Where Did All the Working Men Go?

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

A new White House report shows a staggering drop in the portion of working-age men who are actually working. It also reveals deeper problems with American society.

The report, which was widely covered by economic commentators yesterday, showed that American men aged 25-54 have been dropping out of the labor force steadily for the past 60 years. In 1954, 98% of such men were either working or looking for work; today, that figure is only 88%. This decline has been sharper among black men and men with less education—for men with only a high school degree or less, the labor force participation rate is now only 83%. It doesn’t take much imagination to understand the cascade of negative effects that come from having huge numbers of prime working-age men who have completely dropped out of the quest for employment.

There are quite a few factors that partially explain this trend, including our huge incarceration rates for men and the general decline in good blue collar manufacturing jobs in America over the past half century. Globalization, racism, vindictiveness, inequality—this trend has it all! But as Neil Irwin points out, one of the most interesting aspects of this decline is that it raises questions about an article of faith in the pro-business American mainstream: our country’s relatively lax labor laws, which make it easy to hire and fire workers. Though economists typically think that easier hiring and firing makes business more likely to hire and should therefore increase the labor force participation rate, our nation is not bearing that out:

In the United States, 12 percent of 25- to 54-year-old men were neither working nor looking for work in 2014. That number was 7 percent in Spain and France, and 4 percent in Japan. And that’s despite a more generous social safety net in those countries that would, you might think, make it easier to drop out of the work force.​

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/page/files/20160620_cea_primeage_male_lfp.pdf

Yet more evidence that shows unfettered capitalism and trickle-down economics does not work.

 

[summerteeth]

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/page/files/20160620_cea_primeage_male_lfp.pdf

Yet more evidence that shows unfettered capitalism and trickle-down economics does not work.

Obviously you would have to look more into it, but at first glance the precipitous declines appear to occur during Democratic Presidents and seems to start following Johnson's War on Poverty. Levels off during Nixon, don't see much of a decline during Reagan (even during a huge recession), levels off during W (actually increases a bit) and then falls again during Obama.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

Obviously you would have to look more into it, but at first glance the precipitous declines appear to occur during Democratic Presidents and seems to start following Johnson's War on Poverty. Levels off during Nixon, don't see much of a decline during Reagan (even during a huge recession), levels off during W (actually increases a bit) and then falls again during Obama.

As the article states, how do you explain countries with vastly more social safety nets having much higher percentages of men working the labor force? I didn't blame any specific party because they are both guilty of being a slave to Wall Street. it's a problem on both sides of the aisle.

 

[chaseter]

More/increased social programs lead to less work. Why work minimum wage when you can collect a check and get subsidized living?

That huge drop in 2008 was due to the economy but it didn't recover because of increased unemployment and disability programs. Once unemployment ended, they went on disability.

The overall decline is due to jobs going overseas and America losing production over cheaper imports. All politicians are responsible for that.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

More/increased social programs lead to less work. Why work minimum wage when you can collect a check and get subsidized living?

That huge drop in 2008 was due to the economy but it didn't recover because of increased unemployment and disability programs. Once unemployment ended, they went on disability.

The overall decline is due to jobs going overseas and America losing production over cheaper imports. All politicians are responsible for that.

Did you even read the article? it list several other countries with more social programs directly contradicting your point.

 

[chaseter]

Their stats don't matter. Look up our stats.

https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/dibGraphs.html

 

[summerteeth]

Did you even read the article? it list several other countries with more social programs directly contradicting your point.

Did you? because that is not the conclusion the study comes to at the end. It says that the demand for less skilled labor and declining wages in those fields is the main culprit. Increase in SSDI being a factor as well, lesser factor but a factor nonetheless. Incarceration rates as well. In the end it calls for reforming unemployment insurance (this usually means cuts) and a transfer to a wage insurance system where they are paid while they retrain for new skills, increasing infrastructure projects/spending, expanding EITC (Rubio's plan), increase access to higher ed, reforming criminal justice system and helping those out of jail get back to work.

The prescriptions they call for are more or less reforms to the current wellfare system and ones that seem to be focused on job training and working in order to get wellfare.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

Those are all valid points but the fact still stands there are numerous other countries with more social safety nets that have more men in the workforce. Now do those countries already have things that you've mentioned under control to a degree we do not? Possibly, but the simple fact that safety nets = lazy bums is not a valid point.

 

[chaseter]

Never said ALL. Increased access will always mean increased fraud. That's why I'm for work for welfare programs if you are able bodied. You already have to visit a doctor to be given disabled status. The same doctor could recommend status to work. Picking up trash along the road, sorting recyclables, janitorial work, customer service, etc. can all have a positive impact to your city and state.

 

[summerteeth]

Those are all valid points but the fact still stands there are numerous other countries with more social safety nets that have more men in the workforce. Now do those countries already have things that you've mentioned under control to a degree we do not? Possibly, but the simple fact that safety nets = lazy bums is not a valid point.

Too many factors to consider when comparing countries, the study you just posted basically came to the conclusion that lazy bums are part of the problem, a minor one but still and the prescriptions they give are really to curtail people being lulled into not working by the current welfare system.

