The Rise of Men Who Don’t Work, and What They Do Instead

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/12/upshot/the-rise-of-men-who-dont-work-and-what-they-do-instead.html?WT.mc_id=2015-MAY-WCASeq-UPSHOT&WT.mc_ev=click&ad-keywords=WCARETARG

by zwei • 11 years ago

117 141 11 years ago

nytimes.com

Retric• 11 years ago

What about prison? It's ~1% of the adult populaion.

bryanlarsen4• 11 years ago

(People in the military, prison and institutions are excluded from these figures.)

belorn• 11 years ago

Why isn't the military counted as part of the work force? its not like people are drafted into it in the US.

kidsthesedays8• 11 years ago

Ummm... didn't you read the article?

(People in the military, prison and institutions are excluded from these figures.)

ohitsdom• 11 years ago

If you count imprisoned men, do you count those who work while being jailed? Seems like it's too convoluted to be included in this metric, though certainly worth noting.

mahouse• 11 years ago

~1% of the adult population? Whoa.

jkyle3• 11 years ago

As others noted, they're excluded from the study.

But if you're shocked at 1%, 2.9% are in jail or on probation or parole. They are mostly non-violent offenders. Laws are unequally applied toward African Americans at a ratio of about 10 to 1 (when accounting for incidences of the illegal behavior in each population) with African Americans receiving 60% longer sentences than whites for the same crime.

Prisoners are then put to work in industrial manufacturing for as little as 18c/hr and as much (ha) as $1.50/hr. The prison manufactures are guaranteed to win any government bid, regardless of whether their bid is higher than competitors.

Sorry for the tangent, pet peeve.

AlexC04• 11 years ago

Or 5% of the black adult male population in the United States. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistics_of_incarcerated_Afri... and a 30% chance of being in prison over a lifetime http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/aug/19/usa.garyyounge

bryanlarsen4• 11 years ago

Perhaps the more interesting question since the prison population is excluded: what about ex-cons? Ex-cons have a much more difficult finding work for a variety of reasons, and I believe that ex-cons as a percentage of the work force is significantly more than it used to be. So how much of the rise of non-working males is due to the rise in the number of ex-cons?

nhaehnle• 11 years ago

You have to wonder which of those trends are "secular" (in the economics sense) and which are indirect causes of high unemployment.

The article already hints at this: Apart from the young cohort (until mid-20s), the rise in men going to school is probably less about an increased desire for education and more about an inability to find work. More men caring for their families may be a good thing (increasing equality between men and women in practice), but it may also be a symptom of high unemployment. And is it really plausible that more men are disabled today compared to 15 years ago? It seems more plausible that there is a grey area of disability, and a bad economy drives more men in this grey area to apply for disability benefits.

jxf2• 11 years ago

And is it really plausible that more men are disabled today compared to 15 years ago?

Yes, that seems plausible to me. For example, there have been a number of combat operations the intervening 15 years; if someone left the military due to injury, they would be counted in the disability figures, but not in the employment ones. NPR did a big story on the factors behind this a while ago:

http://apps.npr.org/unfit-for-work/

Another big factor is that states are incentivized to move people off of welfare (which the individual states pay for) onto disability (which the nation pays for through Social Security). So a rise in disabled workers has also coincided with a decline of people on welfare -- it's just private companies shuffling people around without improving their condition.

To be fair, the NPR article was not without controversy. A number of groups objected to the way it was presented, including former Social Security commissioners.

http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2013/04/18/177745599/forme...

megaman22• 11 years ago

The numbers of disabled combat veterans are a tragedy, but they are really a drop in the bucket compared to the wider population. The numbers of people that have some medical condition that would allow them to work a job, if such jobs were available, is where the meat of that increase comes in. Then you have the perverse incentives by which someone on the low end of the pay scale can take a job, and be much worse off than if they stay on the dole, due to various other support programs getting cut off (free health care, fuel assistance, SNAP benefits, etc).

derekp7• 11 years ago

You can be disabled and still be able to do some types of work. But if the only kind of work that is available requires a strong health body (no chronic health issues), then going on disability is appropriate.

rayiner• 11 years ago

I think the article assumes too much that college is just a way to get a job. Culturally, it's also a luxury good--an extended bit of adolescence with lots of socializing. And it's something that as a society we have tried to make possible for larger swaths of society, through guaranteed student loans, etc.

You're right on the point about disability, though.

humanrebar• 11 years ago

And is it really plausible that more men are disabled today compared to 15 years ago?

Sure. The population is much older than it was 15 years ago.

