Discussion:
ping Quadibloc re: unmarried men
(too old to reply)
a425couple
2017-03-04 18:34:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
---- > (begin quote)
Basically, I think that George Gilder (Naked Nomads, Sexual Suicide)
had a good point about how men who are unmarried end up behaving. ---
Here is an article I read that seems to relate to your subject:

When Factory Jobs Vanish, Men Become Less Desirable Partners
Declines in manufacturing employment are shaping the structure of the
American family.
Alana Semuels Mar 3, 2017 - The Atlantic
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/03/manufacturing-marriage-family/518280/

In many small towns across the country, there aren't very many good jobs
these days. Once there were factories that employed millions and paid decent
wages. Today, young men are scraping by working at local bars or in
lower-paid temp jobs. Many of these men are single, and new research
suggests that those two things-their poor economic status and their
singleness-are not unrelated.

It's no wonder, then, that the changes wrought by the disappearance of
manufacturing jobs helped elevate the platform of Donald Trump, who won 67
percent of white workers without a college degree. Their malcontent comes
not just from their economic struggles, but from the dramatic changes to
their personal lives that the decline of manufacturing have created.

A new study by the economists David Autor of MIT, Gordon Hanson of the
University of California at San Diego, and David Dorn of the University of
Zurich, provides evidence that their economic struggles are directly
responsible for many of their personal ones. The study finds that, as men's
economic prospects decline, they marry less frequently. Once, men had good
earnings, especially when compared with women. But now these men don't earn
much more than women do, and so fewer people are getting married, and more
children are being born out of wedlock. Children are much more likely to
grow up in poverty in households headed by single mothers.

"We see a decline in fertility, a decline in marriage, but a rise in the
fraction of births that are disadvantaged, and as a consequence the kids are
living in pretty tough circumstances," Autor, the study's lead author, told
me.

Fertility has declined and out-of-wedlock births have risen all over America
during the past three decades, not just in areas where jobs have been
displaced by trade. But the authors show that these trends have been much
more pronounced in areas that have lost a significant number of
manufacturing jobs, where, as a result, men's prospects have declined
disproportionately. This worsening of the fates of men has been long
predicted, including in The Atlantic in the summer of 2010, when Hanna Rosin
highlighted how women's bettering prospects would lead to "The End of Men."

In this study, the authors looked at what happens when a "trade shock"
impacted certain areas around the country. They looked at instances when
imports from China started to compete with the product a local industry
made, causing job losses and plant closures. (In a previous paper, the
authors had found that rising competition from Chinese imports depressed
wages and eliminated American jobs.)

They found that manufacturing declines significantly affected the supply of
what they termed "marriageable" men-men who are not drinking or using drugs
excessively and who have a job. In areas impacted by a trade shock, the
numbers of marriageable men relative to women declined, because men had
migrated elsewhere, joined the military, or fallen out of the labor force.
Fewer men were working in manufacturing, which tended to mean their wages
were lower than they had been when manufacturing had more of a presence in
their area. And their wages were not significantly higher than women's
wages, which they had been during the heyday of manufacturing. (Fewer women
worked in manufacturing in the first place, so they were less affected by
the shocks.)

This made the men less appealing to the women, the authors suggest-so there
were fewer marriages. They find that trade shocks reduced the share of young
women who were married, and reduced the number of births per woman.

Yet women didn't give up on having babies entirely. Plenty of young women
are still getting pregnant, but they're no longer as likely to have married
their partner when they do, the authors found. (The share of children born
to unmarried mothers more than doubled between 1980 and 2013, from 18 to 41
percent.) When young women become pregnant unintentionally, they have to
decide whether to have the baby and whether to marry the father or not, said
Autor. That evaluation becomes more fraught when the man doesn't have a good
job. Marriage to such men can be risky: They may not contribute very much
income, but they could factor into family decisions. "You don't want to
marry a man who is in all likelihood not economically viable, because it's
not a free lunch," Autor said.

These patterns seem to hinge on whether men are making more money than
women, the authors found. When it was women's jobs that were affected, such
as when predominantly female sectors like the leather-goods industry saw
competition from Chinese imports, marriage rates and in-wedlock births
increased.

The paper's findings are worrisome for some places that have seen men's jobs
displaced by trade and automation. A trade shock in which one sector saw
major job losses increased the share of children living in poverty by 13
percent. It also increased the share of children living in
single-parent-headed or grandparent-headed households.

