The Vanishing Male Worker

[fintstone]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/12/upshot/unemployment-the-vanishing-male-worker-how-america-fell-behind.html?abt=0002&abg=0

I see this as one of our nation's biggest problems. Lots of folks who do not work. Many by choice (pay or work is not up to their standards). I don't see this as a PARF topic, because it is an apolitical problem...but do believe actions that gov't (both parties) have taken has caused much of this. From the article "The Vanishing Male Worker":

"...Working, in America, is in decline. The share of prime-age men — those 25 to 54 years old — who are not working has more than tripled since the late 1960s, to 16 percent. More recently, since the turn of the century, the share of women without paying jobs has been rising, too. The United States, which had one of the highest employment rates among developed nations as recently as 2000, has fallen toward the bottom of the list..."

"...Many men, in particular, have decided that low-wage work will not improve their lives, in part because deep changes in American society have made it easier for them to live without working. These changes include the availability of federal disability benefits; the decline of marriage, which means fewer men provide for children; and the rise of the Internet, which has reduced the isolation of unemployment..." (read the rest at the link)

[KNS]

Originally Posted by fintstone

I see this as one of our nation's biggest problems. Lots of folks who do not work. Many by choice (pay or work is not up to their standards). I don't see this as a PARF topic, because it is an apolitical problem...but do believe actions that gov't (both parties) have taken has caused much of this. From the article "The Vanishing Male Worker":

"...Working, in America, is in decline. The share of prime-age men — those 25 to 54 years old — who are not working has more than tripled since the late 1960s, to 16 percent. More recently, since the turn of the century, the share of women without paying jobs has been rising, too. The United States, which had one of the highest employment rates among developed nations as recently as 2000, has fallen toward the bottom of the list..."

"...Many men, in particular, have decided that low-wage work will not improve their lives, in part because deep changes in American society have made it easier for them to live without working. These changes include the availability of federal disability benefits; the decline of marriage, which means fewer men provide for children; and the rise of the Internet, which has reduced the isolation of unemployment..." (read the rest at the link)

This won't last too much longer, Soc Sec disability benefits are set to run out of money in less than two years.

Two Years Until the Social Security Disability Trust Fund Is Empty | MyGovCost | Government Cost Calculator

[cashflyer]

Originally Posted by KNS

This won't last too much longer, Soc Sec disability benefits are set to run out of money in less than two years.

This concept confuses me. People here on Pelican have made the argument that the SS trust is not something I pay into that I later collect out, but rather that I am paying for the current recipients and when I get old the workers then will be paying me.

So - how does it run out? Running out implies a volume of something that is depleted. Given the Pelican information, there is no bucket of money to run out of. The only way it runs out is if people quit paying.

Do I get to stop paying in two years?

[BE911SC]

More like the demands of American business, now globalized more and more every day, with compliant enabling by government.

Men, specifically American men, cost too much. Before globalization opened up large low-cost labor pools around the world and technology had shortened distances and reduced the number of people needed to perform work, American men had it pretty good. Especially after WWII when we had bombed our industrial competition into the stone age. Today's American worker has been, or is quickly being priced-out of the job market. There are many sound business reasons why Apple builds their products in China, not the least of which is a vast pool of very compliant low-cost labor.

Any task that can be performed cheaper by someone else or even performed by a robot (robot technology is exploding as we speak) is at risk. Capitalists seek the lowest cost in every aspect of their business. (Except in the corporate boardroom. Cost is not discussed where they themselves are concerned.)

We had a good run here in America, especially in that golden window between 1945 and about 1970. The rest of the world caught up (and rebuilt) and offered us their cheap labor and "emerging markets."

The Asian Century is here, specifically the Chinese Century. They recently passed us as the #1 economic power and will rule the economic system for decades to come.

[wdfifteen]

Originally Posted by cashflyer

This concept confuses me. People here on Pelican have made the argument that the SS trust is not something I pay into that I later collect out, but rather that I am paying for the current recipients and when I get old the workers then will be paying me.

