Young White Men Without College Are Dropping Out Of Work Force

[Elixir]

With his usual sleazy rhetorical misrepresentation, Mphor contends “Lowering the income of Americans to more closely match the world average would reduce worldwide income inequality”, neglecting that what B20 actually said was “anything that makes the average American poorer reduces income inequality.” -
which I already demonstrated to be FALSE.

I‘m pretty sure that nobody on these forums is too math challenged to understand that closing income gaps reduces inequality - DUH!

 

[Bronzeage]

Kids today!

I read the article and no where did it mention how these young white men are maintaining the social status that was being degraded by their blue collar job. I've been a blue collar worker most of my life and my job paid better at some times than it did at others, but at all times it was my only source of food, shelter and other comforts of life.

There were many times I would have been happy to stay home, if not for that problem of getting hungry and cold.

Although it's not stated in the article, it would seem this concerns only a small subset of young men, those who have an alternative income which allows "...prime-age men who are not in the labor force spend twice as much time on leisure activities and sleeping, compared with labor force participants."

Unless someone can explain how a blue collar worker can improve their social status and not have an income, I'm going to write this off as sub-Onion level satire that someone mistook for real academic research.

 

[ZiprHead]

Yup, sounds like a few mommy coddled young guys. I don't see how that makes them better prospects for relationships.

 

[Politesse]

I guess a good way for a government to be business friendly while appearing to protect people at the same time is to put regulatory agencies in place and then understaff and underfund them.

Yup. Labor boards are similar. Last time my union submitted a grievance to the California DSLE, it took them four years to investigate, and we had already resolved the conflict by other means before they made a recommendation. The state's "support" was actually a stalling tactic in practice, as the cost of legitimacy was that we weren't allowed to strike until the state had reviewed our complaint. Despite being union workers, we ended up working without a work contract or any pay raises for seven years, and a lot of people keft their positions before the issue was brought to the fragile ceasefire we are now enjoying.

 

[Politesse]

Yup, sounds like a few mommy coddled young guys. I don't see how that makes them better prospects for relationships.

That's partly the propogandistic flavor of the reporting, and to some extent the study itself, trying to make it sound unreasonable for people to refuse work without fair compensation, and introducing the red herring of the marriagibility factor to stoke people's existing prejudices concerning unattached young men.

 

[Metaphor]

With his usual sleazy rhetorical misrepresentation, Mphor contends “Lowering the income of Americans to more closely match the world average would reduce worldwide income inequality”, neglecting that what B20 actually said was “anything that makes the average American poorer reduces income inequality.” -
which I already demonstrated to be FALSE.

What b20 actually said was:

The average American is a lot richer than the average human; consequently, anything that makes the average American poorer reduces income inequality.

Making the American average income lower, or making the 'average American' poorer (which I would interpret as moving those around the median American income down lower--toward the world average) would reduce worldwide income inequality. The worldwide income (or wealth) Gini coefficient would move lower (more equality).

 

[Bomb#20]

With his usual sleazy rhetorical misrepresentation, Mphor contends ... neglecting that what B20 actually said was ... already demonstrated to be FALSE.

I already clarified what I meant, so why are you still pushing that point-missing* pedantry?

B: Eating more vegetables is good for you.
E: A redwood tree is a vegetable and if you eat one you'll DIE.
B: More solar power will alleviate global warming.
E: Power is energy over time; in a billion years the increase in the sun's delivery of energy to the earth per second will make the earth boiling HOT.

(* The point is:

Remind me: What does your Ilk think about whether income inequality is good or bad?

The average American is a lot richer than the average human; consequently, anything that makes the average American poorer reduces income inequality. Does that mean you're in favor of it? Or is "relative prosperity" a thing that matters only intermittently?

Do you think the average medieval Kings felt better about their place in society than the average minimum-wage worker in America today? ... Who probably clicks a higher number on a Life Satisfaction survey? An American taking home $1400/month, or a Cambodian taking home $800?

The kings. ... The Cambodian. ...

Let's see if you can answer those questions. Then we'll consider yours.

I answered those questions, so Swammi agreed his ilk would now consider mine.

<crickets>

Still )

I‘m pretty sure that nobody on these forums is too math challenged to understand that closing income gaps reduces inequality - DUH!