It's more evidence that there was something special about manufacturing in
America in the middle of the 20th century, because the sector provided
good-paying jobs for people without a college education. Those jobs allowed
people a comfortable lifestyle, and when they vanish, families changed. "It
does appear that places where manufacturing is prevalent, it's kind of a
fulcrum, a cornerstone of a way of life where men have relatively stable,
modestly high earnings and women are more likely to be married to them,"
Autor said.

Where that lifestyle doesn't exist anymore, something else has arisen in its
place. In past times of economic hardship, birth rates plummeted because
women didn't want to marry and have babies with men who didn't have jobs.
Women also faced a huge amount of stigma if they decided to have children
out of wedlock. But now, people are having children despite the economic
obstacles. In some cases, as the sociologist Andrew Cherlin lays out in his
book, Labor's Love Lost: The Rise and Fall of the Working-Class Family in
America, more adults are having children within unstable relationships. "A
substantial number go on to have children with a second partner, or even a
third, creating complex and unstable family lives that are not good for
children," he writes.

This creates challenges for the people (usually women) who have to raise a
child without the economic or social support of a partner. Their struggles
are why the authors see such an uptick in children living in poverty in the
aftermath of a decline in manufacturing employment.

Yet there are many women who have soldiered on, despite it all. After all,
women are more independent than they used to be because they have more job
opportunities than they once did. They can make the choice not to marry and
still have children, and not face as much stigma as they once did.

This group includes Olivia Alfano, a 29-year-old single mother living in
Evansville, Indiana, where she works as a waitress at Red Lobster. The money
is pretty good, she told me: She drives a BMW and was able to buy a house
last year. Alfano now wants to go into management, which she thinks will
give her more security in the long run. When I asked her why she hadn't
married, she told me, "I haven't run into someone I would consider doing
that with."

Of course, Alfano still has obstacles: for instance, finding childcare while
she's at work and getting good health care for her family (she doesn't work
enough hours to qualify for Red Lobster's plan). But three decades ago, a
woman like Alfano would have needed a partner to be able to have children,
or else faced social stigma and economic hardship. Today, her potential
partners don't have the opportunity for good, stable employment that they
once did. They're struggling, while Alfano makes a life on her own.
Quadibloc
2017-03-05 10:57:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by a425couple
Many of these men are single, and new research
suggests that those two things-their poor economic status and their
singleness-are not unrelated.
It's more evidence that there was something special about manufacturing in
America in the middle of the 20th century, because the sector provided
good-paying jobs for people without a college education. Those jobs allowed
people a comfortable lifestyle, and when they vanish, families changed. "It
does appear that places where manufacturing is prevalent, it's kind of a
fulcrum, a cornerstone of a way of life where men have relatively stable,
modestly high earnings and women are more likely to be married to them,"
Autor said.
I'm shocked that it takes "new research" to determine the truth of things so
obvious.

Of course, at *this* level, vat-girls are not the solution. The solution is
getting the economy working again.

And while there are forms of protectionism which are destructive, the right kind
of protectionism is the economic solution.

Basically:

A country can't spend more than it earns, any more than a family can.

In the case of a family, there is a difference between wealth created by people
in the family working around the house, and the *cash income* of the family.
People in a family can choose to do chores at any time - but cash income depends
on being able to find a job from an external employer for most people.

In the case of a country, *foreign exchange* plays the role of a cash income. And, again, countries can't force other countries to purchase their exports.

In a properly functioning economy, unemployment is kept down to a very low
level. Anyone willing to work and able to work should be able not only to find
work, but to find work under decent conditions that pays a living wage.

And yet, when the economy is pushed to provide that many jobs, so that lots of
people have money in their pockets, the level of *imports* is still to be
roughly equal to the level of *exports*.

Under the present economic system, if the balance of payments goes negative, it
becomes necessary to contract the economy, throwing people out of jobs, to
prevent the nation from going into debt. That needs to be corrected - imports
need to be controlled, *and* in a fashion that people investing in constructing
factories have no doubts about, so that they trust they can safely make
long-term investments in facilities to produce things locally that could be
imported much cheaper.

If that can't be achieved, then the factories producing local products will need
to be built and owned by the government.

So perhaps one has two parallel economies - a socialist soft-currency economy
for the masses, and a capitalist hard-currency economy for the most
exceptionally talented. As long as that is used to preserve the stability of
democracy, as opposed to being part of a totalitarian or authoritarian system of
tyranny, it can be a good thing instead of a bad one.

But there are dangers to such an economic plan, so it has to be handled
carefully.

