We will inch ever closer to that, and it is what it is.

        3 votes
        1. TreeFiddyFiddy
          (edited )
          Link Parent
          No one is saying you're trying to convince anyone of anything and this goes way beyond the scope of Harris' campaign and what her administration could or could not pass (which is pure conjecture...

          On whether or not it pushes "men" to the right, I mean, I'm not trying to convince "men" to go the left

          No one is saying you're trying to convince anyone of anything and this goes way beyond the scope of Harris' campaign and what her administration could or could not pass (which is pure conjecture on your part). This is about an overall trend of unionists who used to vote solidly democrat no longer supporting a party who no longer supports them. I'm also not sure why you're putting men in quotes, they are the relevant demographic for this conversation as they are the ones disproportionately impacted by the loss of manufacturing and disproportionately subscribing to neo-conservative ideals.

          Sure, not ALL manufacturing jobs have disappeared, or are going to in the next decade. That's not the point. The point is that the proportion of manufacturing jobs is NEVER coming back.
          There will still be positions for skilled labor in the economy, but it isn't the majority and will never be the majority again and that's good

          It was never the majority, at it's peak manufacturing ever only totaled less than 30% of us labor but that's not what you said in your original post anyway, I'd rather not move goal posts and instead stay on the subject of your original post.

          There is no developed economy today that has a significant proportion of jobs in manufacturing. Look at Japan

          Very problematic here as both the US and Germany still have significant proportions of jobs in manufacturing, if I bothered to look deeper I'm sure I would find other countries as well, and Japan is not a stellar example of economic success that I personally would ever reference in this type of conversation.

          Manufacturing? Still dropping like a rock. Services and knowledge work? Rising like a rocket

          False. Manufacturing is on a major upswing since it's nadir in 2010, continuing to rise, and still not showing even close to the full effects of the recent infrastructure and manufacturing laws passed by the current administration. Since hitting a low in 2010 and taking Covid out of the picture, manufacturing has continued to add jobs year over year and is projected to continue growing. Speaking more generally about skilled labor, non-manufacturing skilled labor is in dire need of personnel - when plumbers are making six figures it's easy to see how much more value society is placing on them compared to degreed office workers making 75k, no matter how much lip service is given to getting an education. So much of what you're saying is just not supported by the data and is pure conjecture and opinion.

          if you're born today, you're not going to have any delusions that you'll make your fortune making cars anymore

          Tell that to all the workers who are upskilling from food, services, and retail to work in next generation manufacturing. A sector which is again adding millions of jobs since the revers of its decline. Cars? Maybe not but you'd be a fool to think that manufacturing and trades are not rewarding people economically.

          There will still be positions for skilled labor in the economy, but it isn't the majority and will never be the majority again and that's good

          Ignoring that it's falsely stated that skilled labor was the majority of jobs in the economy (again, it never has been), you keep saying that it's good that skilled labor continues to decline in favor of unemployable degreed people and service economy jobs that the majority of pay minimum wage but you never explain why it's good. I just don't think it's a really defendable position.

          Edit: Edited to make clear that I am not advocating for manufacturing to ever return to it's historic 1960's high of ~26% labor but most experts agree that reestablishing the manufacturing base to around ~20% of labor would be very good for the US economically and strategically and I agree with that general number. US manufacturing is currently at about 10% and rising

          6 votes
    2. [6]
      krellor
      Link Parent
      I think the issue, and opportunity, is that the transition matters. I agree that the trend towards knowledge work is good and will continue, that doesn't mean we can't set policy that protects...

      I think the issue, and opportunity, is that the transition matters. I agree that the trend towards knowledge work is good and will continue, that doesn't mean we can't set policy that protects blue collar labor. There is also the issue that certain types of manufacturing should stay present in the US for national interests if nothing else. So how that transition happens matters. Job training programs are usually not very effective, and it sort of seems that after trying a few things, Washington sort of just have up trying to help people in displaced sectors.

      Like you say, Trump doesn't have solutions, but he is connecting with the people who are frustrated. In contrast, the Democrats historically haven't really come out and said what a lot of workers want to hear, which is they are being squeezed and left behind.

      Biden has been better than most in his pro labor language. But unfortunately that is only a subset of the blue collar workforce.

      16 votes
      1. [3]
        ShroudedScribe
        Link Parent
        I 100% agree that transition is important, but I genuinely have no idea how that would best be executed. To provide another example I think about often, should self-driving semi trucks ever...

        I 100% agree that transition is important, but I genuinely have no idea how that would best be executed.

        To provide another example I think about often, should self-driving semi trucks ever actually happen, I can't see an outcome that doesn't result in riots in the street. Some reports claim there are 3.5 million truck drivers in the US. Finding new jobs for that many people is going to be rough. Especially when most of them do not have a college/university degree.

        6 votes
        1. [2]
          krellor
          Link Parent
          Some of these problems of progress will likely force reexaminations of some of our societies closely held tenets around taxes, social safety nets, UBI, etc. There will likely be no one single...

          Some of these problems of progress will likely force reexaminations of some of our societies closely held tenets around taxes, social safety nets, UBI, etc. There will likely be no one single answer, but a bunch of changes over time.

