Yang has pointed out a symptom, but he's ignored the disease. The disease is wealth inequality. He mentions jobs and job loss in passing, but he neglects to talk about wage stagnation (which I...
Yang has pointed out a symptom, but he's ignored the disease. The disease is wealth inequality. He mentions jobs and job loss in passing, but he neglects to talk about wage stagnation (which I find strange because he's a proponent of UBI). America is in a new Gilded Age and our society will only get worse as more wealth is hoarded at the top. The largest problem in America is the class war and it's responsible for essentially all of society's ills.
Male dysfunction tends to take on an air of nihilism and dropping out.
Why play a game you can't win? Or, more appropriately, why bust your ass when it doesn't even get you a secure middle class life like it once did?
I personally don't see a solution within the paradigm we live. Our leaders only care about themselves. The wealthy don't want to give up what they've plundered. We can't even get Universal Healthcare like every other rich western country. The only path I see for so many disenfranchised people (men and women) is violence. Expect more anger and more violence. Which, when you think about it, is really how change historically comes about.
Housing costs are way up. Education costs are way up. Healthcare costs are way up. Food costs are way up. What do you expect people to do about it? The vast majority of Americans are struggling and it's only a matter of time before it explodes. Some will drop out and give up, some will get angry and fight. But nobody should be surprised when it finally comes to a head. It's all pretty plain to see, in my opinion.
Although he does touch on wage stagnation a little bit, I was also surprised to see that he didn't talk about wage stagnation as a general problem, maybe since this article is only focused on men....
Although he does touch on wage stagnation a little bit,
Median wages for men have declined since 1990 in real terms. Roughly one-third of men are either unemployed or out of the workforce. More U.S. men ages 18 to 34 are now living with their parents than with romantic partners.
I was also surprised to see that he didn't talk about wage stagnation as a general problem, maybe since this article is only focused on men. But I do agree with your points, not only in USA but also in Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Germany and other parts of Europe face similar problems with housing and COL (wrt wages) that isn't getting better. I don't really know how this will get solved, perhaps as you've said violence will result from this bleak outlook for younger generations.
Ah. You're right. He does sort of gloss over it, though, which must be why it didn't stick in my mind after reading the piece. But yes, he still mostly avoids the idea that most of these societal...
Ah. You're right. He does sort of gloss over it, though, which must be why it didn't stick in my mind after reading the piece. But yes, he still mostly avoids the idea that most of these societal ills would disappear if people (men, in this case) just had more money. People want to work and be productive, it makes us feel good about ourselves. But if there is no monetary reward for the masses in a hyper-capitalist society that requires you to spend increasing sums of money whenever you set foot outside your door (and even when you don't), people are going to collapse mentally, physically, and emotionally. And if people collapse, so does society.
Edit: After multiple re-reads, I've changed my mind. I disagree with the broad strokes of the article as mentioned below, and merely agree with a few of the bullet points embedded to address the...
Edit: After multiple re-reads, I've changed my mind. I disagree with the broad strokes of the article as mentioned below, and merely agree with a few of the bullet points embedded to address the broad strokes. My bad. The article dresses up "men need to work" as "men need help," rather than trying to discuss and address the factors that result in men only being able to find fulfillment via the workforce.
Original post:
Whilst I agree in broad strokes, this bit in particular is misguided:
Many boys are thus often growing up raised by single mothers, the share more than doubling between 1980 and 2019, from 18 percent to 40 percent.
Before that divorce was both taboo and economically difficult. Forcing people to remain together is far worse than letting them split.
I am a son of a single mother. There were other adult males in my family and my mother eventually got into a stable relationship, but I never really got a father figure. I'm sure I would be worse...
I am a son of a single mother. There were other adult males in my family and my mother eventually got into a stable relationship, but I never really got a father figure. I'm sure I would be worse off if I had to live in a broken marriage, but not having a male model (or rather having an overworked mother doubling as your male model) has affected the way I interact with people or express myself as a man and as a father.
I'm not going to say it was for the best or the worst, but I can very easily see other people developing issues because of it.
There is always a value judgement. Choosing what points to bring up to argue against or defend a given topic imparts a value decision. In this particular case, the implication is that economic...
without a particular value judgement on the cause.
There is always a value judgement. Choosing what points to bring up to argue against or defend a given topic imparts a value decision. In this particular case, the implication is that economic instability is part of what's causing single motherhood.