The vat-girls come in *after* this has been done, and it *still* hasn't solved
the problem entirely, because of the proportion of women missing from the
marriage market for various reasons. My goal is a world with almost no crime,
and without war. This requires general contentment as a stable basis.

John Savard
a425couple
2017-03-05 17:49:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I wish you had taken more care in your snip.
I gave a citation, and quoted from an "Atlantic" article.
Post by Quadibloc
Post by a425couple
Many of these men are single, and new research
suggests that those two things - their poor economic status and their
singleness-are not unrelated.
A country can't spend more than it earns, any more than a family can.
Well, both can (and have) spent more than they earned.
1. The US combined total gross national debt of $19.8 trillion or
about 106% of the previous 12 months of GDP.
2. US household debt is at $12.25 trillion.
Mortgage debt, auto and student loans are increasing, but credit card
and home equity debts declined.
Post by Quadibloc
In a properly functioning economy, unemployment is kept down
to a very low level. Anyone willing to work and able to work
should be able not only to find work, but to find work under decent
conditions that pays a living wage.
IMHO, You put strange qualifiers on that.
Post by Quadibloc
And yet, when the economy is pushed to provide that many jobs, so that lots of
people have money in their pockets, the level of *imports* is still to be
roughly equal to the level of *exports*.
Under the present economic system, if the balance of payments goes negative, it
becomes necessary to contract the economy, throwing people out of jobs, to
prevent the nation from going into debt. That needs to be corrected - imports
need to be controlled, *and* in a fashion that people investing in constructing
factories have no doubts about, so that they trust they can safely make
long-term investments in facilities to produce things locally that could be
imported much cheaper.
If that can't be achieved, then the factories producing local products will need
to be built and owned by the government.
The above is a silly idea that has been proved wrong.
If no private individuals or firms can figure that a factory
is worthwhile, it is stupid to think a bureaucrat spending
money on a losing business is a good idea.
Quadibloc
2017-03-06 05:21:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by a425couple
I wish you had taken more care in your snip.
I gave a citation, and quoted from an "Atlantic" article.
Apologies for not indicating this was material you quoted, rather than material
you wrote yourself.
Post by a425couple
The above is a silly idea that has been proved wrong.
If no private individuals or firms can figure that a factory
is worthwhile, it is stupid to think a bureaucrat spending
money on a losing business is a good idea.
While that is a valid point, what I am suggesting is a bit different from what
you are reacting to.

Private firms or individuals cannot be expected to make large capital
investments under circumstances where they would be likely to be left high and
dry.

Here is one example of this principle:

Some years back, after the 1973 oil crisis, but before global warming became a
concern, I read a magazine which had articles about a CONSPIRACY by the evil oil
companies.

Basically, the Germans during World War II were able to make gasoline to run
their tanks out of coal. So, since Americans could do the same, and make
gasoline cheaper than what the Arabs were selling it for, obviously this
technology was being suppressed by the greedy oil barons.

It wasn't quite as simple as that.

Before 1973, the Arabs were selling oil at around $3 a barrel. After 1973, it
was around $20 a barrel.

Now then, let us suppose that a coal gasification plant could produce gasoline
from coal at a price to the consumer equivalent to what gasoline would cost were
oil being sold at $5 a barrel.

Well, there you are. The greedy oil companies would rather sell their oil at $20
a barrel than let the people have this technology.

There's just one detail. The coal gasification plant would cost $1 billion to
build.

Oh, yes, and back in 1973, when the Arabs raised their _price_ for oil, that was
just them raising the *price*. It didn't start costing them any more money to
_pump the stuff out of the ground_.

So a private company spends a billion dollars building this coal gasification
plant, and the day before it sells its first gallon of gas...

the Arabs reduce the price of oil to $4.95 a barrel.

Basically, if you're a private citizen, your options for _monetizing_ forms of
productive activity are constrained. The government has more options. So while
it was not a conspiracy at all that no private company built a coal gasification
plant under the conditions described above, it was simple economics _not_
involving excessive greed... the government failed by leaving things to private
enterprise.

Whether the plant shipped a single drop or not, either way the country would
benefit if oil went down to $5 a barrel, so what was a very foolish investment
for a private company would have been a wise one for the taxpayer through the
government.

So if you're going to build plants to build TV sets and radios and stuff like
that in the United States, when China can make them much cheaper... the
profitability of those plants *depends* on the government maintaining its high
tariff policy, or exchange control policy, or whatever limits imports.
Government policies, unlike the laws of physics (or even economics) are...
subject to change.