          The autonomous vehicle issue is a particularly fraught one. But recognizing the problem at least allows people in public policy to look for solutions.

          7 votes
          1. ShroudedScribe
            Link Parent
            That's an idealistic view, and one I agree with. But the few people at the top of the economic food chain will do everything in their power to keep that from happening. And even if it seems like...

            That's an idealistic view, and one I agree with.

            But the few people at the top of the economic food chain will do everything in their power to keep that from happening. And even if it seems like the workers would have a common enemy (either the trucking company or the automated driving tech company in my example), we've seen some prime examples lately of how people can be swayed by misinformation.

            If our government would "bail out" these workers, then maybe it would work out. But historically our government has only done that for corporations that are "too big to fail." (There are some exceptions like PPP loans, but that also targeted businesses, and was abused by many of them as well.)

            2 votes
      2. [2]
        stu2b50
        Link Parent
        The reality is that there is very little that can be done to “protect” manufacturing jobs. And like you said, retraining tends to be fruitless. Even for college educated positions which only...

        The reality is that there is very little that can be done to “protect” manufacturing jobs. And like you said, retraining tends to be fruitless. Even for college educated positions which only require a bachelors, how many 40 year old blue collar workers still remember their high school education?

        The IRA and chips act added subsidies for manufacturing in core areas like silicon and clean energy. But it can’t make up the hole.

        Democrats can’t conjure what doesn’t exist. Trump can promise that everyone else will be miserable. That’s not a promise democrats can make.

        4 votes
        1. krellor
          Link Parent
          I don't buy the defeatist argument that nothing can be done to aid the transition. Everything from trade policy to requiring companies that offshore to provide some level of pension to workers who...

          I don't buy the defeatist argument that nothing can be done to aid the transition. Everything from trade policy to requiring companies that offshore to provide some level of pension to workers who lose jobs, Federal programs to support ship building, silicon, green energy, or national infrastructure like rail and highway projects, and labor policies to make sure those jobs are paid appropriately are all things that have only have been done halfway. And while not every idea will work, or is a good idea once you quantify the second or third order effects, doing nothing and messaging nothing is a terrible choice, for the country and for the Democrats. Hurry up and die is a lose-lose choice, and it's the choice by inaction of the Democrats.

          15 votes
    3. [2]
      patience_limited
      (edited )
      Link Parent
      This is overly reductionist: There's a dire need for skilled tradespeople throughout the country - electricians, plumbers, HVAC technicians, ironworkers, masons, carpenters, etc. That shortage is...

      This is overly reductionist:

      Having a significant portion of jobs be ones where the only requirement is a healthy body and a pulse is inevitably going to become a thing of the past.

      There's a dire need for skilled tradespeople throughout the country - electricians, plumbers, HVAC technicians, ironworkers, masons, carpenters, etc. That shortage is part of the reason that new construction has gotten so expensive. Technology didn't make these needs magically disappear in a blaze of automated efficiency, and AI isn't going to evaporate them, either.

      The U.S. badly shortchanged its non-university training programs. The elite oversupply of degrees and indebtedness from less-prestigious college programs is another set of problems, as is the stagnation of wages in public service jobs. [It's barely gotten any news, but Harris tossed out a proposal to remove unnecessary college degree requirements from Federal jobs in her Kalamazoo speech. It's a start.]

      There's a legitimate argument that immigration has undercut wages and working conditions for semi-skilled general labor - landscaping, roofing, meatpacking, agriculture, kitchen work, and so on. This is down to poor enforcement against hiring companies and laws with convenient holes that foster labor exploitation. Again, these are jobs that aren't going away, they just pay so poorly and have such miserable conditions that native workers don't want them except in desperation.

      Also, though the pay is not optimal, there's high demand for artisan and craft luxury goods that is providing work to non-college educated people, especially in the small cities and rural communities that have seen the greatest deterioration in job quality from factory work loss.

      16 votes
      1. stu2b50
        Link Parent
        Sure, and those aren’t the jobs talked about the in article. They pay quite well, by the metrics, and like you said those are growing sectors. It’s apples and oranges to rust belt manufacturing....

        There's a dire need for skilled tradespeople throughout the country

        Sure, and those aren’t the jobs talked about the in article. They pay quite well, by the metrics, and like you said those are growing sectors. It’s apples and oranges to rust belt manufacturing.

        Technology didn't make these needs magically disappear in a blaze of automated efficiency, and AI isn't going to evaporate them, either.

        Which is why they still exist and pay well?

        We’re not talking about the future with the rust belt (it’s not rust for nothing), it’s the present that the US does not need as much manufacturing and does need a lot of service and knowledge work. Which is manifested in their unemployment.

        7 votes
    4. [3]
      Eji1700
      Link Parent
      The value of the college degree has plummeted outside of stem. Many places now want a masters for work that arguably shouldn’t even require a degree

      The value of the college degree has plummeted outside of stem. Many places now want a masters for work that arguably shouldn’t even require a degree

      13 votes
      1. [2]
        sparksbet
        Link Parent
        Honestly I think even within STEM the value has dropped significantly, with work that would require a bachelor's now requiring a master's or PhD.