 

[childeroland]

Is it possible a lot of them don't work long-term jobs but just an endless series of short-term ones (maybe as contractors rather than long-term employees) and those aren't counted?

 

[Donner]

I would be interested to see the stats on women. Maybe the men are staying home with the kids.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

Too many factors to consider when comparing countries, the study you just posted basically came to the conclusion that lazy bums are part of the problem, a minor one but still and the prescriptions they give are really to curtail people being lulled into not working by the current welfare system.

Another interesting point that I didn't think of, does this take into account the gig economy such as those doing freelance work or things like Uber? Or is it part of the underlying problem we've been seeing over the years where more and more folks just aren't working and aren't looking for work at all?

 

[chaseter]

It's probably only full time employees...which is still bad.

 

[Kelly]

Those are all valid points but the fact still stands there are numerous other countries with more social safety nets that have more men in the workforce. Now do those countries already have things that you've mentioned under control to a degree we do not? Possibly, but the simple fact that safety nets = lazy bums is not a valid point.

Doesn't matter how many social programs you have....when your welfare programs and unemployment programs lead you to "stay on" those programs rather than use them for what they are "a helping hand" then you have a problem.

The # of social programs doesn't matter, how those programs are run does.

 

[DeadPresident]

They're all sitting on social media making dank memes and eating their parents' food.

 

[Kelly]

And our "social programs" do not equal "lazy bums" but it encourages, creates and enables plenty of them...

 

[craigdbfan]

Those are all valid points but the fact still stands there are numerous other countries with more social safety nets that have more men in the workforce. Now do those countries already have things that you've mentioned under control to a degree we do not? Possibly, but the simple fact that safety nets = lazy bums is not a valid point.

I'm willing to bet those countries are A.) Almost completely homogeneous and B.) A lot smaller.

Diversity across all aspects of life in the United States is one of our biggest asset but it has also turned out to be its worst enemy.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

Study after study though has shown abuse of social programs is very low, almost negligible. The welfare queen is a BS myth, if any of you think you're living in the lap of luxury on food stamps or welfare you are sorely mistaken. I understand there are areas where the only option is for people to stay on social programs but that is more to do with their state (usually a GOP state funny enough) does not have enough opportunity for development due to mismanagement and, AGAIN, letting unfettered capitalism run wild.

 

[craigdbfan]

That is a tremendous lie. Living in Oakland I have witnessed people living better than those who work a minimum wage job on every single form of government assistance that isn't once denied to them.

Pretty gross to witness actually.

 

[Kelly]

Study after study though has shown abuse of social programs is very low, almost negligible. The welfare queen is a BS myth, if any of you think you're living in the lap of luxury on food stamps or welfare you are sorely mistaken. I understand there are areas where the only option is for people to stay on social programs but that is more to do with their state (usually a GOP state funny enough) does not have enough opportunity for development due to mismanagement and, AGAIN, letting unfettered capitalism run wild.

I'M NOT TALKING ABUSE....do you get that? I'm not talking FRAUD? I am talking the inherent way our system works. THE WELFARE PROGRAM, was NOT set up for families to LIVE ON IT, yet how it is implemented now they can. THAT ISN'T ABUSE, THAT ISN'T FRAUD, that is simply how it works today, and that DOES breed mediocrity, it is the same thing that is happening in our educational system today. There are SO MANY SAFETY NETS, that we are now churning out mediocrity. NO ONE IS ABUSING those system, they have simply become a part of them, and that should have never happened.

Our welfare system is no longer a last resort, it is now an option, and that is not a positive thing.

 

[Kelly]

You cannot buy these items on food stamps.....but you want to get a job to be able to buy the food on your own. Hmmmmmmm.....