So if the government builds these plants, one avoids the huge discount for risk
- the need to recoup one's entire investment within four years, in time for the
next election - that private investors would impose.

John Savard
Robert Bannister
2017-03-07 02:53:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by a425couple
I wish you had taken more care in your snip.
I gave a citation, and quoted from an "Atlantic" article.
Post by Quadibloc
Post by a425couple
Many of these men are single, and new research
suggests that those two things - their poor economic status and their
singleness-are not unrelated.
A country can't spend more than it earns, any more than a family can.
Well, both can (and have) spent more than they earned.
1. The US combined total gross national debt of $19.8 trillion or
about 106% of the previous 12 months of GDP.
2. US household debt is at $12.25 trillion.
Mortgage debt, auto and student loans are increasing, but credit card
and home equity debts declined.
Post by Quadibloc
In a properly functioning economy, unemployment is kept down
to a very low level. Anyone willing to work and able to work
should be able not only to find work, but to find work under decent
conditions that pays a living wage.
IMHO, You put strange qualifiers on that.
Post by Quadibloc
And yet, when the economy is pushed to provide that many jobs, so that lots of
people have money in their pockets, the level of *imports* is still to be
roughly equal to the level of *exports*.
Under the present economic system, if the balance of payments goes negative, it
becomes necessary to contract the economy, throwing people out of jobs, to
prevent the nation from going into debt. That needs to be corrected - imports
need to be controlled, *and* in a fashion that people investing in constructing
factories have no doubts about, so that they trust they can safely make
long-term investments in facilities to produce things locally that could be
imported much cheaper.
If that can't be achieved, then the factories producing local products will need
to be built and owned by the government.
The above is a silly idea that has been proved wrong.
If no private individuals or firms can figure that a factory
is worthwhile, it is stupid to think a bureaucrat spending
money on a losing business is a good idea.
Too many businessmen these days have no interest in making money from
manufacturing. They just buy and sell properties as bean counters in an
asset gambling game. Many have never actually run a manufacturing
business in their life, unless you count real estate as manufacturing.
--
Robert B. born England a long time ago;
Western Australia since 1972
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-03-07 02:28:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robert Bannister
Post by a425couple
I wish you had taken more care in your snip.
I gave a citation, and quoted from an "Atlantic" article.
Post by Quadibloc
Post by a425couple
Many of these men are single, and new research
suggests that those two things - their poor economic status
and their singleness-are not unrelated.
A country can't spend more than it earns, any more than a
family can.
Well, both can (and have) spent more than they earned.
1. The US combined total gross national debt of $19.8 trillion
or about 106% of the previous 12 months of GDP.
2. US household debt is at $12.25 trillion.
Mortgage debt, auto and student loans are increasing, but
credit card and home equity debts declined.
Post by Quadibloc
In a properly functioning economy, unemployment is kept down
to a very low level. Anyone willing to work and able to work
should be able not only to find work, but to find work under
decent conditions that pays a living wage.
IMHO, You put strange qualifiers on that.
Post by Quadibloc
And yet, when the economy is pushed to provide that many jobs, so that lots of
people have money in their pockets, the level of *imports* is
still to be roughly equal to the level of *exports*.
Under the present economic system, if the balance of payments goes negative, it
becomes necessary to contract the economy, throwing people out of jobs, to
prevent the nation from going into debt. That needs to be
corrected - imports
need to be controlled, *and* in a fashion that people
investing in constructing
factories have no doubts about, so that they trust they can
safely make long-term investments in facilities to produce
things locally that could be
imported much cheaper.
If that can't be achieved, then the factories producing local products will need
to be built and owned by the government.
The above is a silly idea that has been proved wrong.
If no private individuals or firms can figure that a factory
is worthwhile, it is stupid to think a bureaucrat spending
money on a losing business is a good idea.
Too many businessmen these days have no interest in making money
from manufacturing. They just buy and sell properties as bean
counters in an asset gambling game. Many have never actually run
a manufacturing business in their life, unless you count real
estate as manufacturing.
Even more companies don't care about making a profit _at all_. They
exist for the sole purpose of building up a reputation of being a
great investment, doing a multi-billion dollar IPO, thus making the
founders (and other important shareholders) very wealthy. Said
wealthy shareholders then don't give a shit that the company as
never made a dime, never done anything worthwhile, and has been
bankrupt from the day it was founded, because they've made their
billions.

(Some analysts are predicting that Uber will be the biggest Silicon
Valley failure *ever*, for instance, but you won't see Travis
Kalanick or Garrett Camp going hungry.)
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Loading...