Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Monday December 15 2014, @03:58PM   Printer-friendly
from the chasing-the-vanishing-jobs? dept.

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.”

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday December 16 2014, @11:48AM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday December 16 2014, @11:48AM (#126461) Journal
    Maslow's hierarchy is not comprised of entirely physiological goals. And where are the actual criticisms? The hierarchy doesn't apply because a society can do a 1984-style lobotomization of citizens so that they can't even understand that they might have a need? That people might have a slightly different prioritization of needs?

    It is true that if you don't have any food or water you're not going to be able to work for very long towards any goal. But you don't need Maslow's hierarchy to explain that.

    So what? It fits with the model so it can't be used as a criticism.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 16 2014, @07:49PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 16 2014, @07:49PM (#126598)

    Different AC.

    It is not a useful model. It has no explanatory power and it has no predictive power. It is far too simplistic. It is an abstract imagined hierarchical idealization (according to Maslow's ideals) based on hypothetical extremes and no one actually prioritizes according to it in its hierarchical order because nearly no one if anyone at all would survive if they did. Instead people are amazingly flexible and varied and defy any such rigid templates.

    The easiest way to disprove Maslow is through any of all the people who consider themselves to have none of the needs fulfilled: anyone who doesn't answer "physiological" has broken the validity of the pretentious pyramid. Most people in such a situation will list everything they're missing, not only one or a handful of things belonging to "physiological". If it is only supposed to apply to starving people first and so on up through the hierarchy then it is nothing but perverse. There are many other ways to attack Maslow's pyramid, particularly the definitions and their meaning and/or their somewhat arbitrary nature and levels of fulfillment, and they all succeed.

    However what it is extremely good at is to convince people they've understood more than they actually have and that they have reached some kind of insight when they have not. Pure dogma. It is to social sciences what Freud is to psychology: somewhat embarrassing in its infantile self-absorbed nature. It's the kind of thing left behind in textbooks as an entry point for those who choose to go on to a relevant field of study which should quickly teach them why it was significant and why it is useless and obsolete. Primary and secondary education is full of it. It is annoying as hell because it leaves behind an awful lot of anti-education which people either wrongly believe in or do not appreciate the significance of. Sadly the same technique is used all the way up to and including introductory tertiary education (secondary and tertiary freshman "Philosophy of Science" is the most horrific I know of, half year forwards and then two years backwards undoing all the damage lol but if that initial half year is all someone has got then at least they have some straws to cling on to).

    As science improves the volume of old less correct science increases and some of it is tenacious and hard to remove. some of it much worse than other and some of it wrong from the beginning, bubbles of dead science languishing in faculties and studies all over the place.

    Let me give you a much nicer example for you to test yourself privately: you might already know the actual answer but why is the double slit experiment on the physics curriculum? Answer on your own before looking up its actual significance (and you might have to search and read a good while to find that anyway). I'll tell you in advance that despite what most textbooks says (and which the relevant Wikipedia page uses most of its space on) the answer to why it is one the curriculum is not actually because it illustrates and introduces "wave-particle duality" (whatever that is *cough*). That's the entry point placeholder right there. I was amazed when I was told (and I had to be told the significance), it makes far more sense and of course considering that relevance they had to include it or the whole entire school subject of physics would be a joke, too bad they didn't say why. No it isn't quanta either, just one small step and you can say hello to Thomas Kuhn while passing goal.

    (I think it's a waste. Poor students don't gain anything by being told fibs or by being misled by superficialities and smart students have to be reeducated, maybe geniuses just drift by grasping the actual truth or importance despite it but there's no reason they would. It makes things harder to "learn" because it doesn't actually contain anything particularly sensible or explanatory which in turn makes it boring and dumb.)

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday December 17 2014, @05:21AM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday December 17 2014, @05:21AM (#126758) Journal

      It is not a useful model. It has no explanatory power and it has no predictive power.

      How about we actually look at the model? First, what does it attempt to model? Human preference. One feature is that needs/wants range from the physical to the abstract and are arranged in some sort of order of priority. A second is that such wants saturate. Just because you can have more food, doesn't mean you want more food. So it is allegedly possible to saturate and sate wants at a certain level. It explains why populaces tend to prefer safety over freedom. Or prefer food over social stability or environmental protections. It also explains why we haven't driven ourselves to extinction with overeating. Hence, it has explanatory power.

      As to predictive power, it predicts that wants of a certain level are not infinite by the person. We won't want an infinite number of hamburgers right now, an infinite supply of fresh air, or an infinite stream of entertainment. It predicts that as wants and needs are satisfied, new wants and needs appear. And these new wants and needs tend to be more abstract and harder to quantify.

      It is far too simplistic.

      Compared to what? What are you trying to do with the model? You already have claimed it doesn't actually do anything for you. Meaning simplicity is already irrelevant.

      It is an abstract imagined hierarchical idealization (according to Maslow's ideals) based on hypothetical extremes and no one actually prioritizes according to it in its hierarchical order because nearly no one if anyone at all would survive if they did. Instead people are amazingly flexible and varied and defy any such rigid templates.

      Have you actually looked at the hierarchy? The first needs are immediate survival-based, then the next level is long term survival-based. Fulfill the first two levels and you can check off survival. Second, what is "extreme" about the model?

      Let me give you a much nicer example for you to test yourself privately: you might already know the actual answer but why is the double slit experiment on the physics curriculum?

      It's a table top demonstration of wave interference. The quantum version, where you interfere with single photons passing through double slits in particular ways and get profoundly different interference patterns as a consequence, is a demonstration of wave-particle duality despite your contrary assertion. Further, these are experiments which are historically relevant (your reference to Thomas Kuhn's "paradigm shift") and only tried for the first time (in the quantum version) within a human lifespan.

      Anyway, getting back to the subject at hand, if you have a better model than Maslow's hierarchy for explaining human preferences, then by all means mention it here. After all, you can't have a paradigm shift without a better model.