1. Toilet paper. Nope. In fact, no paper products at all. They aren’t food, after all. No paper towels, no tissues, no napkins, no nothing. Though you can possibly use rags in lieu of paper towels, you have to wash them. Same with handkerchiefs and cloth napkins. What about toilet paper? Could you use rags and wash them? What if you don’t have a washer or dryer in your home? That brings us to the next item...
2. Laundry detergent. Again, this is not food. But buying decent detergent isn’t cheap. It is definitely something that is more cost-efficient if you buy the largest sizes, but then you have to lug it, not just home from the store but back and forth between home and the laundromat. And when it does go on sale, it is often a buy-one-get-one-free deal, which is terrific but means more lugging, or a special trip, which means more bus fare or gas in the car. But how do you live without laundry detergent?
3. Toothpaste, toothbrush, dental floss. Don’t tell your dentist that dental floss is a luxury item, but the fact is that people without dental insurance are often the ones least likely to be able to afford these items. I know people who won’t replace a toothbrush until they can find a freebie, because money is that tight. Yes, each time I visit my dentist, they offer me a new toothbrush, because they want them changed often. But if you don’t have dental insurance, you don’t get that offer. Toothpaste is another challenge. How fast does a family of four go through a tube, especially when kids don’t remember to squeeze from the bottom and use only a pea-sized amount? But you need clean teeth to be successful in school and work and society, not just because of bad breath but because dental health is critical to our well-being.
4. Soap. How do you survive without soap? If pushed, you could forego shampoo and just wash yourself entirely with soap. You could wash clothes with soap (not a good idea), and you could wash dishes with soap (also not a good idea). But how do you function, must less flourish, without access to soap? The least-pricey soap is often the worst — filled with chemicals, scents and sudsing agents, and not-so-filled with cleaning agents.
5. Diapers. Even under the best conditions, cloth diapers are expensive and time-consuming. And most daycares will not use them, so that’s not a viable alternative for most families. My friend Karen used to go to one grocery store, purchase some food and get a little cash back (back in the day), and then go to another store and do the same, and then go a third, and then finally have enough to purchase a package of diapers. She did this walking, with the baby in a stroller, year-round. Her husband worked. She worked when the kids were in school (before the baby came along). They just didn’t have enough cash to always buy diapers. She used handmade wipes. She potty-trained early. She did all the things you could possibly do and still spent hours of her day getting diapers.
6. Tampons and pads. This one often shocks people, especially women. I was 25 when I first learned that it was a reality: The women who came to the thrift store that I ran asked for rags, which they washed and used in lieu of disposable items. They then burned them or buried them, because they didn’t have the laundry detergent to get them clean again. Have you ever had a day when you didn’t have five on hand? What would you do if you got your period? What would you do if your 14-year-old got her period and it was a school night and you did not have any cash for another two days? I was a little older when I learned that for people who identify as genderfluid, genderqueer or trans, this can be an even more stigmatizing experience.
7. Deodorant. Luxury? Ask the person who works next to someone who doesn’t use deodorant. And then ask the person if they made a conscious choice or just didn’t have it. No, don’t ask them, because that’s shaming them. I remember being in the ninth-grade locker room and girls were very interested in what deodorants the others used. One girl didn’t use any, and some of the other girls teased her for being too physically immature to need it. In hindsight, I wonder if they missed the mark; maybe it just wasn’t in her family’s budget.
8. Hair-care products. In spite of what I wrote earlier, I don’t really think anyone should be forced to use soap to wash their hair. When you donate hair-care products, do you stop to think about including items that can be used on different types of hair? I mean, again, to function and flourish in our society, you need to have clean and well-maintained hair. It doesn’t have to be styled or kept in a certain way that makes other people feel comfortable; I’m just talking about each person having access to the fundamental tools they need to maintain their hair in the way that they desire in order to function in society, like shampoo and conditioner.
9. Cleaning products. You can’t buy these items with food stamps. But no matter where you live, you need some variation on these products. What do you do? Again, consider how they are transported. How many bags of cleaning supplies could you carry on the bus at one time? I used to buy cleaner at the dollar store, and it took twice as much if not more to clean as thoroughly as store brands would. Yes, you can use rags, but there are some things that really require a sponge, or a mop, not to mention replacement mop heads.
10. Lotion, powder, sunscreen, lip balm, etc. These might be considered luxuries. But what if you work outside all day? Then sunscreen isn’t so much a luxury as a health necessity. Foot powder can extend the life of your shoes and socks in addition to keeping your feet healthy. What about a jar of petroleum jelly to protect your lips and other spots? Rough, chapped hands can make it really hard to type all day or clean yet another bathroom at work.

AGAIN....that is not fraud, that is not the recipient of the food stamps do ANYTHING WRONG.....that is the inherent stupidity of the program itself.

 

[Schlosser85]

That is a tremendous lie. Living in Oakland I have witnessed people living better than those who work a minimum wage job on every single form of government assistance that isn't once denied to them.

Pretty gross to witness actually.

When I used to work at Kmart, there would be families who would use foodstamps for every scrap of food in their overflowing cart, and also buy video games that cost hundreds of dollars.

 

[Donner]

The city I live in is a suburb and quite expensive (taxes and whatnot) and the average household income $136,000. For some reason, the mayor approved low income housing in an area of the city. The houses are a complete eyesore and not maintained very well from the outside, but there are BMWs parked on the driveways. I would really like to know what the criteria was for the people eligible to live in these houses.

That being said, social programs are a necessity for any first world country. They're humane. But they have to be run well. It's like the Canadian government thinking they can absolve themselves from the guilt of the residential schools by throwing money at the chiefs of the tribes. It doesn't fix the problem of drug abuse, alcohol abuse, sexual abuse, physical abuse, etc on the reserves, but it makes the higher ups feel better. And the chiefs just take the money and buy themselves fancy houses. Social programs are the same. It's not enough to have them. They have to be intelligently implemented and maintained.

 

[Kelly]

Exactly.....it has absolutely nothing to do with citizens doing ANYTHING wrong....it has everything to do with HOW the system is written, and the criteria they have set. So, of course, there is no study that is going to show a major fraud problem. WHY WOULD IT, they don't need to defraud our welfare system....because it gives them an excellent opportunity to join in.


Also, the amount of child support payments that go unpaid is astounding today, and if the government would do its job in taking care of that problem, that would go a long way in getting many off of welfare that have children.