SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Binyamin Appelbaum writes at the NYT that 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 as many men 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. Technology has made unemployment less lonely says Tyler Cowen, an economist at George Mason University, who argues that the Internet allows men to entertain themselves and find friends and sexual partners at a much lower cost than did previous generations. Perhaps most important, it has become harder for men to find higher-paying jobs as foreign competition and technological advances have eliminated many of the jobs open to high school graduates. The trend was pushed to new heights by the last recession, with 20 percent of prime-age men not working in 2009 before partly receding. But the recovery is unlikely to be complete. "Like turtles flipped onto their backs, many people who stop working struggle to get back on their feet," writes Appelbaum. "Some people take years to return to the work force, and others never do "
A study published in October by scholars at the American Enterprise Institute and the Institute for Family Studies estimated that 37 percent of the decline in male employment since 1979 can be explained by this retreat from marriage and fatherhood (PDF). “When the legal, entry-level economy isn’t providing a wage that allows someone a convincing and realistic option to become an adult — to go out and get married and form a household — it demoralizes them and shunts them into illegal economies,” says Philippe Bourgois, an anthropologist who has studied the lives of young men in urban areas. “It’s not a choice that has made them happy. They would much rather be adults in a respectful job that pays them and promises them benefits.”
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Monday December 15 2014, @04:56PM
I think about this dynamic a lot, as a product of the best quantitative social scientific training the world has to offer, and as an individual whose personal experience has run the gamut from wont to excess. There are stupid, oblivious people in the world. That is sure. But the number of informed, concerned, and motivated people in the world number far greater than elites would suppose. Those they ought to fear. Every PhD or Master's candidate they structurally frustrate becomes an opponent. Every man or woman whose training and education they render moot through cronyism or corruption becomes another quantum of social pressure. In times past, they might successfully oppress any wonder, including a Da Vinci or Aristotle. Now, we have collectively have the means, technologically, to express our genius and our frustration.
People whose interests lie with the status quo will pooh-pooh this. The coder whose boss patted him on the head this week will swear up and down that the meritocracy exists and that "those who work hard enough will be rewarded," but the rest of us, older and/or wiser, will know better. When fundamental social, economic, and technological trends all point in one direction, you, as a guardian of the status quo, oppose them at your peril.
There is an oft-repeated meme online, and here, that obsession with objects like the Kardashians trumps real civic engagement. There is an oft-repeated meme that that trumps objective reality. But I don't think so. Those who are most frustrated with that status quo are least likely to be bought off with empty promises. They know real, they crave real, they will have real.
To make the world a better place, and to frankly save humanity, those educated, frustrated strata must move beyond their received assumptions, that they're alone and that they're powerless. They can sharply make the world a better place, if they will let go of their learned helplessness.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Stuntbutt on Monday December 15 2014, @05:42PM
Your analysis is what I would expect of someone claiming those credentials. Kudos.
As a practical output, though, Action-To-Be-Taken is much harder than the analysis. Look at Hong Kong's riots, for example. Lots of intelligent, educated people protested with a reasonably unified message. However, as the message diluted, action became impossible. The same could be said of the Occupy movement a few years ago in the USA. Central theme? Sure. Unified direction? Nope.
Directing the intelligentsia, or even the masses you describe that form the motivation for change, is nontrivial. Some want revolution. Some want violence / redistribution. Yet another group will want a slight tinkering of the rules (errata!) to re-align the direction and allow for the self-correction. Couple this with the corruption of each attempt by Those In Power, and you see how the assessment of the position, while remarkable, is ultimately pointless.
We need a catalyst, worldwide, to shake off the nonsense. The problem is what that catalyst is, and if it is a violent upheaval or an elevation (Renaissance) of human understanding.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday December 16 2014, @02:32PM
Not claiming them. Have them. Graduate school at the University of Chicago Department of Social Sciences.
But you imply that what I said is the mere product of Ivory Tower thinking. It isn't. I've been deeply involved with grassroots activism in New York for 20 years and have a very good handle on the challenges of collective action.