So - how does it run out? Running out implies a volume of something that is depleted. Given the Pelican information, there is no bucket of money to run out of. The only way it runs out is if people quit paying.

The amount of money SS takes in is independent of what it sends out. So some years the inflow is greater than the outflow, and that was the case when we had a lot of workers making good wages. In 2010 the dollars going out began exceeding the amount coming in and that isn't expected to ever change. So when the surplus that has been built up is gone, something's gonna have to give.

[Nickshu]

Originally Posted by BE911SC

More like the demands of American business, now globalized more and more every day, with compliant enabling by government.

Men, specifically American men, cost too much. Before globalization opened up large low-cost labor pools around the world and technology had shortened distances and reduced the number of people needed to perform work, American men had it pretty good. Especially after WWII when we had bombed our industrial competition into the stone age. Today's American worker has been, or is quickly being priced-out of the job market. There are many sound business reasons why Apple builds their products in China, not the least of which is a vast pool of very compliant low-cost labor.

Any task that can be performed cheaper by someone else or even performed by a robot (robot technology is exploding as we speak) is at risk. Capitalists seek the lowest cost in every aspect of their business. (Except in the corporate boardroom. Cost is not discussed where they themselves are concerned.)

We had a good run here in America, especially in that golden window between 1945 and about 1970. The rest of the world caught up (and rebuilt) and offered us their cheap labor and "emerging markets."

The Asian Century is here, specifically the Chinese Century. They recently passed us as the #1 economic power and will rule the economic system for decades to come.

This reply is right on. Until the federal government de-incentivizes outsourcing outside the USA and heavily taxes imports we will not see a recovery for the "average" American worker or the middle class. Unfortunately this is very unlikely to occur.

-Sent from my Galaxy s5 using Tapatalk

[fintstone]

Originally Posted by BE911SC

More like the demands of American business, now globalized more and more every day, with compliant enabling by government.

Men, specifically American men, cost too much. Before globalization opened up large low-cost labor pools around the world and technology had shortened distances and reduced the number of people needed to perform work, American men had it pretty good. Especially after WWII when we had bombed our industrial competition into the stone age. Today's American worker has been, or is quickly being priced-out of the job market. There are many sound business reasons why Apple builds their products in China, not the least of which is a vast pool of very compliant low-cost labor.

Any task that can be performed cheaper by someone else or even performed by a robot (robot technology is exploding as we speak) is at risk. Capitalists seek the lowest cost in every aspect of their business. (Except in the corporate boardroom. Cost is not discussed where they themselves are concerned.)

We had a good run here in America, especially in that golden window between 1945 and about 1970. The rest of the world caught up (and rebuilt) and offered us their cheap labor and "emerging markets."

The Asian Century is here, specifically the Chinese Century. They recently passed us as the #1 economic power and will rule the economic system for decades to come.

How can they "cost too much"? They cost exactly the value they bring to the employer (unless you are talking bout government mandates like the ACA or minimum wage). Very many are choosing not to work at all over a job they don't like or doesn't pay as much as they think they are worth. It seems that they only cost too much because their lives/lifestyles are funded in other ways (usually someone else's money/social welfare). If they would accept the jobs that are available, (which we have to import people to fill...legally or not) they would have jobs.

[tadd]

I think this is a society belief has to change. The 'old way' was you get a job and you stay and advance till you retire. Job and bussiness stability allowed this...this paradigm wasnt so long ago. You went to a company and worked till you were 55 then retired. A buddys father just retired from the coal mine industry this way. Same job all his life.

The new way is more like what artists have always had to do. You make hay when your selling and sock it away for when you don't (or are working on that 'new thing').

Im not saying life is fair or certian or anything like that... but I can see what it would be like to have the rug pulled out from under you at 50ish. Readjusting ones 'public worth value' requires a very large helping of self esteem I would think. Having people counting on you eases this as you 'have to' bite the bullet and just do. Being without kids (adult children) makes that transition to lower wage tougher. This isnt even considering trying to get a job below your past experience.