I wouldn't care to speculate whether that makes up all the difference, but having a disability and trying to overcome ageism at the same time sounds pretty brutal.

djrogers• 11 years ago

Except that the 50% growth has occurred in a specific age window (~20-55), and not just the population as a whole.

Something hinky is going on here - we live in a bubble-wrapped safety-first society, yet disabilities jump 50% in 15 years?

m-i-l• 11 years ago

See also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8738646 from December

bluedino• 11 years ago

The author doesn't even mention how many more women are in the workforce as compared to 1950.

The main loss here is the exodus of manufacturing jobs. No simple way around it.

beat• 11 years ago

Loss of farming jobs is actually a much bigger factor than loss of manufacturing. Farm-related employment has dropped massively. In 1880, 49% of Americans worked on farms. Today, it's just 2%.

k-mcgrady• 11 years ago

How many of those jobs transferred from farming to manufacturing though? If all farm workers who lost jobs transferred into manufacturing then the loss is from manufacturing as the parent says.

angersock• 11 years ago

I'd like to see that as a function of land and population.

I'm willing to wager that, because there's only so much land and crops, there's only so much demand for labor--unless you want like one person per bushel or something silly. Meanwhile, the rest of the population continued to grow.

notacoward2• 11 years ago

It would indeed be interesting to see the corresponding charts for female employment, and whether there are any correlations between the two. I'll bet there are, and further that any discussion of their possible significance would make someone deeply uncomfortable.

jxf2• 11 years ago

Why do you think that the presence of a correlation would be uncomfortable?

bhritchie• 11 years ago

This article was part of a series back in December. At least one of the articles was about women: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/14/upshot/us-employment-women...

Dewie32• 11 years ago

Nice numbers, but what's the point? Times they are a changin'?

ghettoCoder• 11 years ago

Not sure why you're getting downvoted for this. The fact is that individuals act in ways so as to maximize their allocation and use of resources within a particular set of social mores is not new. The fact that social mores change over time to reflect resource abundance, mate availability, technology, life expectancy etc... is also not new.

Times they are a changin', always have been, always will.

M8• 11 years ago

Partially related to having a family becoming more risky for men. If you are not protected in case of a separation, you are less likely to want to commit to a family. If there is no family, there is less motivation to earn more.

andreyf3• 11 years ago

What do you mean by "not protected in case of a separation"?

enraged_camel2• 11 years ago

He's referring to the fact that men lose a significant portion (usually half, sometimes more) of their financial assets during divorce. Protection in this case refers to signing certain agreements before or during marriage.

jkyle3• 11 years ago

I think unicorns are also playing a role. Unicorns are monopolizing rainbows and without rainbows men cannot find the will to work.

Both of our comments are completely random, uncited, and not even mentioned in the article.

A_COMPUTER• 11 years ago

Some men will get stable work so they can sustain a family. If they don't think it's worth it to have a family, maybe they don't care as much about having a stable job. And more men are deciding it's not worth it. I don't know if it's true, but I can see the connection. I would be doing things a lot differently if I didn't have people I needed to take care of.

matthewmacleod• 11 years ago

I find that a pretty suspect statement, and I'm not sure I've ever encountered any man who's decided to avoid starting a family for that reason.

throwawayaway2• 11 years ago

nice to meet you, might not tell you in person though. that sort of info can wreak havoc - i hope you understand.

caseysoftware8• 11 years ago

The numbers are there to support it. I don't believe it's getting widespread coverage because it's considered anti-feminist to believe that women want to find a man to marry or have kids. Look at how Joss Whedon was thrashed for having Black Widow even suggest that.

Check out "Men on Strike" by Helen Smith. She highlights the trends and proposed a number of theories to explain it.

BurnWhenRead• 11 years ago

I am one of those people, to an extent. Or rather, I largely avoid the dating scene because of the dangers involved.

Up to and including paying child support for someone who isn't even yours. Or paying child support for a child resulting from you being raped.

And there's no way around it currently. Currently, even if both parties agree, there's no way for them to actually form a binding agreement. It's gotten to the point where prenuptials are essentially useless. They are far too easily thrown out.

However, I would not tell you as such in person unless specifically asked, and possibly not even then. It's a good way to get ostracized.