There's a pretty clear trend in divorce numbers. Prior to the womens-lib movement in the 60's, divorce rate was ~2.2 (per 1000). That grew exponentially to ~5.3 in the 1970s, and tapered off to remain steady around 3-4 since then. Keep in mind these are annual numbers, and so for 2021 (missing 5 state's data) that rate equals about 750k divorces. This alone can account for a massive portion of the increase of single mothers, not even factoring those who have the option to choose not to marry now instead of needing the shotgun wedding.
The reason this became possible at all was the ability of women to sustain themselves without a spouse. But in doing so, the pool of available workers nearly doubled, whilst worker protections and social programs were stripped to the bone. @simplify is more or less spot on regarding wealth inequality being one of the root causes.
But to circle back to the judgement calls of this... Yang talks a lot about employment, and boosting men's ability to be employed. And subsidizing marriage counseling. But doesn't discuss how single-parent families are almost twice as likely to be impoverished, and how 80% of those single-parent families are single moms.
If I were to die; my wife shouldn't be forced into the workforce, and children forced into daycare, to feed and house them. Social programs should be able to cover this, because domestic work should be valued as economic work is. The reason we're in this situation is because we haven't enabled either.
The answer isn't employment and marriage counseling. The answer is strong wages, social programs, and valuation of domestic work. Because you shouldn't need more than a single income earner in a household. And you shouldn't be forced into the workforce as a single parent (or even considering parenting as part of the workforce). And that the person working in the home shouldn't need to be a woman.
I read this and it really resonated with me. In America, if work does not make a wealthy person wealthier, it has no economic value in the eyes of our society. But domestic work is fundamentally...
...domestic work should be valued as economic work is.
I read this and it really resonated with me. In America, if work does not make a wealthy person wealthier, it has no economic value in the eyes of our society. But domestic work is fundamentally important to a functioning society. It's absolute madness how much we've devalued it. And we shouldn't be surprised by declining birthrates because we've absolutely made having a child a massive liability.
The people at the helm of this ship have not thought this through. They have focused on short-term greed and the instability it has caused is having and will continue to have irreversible effects on American society as well as the world at large. The mental illness and struggle talked about in Yang's article is an appropriate human response to what's happening all around us. It's no measure of health to be well-adjusted to a fundamentally sick society.
I'll attempt to breakdown the value provided by my wife per week, who stays at home, and is this an unpaid domestic worker. I'm using retail costs, because that's replacement value. Everything we...
If work does not make a wealthy person wealthier, it has no economic value in the eyes of our society.
I'll attempt to breakdown the value provided by my wife per week, who stays at home, and is this an unpaid domestic worker. I'm using retail costs, because that's replacement value. Everything we would need to pay for below would result in the person doing the work being paid less to generate profits:
Full-time childcare for 2: $650
Weekly cleaning service: $300
Household personal assistant: $200
Handyman for small home maintainance: $50
Lawn/Garden maintainance: $50
Cooking: $400
Total: $1,600 a week, or $82,000 annually.
And this is purely the value provided in the scope of a 40 hour week, not the time she or I spend living at home outside that. My wife doesn't have a college education, so if my income disappeared, that's the amount, bare minimum, that she would need to be paid (in wages and benefits) in order to not-quite maintain the same quality of life.
Everyone. ;) Seriously though, how has all the talk about the merits of globablization not also included standardizing currency and quality of life for equivalency? Because that would drastically...
Americans
Everyone. ;)
Seriously though, how has all the talk about the merits of globablization not also included standardizing currency and quality of life for equivalency? Because that would drastically affect the prices of goods, by eliminating the veil of exploitation.
Makes a lot less sense to move a factory to Thailand when cost of labor remains constant.
I propose a new universal gold-like standard: $10 is garenteed to be exchanged for at least 1000 calories of unprocessed food, 100 kwh of electricity, or 1 day of rent in a 250 sq ft studio apartment.
Looking at that, after the fact, that's roughly in line with how my cost of neccesities line up, and subsequently my household income. So I might be on to something.
It's possible that both are bad and have different kinds of bad effects. The cultural and societal pressure of remaining married may result in unhappy (bad) but economically stabler (good)...
Before that divorce was both taboo and economically difficult. Forcing people to remain together is far worse than letting them split.
It's possible that both are bad and have different kinds of bad effects.
The cultural and societal pressure of remaining married may result in unhappy (bad) but economically stabler (good) households where there are at least two adults providing labor. Easier divorces means that fewer people are stuck in unhappy or abusive marriages (good), but now their children grow up in less economically stable households, which is bad because it tends to lead to worse educational and behavioral outcomes.