I just changed jobs. I didn 'have to' leave my old one, but for my sanity I needed to get. I cant tell you the number of jobs I was interviewed for but passed by because I have a PhD. Them: Impressive resume, you cost too much and have too many skills. Me: Will work for less...and you get the experience I have as bonus! Them: Thanks anyways.... Luckly I found a small bussiness that decided having skills and experience wasnt a bad thing and could rationalize a 'stategic hire', despite having several other fresh out of school people in the interview pile. Even meeting me most of the way on salary.

The job market is not exactly mobile, and that is supposed to be part of the 'contract'. If an employeer is crappy, the worker is supposed to be able to change. That hasnt been the case in a decade. Add in the hystersis of how tough it is to sell a home to move and employers have a 'locked' labor pool.

So my 'lesson learned' is to start really putting it away cause I dont know if Ill be able to actually make it to 65...It has made me greatly rethink what 'retirement' as a goal wll be. At this point, I think just having my home paid off is the real goal. It don't cost that much to get by once the mortage is gone.

[Hugh R]

I'm 60 and am grateful that I've been employed since I was 17. I've put money away since I graduated from UMASS in 1979 at the age of 25 (a few years in the USMC prior to college). I'll "retire" in a few more years. I could "retire" now, but my employer (Disney) just sent me for two weeks to Australia and New Zealand for a couple of movies we're working on. I enjoy travel, especially when I can travel Business Class. I think they've sent me to 30+ countries and a few dozen states. Places in the World that I'd otherwise never have had the chance to visit.

Oh, on topic, I don't think my job position will exist in 5 years. Movies now do so much CGI that is really good looking, the stunts, car wrecks, explosions, will mostly be computer generated.

[Tobra]

I heard this story and it struck me that it is not front page news in every paper in the country. This is the most troubling economic marker you never hear.

[ckelly78z]

From what I have seen, many of the current unemployed, have decided that they don't want to work, and will live off the government or handouts from well meaning people who are actually being enablers by continuing this trend. Of the people who have been hired (and fired) from the factory where I worked on the floor for 15 years with nearly perfect attendance, 50-75% the new people coming in will be let go for attendance problems in the first year or two. This attendance policy allows 7 day long occurances and 12 arrive late/leave early during each year and is one of the most forgiving I have come across. They just don't give a damn about keeping their jobs, and it sounds like getting home from work (when they actually show up) is a cause for a celebratory 6-8 beers on a nightly basis.

You can't fix stupidity, and you can't teach work ethic !

[jcommin]

Originally Posted by fintstone

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/12/upshot/unemployment-the-vanishing-male-worker-how-america-fell-behind.html?abt=0002&abg=0

I see this as one of our nation's biggest problems. Lots of folks who do not work. Many by choice (pay or work is not up to their standards). I don't see this as a PARF topic, because it is an apolitical problem...but do believe actions that gov't (both parties) have taken has caused much of this. From the article "The Vanishing Male Worker":

"...Working, in America, is in decline. The share of prime-age men — those 25 to 54 years old — who are not working has more than tripled since the late 1960s, to 16 percent. More recently, since the turn of the century, the share of women without paying jobs has been rising, too. The United States, which had one of the highest employment rates among developed nations as recently as 2000, has fallen toward the bottom of the list..."

"...Many men, in particular, have decided that low-wage work will not improve their lives, in part because deep changes in American society have made it easier for them to live without working. These changes include the availability of federal disability benefits; the decline of marriage, which means fewer men provide for children; and the rise of the Internet, which has reduced the isolation of unemployment..." (read the rest at the link)

I read this article a few days ago and it distrubed me. There are factors are worth noting. We are more productive than ever - we do more with less. Hugh makes a good point. I see this on the manufacturing side. This is the beginning of permanent under employment: too large of supply for the demand. Those that are in demand need skills more than a high school education. Those skill sets aren't there for the demand. I also see those who graduate college do not have marketable skills or find demand with their areas of major.