Excellent. Don't know if you regard yourself as part of Swammi's "ilk". If you do, what do you think about whether income inequality is good or bad?

The average American is a lot richer than the average human; consequently, closing the income gap by lowering the income of Americans to more closely match the world average would reduce worldwide income inequality - DUH! Does that mean you're in favor of it? Or is "relative prosperity" a thing that matters only intermittently?

 

[Elixir]

If you do, what do you think about whether income inequality is good or bad?

You know exactly what a rational person would think about that question as you phrased it: false dichotomy.
It is extremely likely that the greater good engenders some inequality, because the extremes, utter "equality" (unattainable) and total ownership by a single individual or entity, sound equally terrifying.

Why did you ask, and why did you ask in that oversimplified way while knowing better?

 

[Bomb#20]

If you do, what do you think about whether income inequality is good or bad?

You know exactly what a rational person would think about that question as you phrased it: false dichotomy.
It is extremely likely that the greater good engenders some inequality, because the extremes, utter "equality" (unattainable) and total ownership by a single individual or entity, sound equally terrifying.

Why did you ask, and why did you ask in that oversimplified way while knowing better?

Why do you think I asked? I asked because

The correlation between Reagan's ascension and the decline of relative prosperity for the average American is shown rather starkly in the graph. Cause-effect relationships can be debated.

As for attempting to lead you to points or explanation, that may be futile. I forget: Does your Ilk think income inequality is good or bad?

so he brought it on himself -- I was turning Swammi's oversimplified false dichotomy back on him. He was putting Metaphor down; and he was doing it based on taking for granted that the rather popular mentality among Americans, to the effect that Americans' hurt feelings about their social status from comparing themselves to other Americans is a more important moral consideration than whether Burundians get enough to eat, is a sensible mentality.

 

[Elixir]

I agree with Swammi regarding the effect of the Reaganomic redesign of the American income curve. That it is inequitable on a global scale became evident to me by kindergarten - cowboys and Indians was fun, but there was a sinister smell about it. That the inequity enjoyed by Americans vs the rest of the world was under pressure, was in my face as a young teen visiting people living in third world conditions. I did not anticipate the extremes Americans would go to in order to perpetuate it, and I generally don’t ascribe that to American malice, but to outsized greed by a few individuals. Right now we are past the point of “hey, remember the great American titans of industry in the early 20 th century“ in terms of extremes of inequity worldwide.

 

[RVonse]

I don’t really care much, either way.

You may not care about unions and/or whether the middle class that can make a fair wage. But if you don't care about them, then you dont care about yourself either. Because eventually if no one has anything except the top .001% you will very likely be living in poverty and squalor just like everyone else. There will be nothing left but unemployed tent cities and mansions for the rich who own all their production overseas.

So if you have a better solution to raise and keep good wages for a strong middle class (other than unions).....Im listening.

 

[Toni]

I don’t really care much, either way.

You may not care about unions and/or whether the middle class that can make a fair wage. But if you don't care about them, then you dont care about yourself either. Because eventually if no one has anything except the top .001% you will very likely be living in poverty and squalor just like everyone else. There will be nothing left but unemployed tent cities and mansions for the rich who own all their production overseas.

So if you have a better solution to raise and keep good wages for a strong middle class (other than unions).....Im listening.

WT actual Fuck makes you think I do not care very very very much about unions being able to continue to represent the needs and rights of workers? I don’t even know where you clipped that from.

You obviously did not read any of my actual posts. Par for the course.

 

[Tigers!]

Why bother, when the government will pay for your kids?

I believe welfare systems in most all states requires mothers trying to get welfare must name the father and the government will go after the father to reduce the welfare amount the government pays.

You'd be wrong.
Tom

Do you have some verification of that?