        Honestly I think even within STEM the value has dropped significantly, with work that would require a bachelor's now requiring a master's or PhD.

        11 votes
        1. Eji1700
          Link Parent
          Yeah, and obviously medicine has the publish or perish issues, but in general we've turned higher education into any other corporate product, with a lot more focus spent on metrics than results.

          Yeah, and obviously medicine has the publish or perish issues, but in general we've turned higher education into any other corporate product, with a lot more focus spent on metrics than results.

          6 votes
    5. [4]
      OBLIVIATER
      Link Parent
      The US is facing a skilled labor crisis right now, within 10-20 years the trades are going to fall apart because the 50-70 year old men who keep them afloat (yes, I know several 70 year olds who...

      The US is facing a skilled labor crisis right now, within 10-20 years the trades are going to fall apart because the 50-70 year old men who keep them afloat (yes, I know several 70 year olds who are still working the trades because the demand is so high) will all retire or probably die and the talent pool will be gone.

      Talk to anyone in the electrician, plumbing, HVAC, carpentry, fiberglass work, etc field and they will tell you that there are barely any kids wanting to join the trades these days. These are the people who assholes like trump are pandering to. And obviously trump doesn't have any real solutions but he's at least acknowledging that there is a problem and that something needs to be done. Believe it or not America doesn't actually need more college educated kids right now with history or psychology degrees, we desperately need more tradesmen (and women!)

      Edit: sorry for piling on, I wrote this comment before I saw that several other people wrote basically the same thing. I hate when people pile-on on this site so I want to apologize preemptively

      12 votes
      1. [3]
        stu2b50
        Link Parent
        Sure, but you can see how the issues facing the trades and the issues facing the men in the article are completely different. Tradesmen are paid well, and there is plenty of work (if anything, too...

        Sure, but you can see how the issues facing the trades and the issues facing the men in the article are completely different. Tradesmen are paid well, and there is plenty of work (if anything, too much demand to be met). The men in the trades are doing fine for themselves financially.

        It’s apples and oranges to manufacturing jobs which don’t exist anymore and will never exist again.

        Democrats acknowledge that, but can’t (and shouldn’t) go the culture war route. And it is what it is - at this point, everyone knows that, despite what any advertisement says, no democratic presidency will magically bring manufacturing back. The Harris presidency, if it exists, will almost certainly be one with a Republican senate and an inability to pass anything.

        Donald Trump promises to “own the libs” and he will immediately do that.

        4 votes
        1. [2]
          OBLIVIATER
          Link Parent
          Your right, I conflated the trades to "unskilled" (hate that description) labor which isn't really the point of the main article, but it does matter for what you were saying in your comment. There...

          Your right, I conflated the trades to "unskilled" (hate that description) labor which isn't really the point of the main article, but it does matter for what you were saying in your comment. There are still plenty of places out there that need people who didn't go to college, it's just we put so little value on them that they don't pay as much as they should.

          Also just to be nitpicky, not all trades are paying particularly well, at least in all areas. This is a bit dated, but 6 years ago I was a electricians apprentice and I made 9.25 an hour. I thought for sure this was just because I was learning but within a few months I was doing basically all the hard work myself all except wiring up the panel. I talked to my journeyman who was running jobsites by himself and had been there for 5+ years and those fuckers were only paying him 12 dollars an hour... It was criminal, but he just didn't have any better options. (This story is from a very rural area, so it may not be representative of the industry as a whole. But it is representative of the people in my life who I KNOW voted for Trump)

          5 votes
          1. stu2b50
            Link Parent
            I never said we should have no blue collar jobs - in fact I didn’t say anything about “should”, which implies a future, but rather an observation of the present, which was also described by the...

            I never said we should have no blue collar jobs - in fact I didn’t say anything about “should”, which implies a future, but rather an observation of the present, which was also described by the article.

            The majority of jobs in the US is knowledge and service work now. That’s a fact. It’s why life is so hard for those rust belt workers. It’s not a projection or a recommendation. What I said is that that is an expected and desired macroscopic outcome from a developed economy.

            4 votes
    6. skybrian
      Link Parent
      I guess you’re exaggerating for effect, but I hate to see the situation rounded off like that. It’s not either “college educated” or “a healthy body and a pulse.” For example, work in the trades...

      I guess you’re exaggerating for effect, but I hate to see the situation rounded off like that. It’s not either “college educated” or “a healthy body and a pulse.”

      For example, work in the trades requires some training and a fair amount of skill, as well as paying pretty well. Not everyone can do it.

      Also, when the percentage of the workforce working in a given occupation goes down, that doesn’t mean we don’t need them. Farmworkers went down to 1% of the workforce, but it’s still important work. There’s also lots of essential work in construction, etc. Who’s going to rebuild after a hurricane?

      This doesn’t mean we should try to reverse employment trends, though.

      8 votes
  4. BeanBurrito
    Link
    The title is true, but I don't think it has been the case for decades.

    The title is true, but I don't think it has been the case for decades.