In the 70's and 80's much of the steel making industry closed in Chicago. I worked in the mills for 7 years. The labor force made great money: big $/hr for what they did. When the mills closed, they put many out of work. There was a period when these unemployed workers refused to work for anything less than they made at the mills. There was a larger percentage that thought the mills would come back. None of this ever happened. Those folks were lost. They never recovered.

I don't see much difference now except, there might be more goverment assistance. There is a percentage of those who will quit looking, find work in the underground economy of live off goverment. This is a lost generation of workers. I hope those who are young see what is going on and adjust either their education or experience skill sets so they won't fall into the same trap.

[monoflo]

You gotta think with the continued weakness in male oriented jobs like construction - male oriented gigs are not in demand. This weakness shows in the overall economy as these were nice paying jobs. only a fraction of these have returned to pre recession levels.

Just watch what happens as the oil and gas industry thins out due to the low price of oil and gas.
The rather tepid recovery will get much cooler especially as it pertains to us males

[nostatic]

This is a complicated problem set, but not sure why the "male" part warranted inclusion in the article title. The problem is that our education system and our expectations of "work" haven't changed since the end of the 19th century - gender is a red herring as the new economy (or lack thereof) is fairly blind to that. We have gone from a manufacturing age to an information age to now a profoundly hybrid virtual/physical age that is evolving faster than people can adapt.

There are lingering mental models of "male jobs" and "female jobs" that no longer hold (with a few exceptions). Similarly there are models of "family" that are less and less relevant. Tadds comment about artists is close to the mark. Many industries enjoyed a century of relative stability, with certain other groups having to deal with boom/bust and capricious markets (e.g. artists and musicians). But now the stable industries are the exception rather than the rule, and workers have to either become more "entrepreneurial" (I hate that word) and/or figure out how to constantly reinvent themselves as the target moves. Many of the jobs that will be hot in 10 years don't even exist yet. How do you educate/train for that?

Many have been raised to expect a workplace that no longer exists. There has to be a complete transformation of education along with realignment of expectations, not only of those seek work, but those that have it and sit in judgement. This is not your parents, or even your economy any more...

[fintstone]

Once I get a couple of million stashed in the mattress...this is what I will do. Quit work and let the taxpayer pay for my home, food, healthcare, etc. I am obviously worth more than my employer is willing to pay...and working all day sucks.

[john70t]

As a subset of a complex situation, I'll argue from the tangent of the male psychological perspective.
(misogynist slant is self-noted)

The environment for the traditional 'working man' is vanishing.
No longer is there a simple steady job available where all you have to do is show up and learn to perform a function. There are all types of pitfalls in the hiring process, government and legal considerations, prerequisites which sometime have nothing to do with the position(such as secretarial experience), and various levels of HR who are sometimes not bound by the rules of sanity.
The workplace has become a dynamic environment where rules change unexpectedly, which is damaging to the male ego. Men like to start something and finish rather than change-course multiple times.

Another aspect is the neutering of the male position, in both the home and society.
Any male who has had an alpha woman 'help out' with simple tasks has experienced the female trying to alter the end task, distract and interfere when unnecessary, and sabotage his process to the benefit of her own personal power and influence. Many beta males tend to give up at this point, and remain that way.
Males tend to pick/accept an alpha leader and assist with a single purpose, while women randomly decentralize.

Women have gained economic power and independence with their centralized role in the workplace, often preferring to work amongst other women, and with that comes the backlash against anything that requires the manual and brute labor of the grunt pig male.
Someone always has to clean out the latrine, to make society function at the end of the day.

The male is no longer required for raising children as well, and therefore expendable.
Sex and relationships have now become threats to the male. Males can lose control of all their rights just through engaging in natural behaviors. Alimony and child-rearing costs are no longer tied to basic subsistence standards and are often extravagant beyond reason.
If the male is unable to pay, the government taxpayers will.