These Single Moms Are Forced to Choose: Reveal Their Sexual Histories or Forfeit Welfare

Almost every parent who applies for federal welfare assistance, who in a large majority of cases is a single mother, must divulge everything she knows about the biological father of her children.

imprintnews.org

Identifying Fathers Called Crucial to Welfare Reform

Opening a major new front in efforts to discourage out-of-wedlock births and increase collection of child support, the Administration's welfare reform task force will urge that states be required to identify the fathers of virtually all children born outside of marriage.

www.latimes.com

These Single Moms Are Forced to Choose: Reveal Their Sexual Histories or Forfeit Welfare

Women who apply for welfare often have to identify who fathered their children and when they got pregnant, among other deeply personal details. State governments use that information to pursue child support from the dads — and then pocket the money.

www.propublica.org

Which becomes very unfair when she legitimately doesn't know.

DNA test perhaps?

 

[Swammerdami]

Should poor Americans be made even poorer if that would help foreigners who are even poorer still? That is the moral dilemma that Bomb#20 insists on.

I have contemplated this dilemma off and on myself for decades; I have no easy answers. And if we do expand our "circle of love" to include all humans, why not include other animals as well? Many vegans feel that way, and I tend to agree. I don't envy the job of Dictator of the World, or even Dictator of the USA. There are some very tough choices.

But one thing I think we can agree on: Advocating the further impoverishment of Americans is unlikely to get votes in America. Taking a stance against American prosperity will leave us unelected in America, and unable to do good for the world.

The average wage in Thailand is one-tenth the USA wage. (It's one-third the USA wage if you believe in PPP, but that's still a big gap.) Yet I think Thailand may be outperforming USA in some ways, e.g. mental health. Life in the USA can be quite stressful; workplace concerns like sick leave are one reason. Surely the claim in OP — that young men are dropping out of the workforce due to apathy or pessimism — should sadden or scare us. It demands explanation.

Should we really whistle at such scary facts with a glib "More jobs for starving Burundians"?

Why do you think I asked? I asked because

The correlation between Reagan's ascension and the decline of relative prosperity for the average American is shown rather starkly in the graph. Cause-effect relationships can be debated.

As for attempting to lead you to points or explanation, that may be futile. I forget: Does your Ilk think income inequality is good or bad?

so he brought it on himself -- I was turning Swammi's oversimplified false dichotomy back on him. He was putting Metaphor down; and he was doing it based on taking for granted that the rather popular mentality among Americans, to the effect that Americans' hurt feelings about their social status from comparing themselves to other Americans is a more important moral consideration than whether Burundians get enough to eat, is a sensible mentality.

You have made a caricature of the issue. There are nuanced discussions of the harms of extreme income inequality which you dismiss with "hurt feelings about their social status."

I've acknowledged that the dilemma you pose is a real one with no easy answers. But where do we go from here? Form a MAMI political party? Make America Mediocre Instead.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It also corresponds to when skilled manual labor jobs started disappearing in droves, replaced by low-skill operators of machines that did the job. (Far more jobs were lost to machinery than outsourcing.)

Please provide some examples of what you are talking about. Please be specific. I worked in manufacturing all my life except for a few years with Uncle Sam. I can say I never experienced anything like what you are talking about, at least insofar as I understand your statement.

I've been on the other side of it--removing the need for skilled operators. At my former employer over nearly 30 years I watched the factory go from workers operating tools to mostly workers feeding tools--capacity increased about 20x for IIRC about a 4x increase in the workforce. They went under in the housing collapse and now I'm doing similar work but I'm not as tied in with the production side to see what the effect on labor has been. I do know there's even more in the way of the tool having the skill.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Working only within your job is not specific to union jobs. It can be a serious issue of licensure and legality. In my last job, by law and a host of regulations, I was only allowed to perform testing and other tasks for which I was specifically trained to do. If I performed tests I was not trained and. Certified to do, the tests would be invalid ( huge waste of money and resources and valuable patient samples) and the lab could have have lost its licenses, faced a number of serious penalties, and more. This is not a case of unions but of important regulations.

That's a separate case--if you're not capable of the job you certainly don't do it.

Not that I need to justify myself to the likes of you but I frequently worked above and beyond, working longer hours or worse shifts, performing extra tests and other tasks as necessary to ensure quick and accurate results for patients. But only within parameters of what I was trained to do.

In some union jobs, overstepping your job can mean that something is not done correctly—or that a different work unit loses positions.

"Work unit loses positions"--in other words, the union is forcing the company to be overstaffed because they aren't willing to be flexible. This is a big part of the hatred for unions.