In a similar vein, the phenomenon of women entering the workforce have increased personal autonomy (which is good!) has led to the Two Income Trap as observed by Elizabeth Warren. The Two Income Trap is where the additional income generated by dual-income households is consumed by non-zero competition for scarce resources like real estate, educational opportunities, etc — which is bad because it drives up prices.
I touch on this in another chain, but yes, I think economic stability is 100% a good thing. The problem being is that we expect that economic stability to come from dual income earners, and that...
I touch on this in another chain, but yes, I think economic stability is 100% a good thing. The problem being is that we expect that economic stability to come from dual income earners, and that domestic work isn't properly valued as economic work.
We (as a society) need to solve economic stability by providing strong social programs, strong worker protections, and valuation of domestic work. So that we don't need two incomes for stability.
I agree the main idea of the Two-Income trap is a valid one, though some of the main proposals stemming from it (school choice, tuition freezes) are flawed at best.
It's a single mother, as opposed to both divorced parents with a shared custody agreement. Not that divorced parents with shared custody are in a vastly better economic position, but they both get...
It's a single mother, as opposed to both divorced parents with a shared custody agreement. Not that divorced parents with shared custody are in a vastly better economic position, but they both get a one-week cost break.
Yang has pointed out a symptom, but he's ignored the disease. The disease is wealth inequality. He mentions jobs and job loss in passing, but he neglects to talk about wage stagnation (which I find strange because he's a proponent of UBI). America is in a new Gilded Age and our society will only get worse as more wealth is hoarded at the top. The largest problem in America is the class war and it's responsible for essentially all of society's ills.
Why play a game you can't win? Or, more appropriately, why bust your ass when it doesn't even get you a secure middle class life like it once did?
I personally don't see a solution within the paradigm we live. Our leaders only care about themselves. The wealthy don't want to give up what they've plundered. We can't even get Universal Healthcare like every other rich western country. The only path I see for so many disenfranchised people (men and women) is violence. Expect more anger and more violence. Which, when you think about it, is really how change historically comes about.
Housing costs are way up. Education costs are way up. Healthcare costs are way up. Food costs are way up. What do you expect people to do about it? The vast majority of Americans are struggling and it's only a matter of time before it explodes. Some will drop out and give up, some will get angry and fight. But nobody should be surprised when it finally comes to a head. It's all pretty plain to see, in my opinion.
Although he does touch on wage stagnation a little bit,
I was also surprised to see that he didn't talk about wage stagnation as a general problem, maybe since this article is only focused on men. But I do agree with your points, not only in USA but also in Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Germany and other parts of Europe face similar problems with housing and COL (wrt wages) that isn't getting better. I don't really know how this will get solved, perhaps as you've said violence will result from this bleak outlook for younger generations.
Ah. You're right. He does sort of gloss over it, though, which must be why it didn't stick in my mind after reading the piece. But yes, he still mostly avoids the idea that most of these societal ills would disappear if people (men, in this case) just had more money. People want to work and be productive, it makes us feel good about ourselves. But if there is no monetary reward for the masses in a hyper-capitalist society that requires you to spend increasing sums of money whenever you set foot outside your door (and even when you don't), people are going to collapse mentally, physically, and emotionally. And if people collapse, so does society.
Edit: After multiple re-reads, I've changed my mind. I disagree with the broad strokes of the article as mentioned below, and merely agree with a few of the bullet points embedded to address the broad strokes. My bad. The article dresses up "men need to work" as "men need help," rather than trying to discuss and address the factors that result in men only being able to find fulfillment via the workforce.
Original post:
Whilst I agree in broad strokes, this bit in particular is misguided:
Before that divorce was both taboo and economically difficult. Forcing people to remain together is far worse than letting them split.
I am a son of a single mother. There were other adult males in my family and my mother eventually got into a stable relationship, but I never really got a father figure. I'm sure I would be worse off if I had to live in a broken marriage, but not having a male model (or rather having an overworked mother doubling as your male model) has affected the way I interact with people or express myself as a man and as a father.
I'm not going to say it was for the best or the worst, but I can very easily see other people developing issues because of it.
There is always a value judgement. Choosing what points to bring up to argue against or defend a given topic imparts a value decision. In this particular case, the implication is that economic instability is part of what's causing single motherhood.
There's a pretty clear trend in divorce numbers. Prior to the womens-lib movement in the 60's, divorce rate was ~2.2 (per 1000). That grew exponentially to ~5.3 in the 1970s, and tapered off to remain steady around 3-4 since then. Keep in mind these are annual numbers, and so for 2021 (missing 5 state's data) that rate equals about 750k divorces. This alone can account for a massive portion of the increase of single mothers, not even factoring those who have the option to choose not to marry now instead of needing the shotgun wedding.