All the points you made are good ones. Yes, sabotage, competing interests, group dynamics, they all make it difficult to achieve change. Sabotage in particular has become more effective at derailing traditional opposition structures since the NSA and Homeland Security have gone light-years beyond what J. Edgar Hoover did in the 1960's to undermine the Civil Rights movement. It is a non-trivial challenge to overcome.
But the first step is to do what I pointed out, which is to abandon the learned helplessness and powerlessness that stifles much opposition before it even forms. Part of that is to expose the incompetence of the Powers That Be and tear down the illusion of omniscience and omnipotence once and for all.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1) by Stuntbutt on Tuesday December 16 2014, @08:17PM
Ugh.
I re-read my response, and my tone was more marginalizing of your post than I care for. My bad.
I agree with your assessment. As an engineer, I look at action and what principles drive it. Your original post was great on principles and a little light on what the next step is. Nevermind, though, because we're on the same side, here. Thank you for your assessment, and grats on your schooling, sir/ma'am. :)
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday December 16 2014, @05:59PM
Well, I don't have the information to speak about Hong Kong, but Occupy can be either a huge failure or a grand success depending on how you look at it. Did Occupy end income inequality? No. Did anyone ever think they would? Absolutely not. Did they make it a feature of mainstream conversation, even three years later? Definitely.
If you look at it in terms of immediately changing the structure of the political and economic system, it didn't do much. But if you look at it in terms of building a movement around those issues, it was extremely successful. National waves of protest used to be the exception in the country, now they are the rule. There may have been some annual Black Friday protests before Occupy, but they weren't nearly on the same scale. There were isolated protests against police brutality, but they weren't shutting down highways across the nation night after night for a week or more. The Mike Brown/Eric Garner protests got so big there was even action at some US Embassies overseas! Occupy wasn't the war, it was the draft.
So yeah, Occupy didn't do much -- but the networks it created have. Walmart is voluntarily raising wages. Obama is funding police body cameras. We finally have a national healthcare system, even though it kinda sucks. A couple bankers are facing charges. A couple corrupt cops are being investigated. They're very, *very* small steps, they're certainly still not systemic changes, but they're a start.
(Score: 2) by metamonkey on Wednesday December 17 2014, @03:55PM
Also, Occupy scared the shit out of the elites. The militarization of the policy, the doubling-down on domestic surveillance, the passing of curfew laws to stymie future protests, are all a reaction to Occupy. They increased the pressure on the lower classes, to the point the usually oblivious middle class is suddenly aware their local PD has a tank and their phone calls are all being recorded. The response to Occupy 1 made an eventual Occupy 2 inevitable.
Occupy didn't do anything. It was poor hippies. Occupy 2 will include engineers and accounts and lawyers who can't find jobs and can't pay back their student loans and 55 year olds who lost their jobs and are eating dog food...
Okay 3, 2, 1, let's jam.
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Tuesday December 16 2014, @06:06PM
That is because movements like Occupy get invaded by Social Justice Warriors [youtube.com] who proceed to wreck the thing, like how they tried to make atheism into atheism plus. If you look at a typical SJW they are upper middle class millennial twits who think their shit doesn't stink and think they have all the answers, in other words narcissists. And nothing a narcissist hates more than the spotlight being on someone else so here they come to jam their way in front of the camera to try to get their cause to be the focus. Doesn't matter if it has fuck all to do with something like occupy because they are always right so go fuck yourself, they know what is best.
This is why you can't keep a movement going for any length of time anymore, because the longer it goes on the more SJW will show up until the message has been so polluted nobody gives a shit and it all falls apart.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 15 2014, @05:48PM
That would be one explanation why so many terrorists have been highly educated. [foreignpolicy.com] Not necessarily the only explanation, but certainly a possible factor.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 15 2014, @06:39PM
Pretty good assessment
"those who work hard enough will be rewarded"
I want to add to that. You *MUST* work hard or you get nothing. However, if you work hard does not mean you will get anything.