And you get things like what I read about happening in New York. They figured out a skyscraper had a serious engineering problem. Fortunately, it involved an unlikely weather situation, it was safe to continue using the building while they figured out how to reinforce it, they installed strain gauges to sound the alarm if the winds decided to blow in exactly the wrong way. To keep from causing a panic they had brought in some electricians from elsewhere to wire it. One day the system quit working--the union figured out they hadn't done it so they destroyed it with no idea of what it was for.

 

[laughing dog]

Working only within your job is not specific to union jobs. It can be a serious issue of licensure and legality. In my last job, by law and a host of regulations, I was only allowed to perform testing and other tasks for which I was specifically trained to do. If I performed tests I was not trained and. Certified to do, the tests would be invalid ( huge waste of money and resources and valuable patient samples) and the lab could have have lost its licenses, faced a number of serious penalties, and more. This is not a case of unions but of important regulations.

That's a separate case--if you're not capable of the job you certainly don't do it.

Obviously your work experience is limited because there are plenty of people not capable of doing their job properly.

Not that I need to justify myself to the likes of you but I frequently worked above and beyond, working longer hours or worse shifts, performing extra tests and other tasks as necessary to ensure quick and accurate results for patients. But only within parameters of what I was trained to do.

In some union jobs, overstepping your job can mean that something is not done correctly—or that a different work unit loses positions.

"Work unit loses positions"--in other words, the union is forcing the company to be overstaffed because they aren't willing to be flexible. This is a big part of the hatred for unions.

And you get things like what I read about happening in New York. They figured out a skyscraper had a serious engineering problem. Fortunately, it involved an unlikely weather situation, it was safe to continue using the building while they figured out how to reinforce it, they installed strain gauges to sound the alarm if the winds decided to blow in exactly the wrong way. To keep from causing a panic they had brought in some electricians from elsewhere to wire it. One day the system quit working--the union figured out they hadn't done it so they destroyed it with no idea of what it was for.

No one claimed all unions were perfect, so your anecdote proves nothing.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

It also corresponds to when skilled manual labor jobs started disappearing in droves, replaced by low-skill operators of machines that did the job. (Far more jobs were lost to machinery than outsourcing.)

Please provide some examples of what you are talking about. Please be specific. I worked in manufacturing all my life except for a few years with Uncle Sam. I can say I never experienced anything like what you are talking about, at least insofar as I understand your statement.

I've been on the other side of it--removing the need for skilled operators. At my former employer over nearly 30 years I watched the factory go from workers operating tools to mostly workers feeding tools--capacity increased about 20x for IIRC about a 4x increase in the workforce. They went under in the housing collapse and now I'm doing similar work but I'm not as tied in with the production side to see what the effect on labor has been. I do know there's even more in the way of the tool having the skill.

Where I worked the need for skilled workers was and remains very much in demand. What did happen was operators could handle multiple machines at one time. And those machines were more complex, like a six axis lathe. Such a machine eliminated a lot of steps through the shop but it still took a highly skilled person to operate it. Many of the machines were like that but there was still a need for manual machines. Those complex machines still needed precision blanks to start with, they didn't produce those precision blanks. And many parts still needed precision finishing work done by hand.

 

[bilby]

And you get things like what I read about happening in New York. They figured out a skyscraper had a serious engineering problem. Fortunately, it involved an unlikely weather situation, it was safe to continue using the building while they figured out how to reinforce it, they installed strain gauges to sound the alarm if the winds decided to blow in exactly the wrong way. To keep from causing a panic they had brought in some electricians from elsewhere to wire it. One day the system quit working--the union figured out they hadn't done it so they destroyed it with no idea of what it was for.

That's got nothing to do with unions, and everything to do with corporations being secretive to avoid blame for problems they created.

If their regular electrician had not been in a union, I would still have expected him to strip out any unauthorised work, in order to avoid being held liable for its possible failure; If the owners don't tell him that they authorised it, it's on them.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I guess a good way for a government to be business friendly while appearing to protect people at the same time is to put regulatory agencies in place and then understaff and underfund them.

Yup, the Republicans have been very good at that. And it's a very bad idea. Regulatory agencies need teeth.