The reason this became possible at all was the ability of women to sustain themselves without a spouse. But in doing so, the pool of available workers nearly doubled, whilst worker protections and social programs were stripped to the bone. @simplify is more or less spot on regarding wealth inequality being one of the root causes.
But to circle back to the judgement calls of this... Yang talks a lot about employment, and boosting men's ability to be employed. And subsidizing marriage counseling. But doesn't discuss how single-parent families are almost twice as likely to be impoverished, and how 80% of those single-parent families are single moms.
If I were to die; my wife shouldn't be forced into the workforce, and children forced into daycare, to feed and house them. Social programs should be able to cover this, because domestic work should be valued as economic work is. The reason we're in this situation is because we haven't enabled either.
The answer isn't employment and marriage counseling. The answer is strong wages, social programs, and valuation of domestic work. Because you shouldn't need more than a single income earner in a household. And you shouldn't be forced into the workforce as a single parent (or even considering parenting as part of the workforce). And that the person working in the home shouldn't need to be a woman.
I read this and it really resonated with me. In America, if work does not make a wealthy person wealthier, it has no economic value in the eyes of our society. But domestic work is fundamentally important to a functioning society. It's absolute madness how much we've devalued it. And we shouldn't be surprised by declining birthrates because we've absolutely made having a child a massive liability.
The people at the helm of this ship have not thought this through. They have focused on short-term greed and the instability it has caused is having and will continue to have irreversible effects on American society as well as the world at large. The mental illness and struggle talked about in Yang's article is an appropriate human response to what's happening all around us. It's no measure of health to be well-adjusted to a fundamentally sick society.
I'll attempt to breakdown the value provided by my wife per week, who stays at home, and is this an unpaid domestic worker. I'm using retail costs, because that's replacement value. Everything we would need to pay for below would result in the person doing the work being paid less to generate profits:
Full-time childcare for 2: $650
Weekly cleaning service: $300
Household personal assistant: $200
Handyman for small home maintainance: $50
Lawn/Garden maintainance: $50
Cooking: $400
Total: $1,600 a week, or $82,000 annually.
And this is purely the value provided in the scope of a 40 hour week, not the time she or I spend living at home outside that. My wife doesn't have a college education, so if my income disappeared, that's the amount, bare minimum, that she would need to be paid (in wages and benefits) in order to not-quite maintain the same quality of life.
Americans deserve a minimum standard of living.
Everyone. ;)
Seriously though, how has all the talk about the merits of globablization not also included standardizing currency and quality of life for equivalency? Because that would drastically affect the prices of goods, by eliminating the veil of exploitation.
Makes a lot less sense to move a factory to Thailand when cost of labor remains constant.
I propose a new universal gold-like standard: $10 is garenteed to be exchanged for at least 1000 calories of unprocessed food, 100 kwh of electricity, or 1 day of rent in a 250 sq ft studio apartment.
Looking at that, after the fact, that's roughly in line with how my cost of neccesities line up, and subsequently my household income. So I might be on to something.
It's possible that both are bad and have different kinds of bad effects.
The cultural and societal pressure of remaining married may result in unhappy (bad) but economically stabler (good) households where there are at least two adults providing labor. Easier divorces means that fewer people are stuck in unhappy or abusive marriages (good), but now their children grow up in less economically stable households, which is bad because it tends to lead to worse educational and behavioral outcomes.
In a similar vein, the phenomenon of women entering the workforce have increased personal autonomy (which is good!) has led to the Two Income Trap as observed by Elizabeth Warren. The Two Income Trap is where the additional income generated by dual-income households is consumed by non-zero competition for scarce resources like real estate, educational opportunities, etc — which is bad because it drives up prices.
I touch on this in another chain, but yes, I think economic stability is 100% a good thing. The problem being is that we expect that economic stability to come from dual income earners, and that domestic work isn't properly valued as economic work.
We (as a society) need to solve economic stability by providing strong social programs, strong worker protections, and valuation of domestic work. So that we don't need two incomes for stability.
I agree the main idea of the Two-Income trap is a valid one, though some of the main proposals stemming from it (school choice, tuition freezes) are flawed at best.
It's a single mother, as opposed to both divorced parents with a shared custody agreement. Not that divorced parents with shared custody are in a vastly better economic position, but they both get a one-week cost break.
Workers are in high demand recently and hopefully that will help. It's going to to take more time to turn it around, though.