There is an element of 'luck'. Or the old saying 'Lady luck favors the prepared'.
Luck is usually the ability to do three things.
1) see that you have been presented an opportunity (the lucky bit)
2) The ability to actually seize upon that opportunity (learning what to do)
3) The will to actually carry thru (the work hard bit).
If you fail on any of those 3 steps you will get nothing. In some cases you end up worse off.
frustrated strata must move beyond their received assumptions
It all folds in upon itself. Words are cheap, actions speak louder than words. So now that you 'know' how to do something what are you going to do with it? If your answer is to go on the internet and bitch you will not get steps 1-3. As you never even started as no one wants to give opportunities to someone who whines about it. Words are cheap.
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Monday December 15 2014, @10:57PM
4. You need to avoid getting screwed out of the fruits of your labor.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 16 2014, @01:59AM
4a. Figure out how to take what you have learned and start your own business.
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Tuesday December 16 2014, @02:32AM
Tried that. Getting paid as a small business can be very difficult.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 16 2014, @03:09PM
I would consider your 4a to be part of step 1. Recognize an opportunity.
Building your own business is seeing that working for the man makes less than doing it yourself. You need steps 2 and 3 to pull it off.
Step 4 is a good idea but I am not convinced it fits my steps. Perhaps step one needs to be revised. The ability to see bad and good opportunities and act accordingly. As you would asses someone trying to take your money as a bad opportunity and you would not act on it.
Also given all the steps there is 0 guarantee. Just the possibility of an opportunity. Stack the odds in your favor.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 16 2014, @01:26AM
You *MUST* work hard or you get nothing.
False. Some are practically born into wealth.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 16 2014, @02:39PM
Yeah waiting for a rich uncle to die so I can get wealth or maybe I can win the lottery. Thats going to work sooooo well. Let me know how that works out for you. /sarc
You are missing my point. The point is for the 99% working hard is the only way up. If you do that you have the possibility of getting wealthy. If you do nothing and worry about what others have you will get nothing as well. However, 'working hard' does not necessarily get you anything. It takes a stroke of 'luck' to get ahead.
There are 0 guarantees. You can however stack the odds in your favor. But even that the house usually wins.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday December 16 2014, @12:28PM
To make the world a better place, and to frankly save humanity, those educated, frustrated strata must move beyond their received assumptions, that they're alone and that they're powerless. They can sharply make the world a better place, if they will let go of their learned helplessness.
They did. Then they realized that their fellow educated, frustrated strata was the competition. Just look at academia, the primary manufacturer of discontent. It's a microcosm of the dynamic. Every tenured professor started life as a "strata" and won the lottery. Yet they have a peculiar tone-deafness when it comes to the needs of the next generation of would-be tenured professors.
It wouldn't take much modification to get education and research more in line with what students and society actually needs from academia. But it's more important to have a million little fiefdoms and low accountability. So we have phenomena like the student loan trap, way too high a production of PhDs (which are for a lot of fields, just training for professorships), the "every scrap of research is sacred" fantasy, a large and growing disengagement between the curriculum and relevant education for holding a job, and the usual ivory tower narcissism.
A similar thing happens with social policy in economics which currently boils down to appropriating money from people to spend on perceived social needs (usually the elimination of risk). It's never been a better time for social policy implementation. Yet all we hear about are the super-powerful evil corporations. Turns out that a company which specializes in political opportunism is better at this game than the social policy people who enabled this exploitable system. And the implementers of social policy can be readily bribed.
So what is the response to this? Scapegoat the evil corporations and double-down on the approach that caused the problems. More social benefits, more political corruption enabled.
Sometimes bad things just happen. Here, the social changes from the introduction of contraception left human males on the losing side for a couple of generations. Similarly, globalization has resulted in a substantial impact on the earning power of developed world labor while simultaneously making mobile capital a bit more valuable. But bad things are always happening. What changes is how we respond to them.
What I see discussed here are certain harmful behaviors that not only make the problems of societies worse, but which are self-perpetuating.