Through this system, abuse of the male presence and psyche is actually encouraged.

[Crowbob]

This is one of the more profound topics we have yet explored. One thing is for certain: we as a society and as an economy are in transition. The systems we have set up since around the nineteen thirties and during and after the Great Wars were conceived under fundementally flawed ideas. Those ideas being that there would always be economic growth, a strong demand for manufactured goods and that those manufacturing processes would always guarantee the need for labor.

We are seeing labor is clearly no longer in demand. A 60% non-participation rate would normally create enormous social upheavals-and it may still. We established the great social programs such as SS based on false assumptions. The current unsustainable immigration and entitlement messes are surely heading us toward an unimaginable calamity.

I do actually believe this nation is experiencing mass psychosis. It is in denial. It's as if the nation is watching a horror film, comfortably deluding ourselves with the false knowledge that in 90 minutes or so it will be over, the lights will come up and we'll all go out for drinks.

[nostatic]

Originally Posted by Crowbob

This is one of the more profound topics we have yet explored. One thing is for certain: we as a society and as an economy are in transition. The systems we have set up since around the nineteen thirties and during and after the Great Wars were conceived under fundementally flawed ideas. Those ideas being that there would always be economic growth, a strong demand for manufactured goods and that those manufacturing processes would always guarantee the need for labor.

We are seeing labor is clearly no longer in demand. A 60% non-participation rate would normally create enormous social upheavals-and it may still. We established the great social programs such as SS based on false assumptions. The current unsustainable immigration and entitlement messes are surely heading us toward an unimaginable calamity.

I do actually believe this nation is experiencing mass psychosis. It is in denial. It's as if the nation is watching a horror film, comfortably deluding ourselves with the false knowledge that in 90 minutes or so it will be over, the lights will come up and we'll all go out for drinks.

I agree with all of this. My main issue typically is that a lot people around here seem to decry the changes and keep trying to say we need to get back to the "good old days." Sorry, but that ship sailed a long time ago and not clear there is much that could have been done to change it. I've said it many times - digital changed EVERYTHING. It is about more than the internet. It is a fundamental shift in every aspect of life other than the increasingly small number of analog/human things in life.

It really isn't about decisions that the politicians made or didn't make. Those just exacerbate things or prolong the agony. The old models don't hold any more as we're living in increasingly virtual/mixed realities that break time and space. A lot of people are getting left behind and others are getting ahead. Which has happened throughout history. What is different now is the rate of change, along with a fundamental shift (to digital) that is unprecedented in history. The invention of the wheel and Gutenberg come close - but no cigar.

[BE911SC]

Interesting explanation of American labor and its history in this article. Cheapness, job insecurity and worker compliance are what corporations want.

Noam Chomsky: Corporate business models are hurting American universities - Salon.com

[Por_sha911]

Originally Posted by cashflyer

This concept confuses me. People here on Pelican have made the argument that the SS trust is not something I pay into that I later collect out, but rather that I am paying for the current recipients and when I get old the workers then will be paying me.

So - how does it run out? Running out implies a volume of something that is depleted. Given the Pelican information, there is no bucket of money to run out of. The only way it runs out is if people quit paying.

The Soc Sec trust fund has turned into the world's largest Ponzi scam. The original plan was that when you paid into the system, the gov't would put it aside and invest it so that it would grow while it waits for you to retire. Tax and spend policies combined with deficit spending (I'll avoid the finger pointing as to who) came along and the fed started "borrowing" from the SS account. Once the boomers started retiring several things had happened:
-the fed didn't invest and the money is gone so now it has to come out of the budget. This was all fine and dandy when we could hide the deficit. This is the scam part.
-the number of people paying into the system dropped so there is not as much new cash coming into the system to hide the scam.
-people are living longer and whereas it was expected that retiring at 65 meant you collect for a few years but now people are collecting for 15-20 years.

SSI would be solvent if Congress didn't dip their hands in the cookie jar.