Though there's also a moral component for me, but that is another matter.

brc• 11 years ago

I know you're getting marked down for this, but I have read other articles talking about the withdrawal of men from the dating/marriage marketplace. I think it is a growing phenomonen for men to drop out like that.

mrev19• 11 years ago

True. See the 'MWGTOW' (Men Who Go Their Own Way) movement, as well as 'the red pill' community. Also search 'sexodus'.

tomjen33• 11 years ago

That is a concern for me, but I don't know if that is widespread (enough for people to not start a family over it) but I am concerned that it is one of those memes that could hit a tresshold and spread very rapidly, (don't date robots comes to mind). That said my treckrecord of predicting the future isn't very good.

petercooper• 11 years ago

In the Bay Area, I imagine quite a few are VCs.

nodata• 11 years ago

Because everyone must do something!

Dewie32• 11 years ago

Well, men have to according to most people.

jasonkester• 11 years ago

It seems a lot more possible these days, both socially and economically, to go into "partial retirement" at around age 30.

Developers can pull this off without much effort. 2-20X the pay for our work, little expectation of company loyalty nor stigma for resume gaps or job hopping, crazy skewed market to ensure that a new contract is only a Facebook/LinkedIn/Twitter update away. Why would anybody spend their 30s not taking several months a year off in that situation?

Naturally, I'm biased a bit, since that was me for a dozen years or so. But there aught to be a skinny little blue line on that chart for us. And I bet it's a lot less skinny today than it was back when I started doing it.

Omniusaspirer5• 11 years ago

There's a subreddit dedicated to this idea, although I warn you it's largely terrible.

http://www.reddit.com/r/financialindependence

Basically the only reason most people struggle financially in the US is due to their own financial illiteracy and living above their means. If you manage not to fall victim to either of those then you can save a substantial portion of your income towards a very early retirement should you choose to do so.

Kids are pricey though, so this approach is most viable for those who've eschewed the traditional family.

Rapzid• 11 years ago

Mr Money Mustache also also comes to mind. It's too late for my 30s being 31, but this stuff has really woken me up and I'm shooting for FIRE close to 40.

fweespeech4• 11 years ago

Basically the only reason most people struggle financially in the US is due to their own financial illiteracy and living above their means. If you manage not to fall victim to either of those then you can save a substantial portion of your income towards a very early retirement should you choose to do so.

That is really only true for households above the median income.

So "most" is not a factual statement. About half of the country can save [at most] a few thousand dollars a year unless they want to ruin their health and take other risks that are essentially gambling.

That is part of what pisses me off about /r/financialindependence. Alot of the "suggestions" those people make are essentially gambling. [e.g. going without proper insurance coverage, high risk investments if you cannot save much due to income, eat unhealthy to save money which will cost you later] Or they assume you are making $60k a year so you can save $20k/year. You can't save $20k/year if you are making $30k.

zachalexander• 11 years ago

What is terrible about the subreddit? Your following paragraph ("Basically...") sounds very reasonable.

learnstats23• 11 years ago

People on or below median income (i.e. "most people") live above their means, because they have little choice.

jseliger• 11 years ago

Basically the only reason most people struggle financially in the US is due to their own financial illiteracy and living above their means

We've also chosen, collectively and as a society, to make a lot of high-productivity places artificially expensive: http://www.amazon.com/Rent-Too-Damn-High-Matters-ebook/dp/B0...

Clanan• 11 years ago

As a parent I've found that "kids are pricey" can easily stem from financial illiteracy as well. It's easier than people think to have kids and not blow the budget. Don't go crazy on Christmas gifts, limit eating out, buy secondhand clothes (which are usually in great condition), etc.

We always chuckle when our friends talk about how expensive their kids are, right before mentioning their three cross-country trips. Financial literacy can apply to child-rearing too!

peter3033• 11 years ago

If you get a good job and continue to live the "student lifestyle", that is fairly frugal and single, you can probably save boatloads of money and take time off. If you want to raise a family or like spending money, that wont work for you.

droidist2• 11 years ago

True, or get a spouse that's not also down for living the student lifestyle. So often this screws things up.

logicallee• 11 years ago

anyone else spot the patriarchy hiding in the blank line between the first and second paragraph? (and through the rest of the article.) i.e. when the author goes from talking about people to talking about men?

like, shouldn't there be some transition, explanation, or...something? The first paragraph made perfect sense on it's own, and then it's off to talk to about men.

Anyway, seriously... "why male models" (why men)?

return0• 11 years ago

Yes i agree there is an offensive undertone. Why should men work as much as they did? More women are now working thus men are resting more.

natrius• 11 years ago

Men are used in these statistics because the labor participation of women in the workforce varies over time due to varying birth rates and cultural change. If you're trying to look at economic trends, it's easier if you start by ignoring women.

adamjernst• 11 years ago

Because it's part of a series: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/12/upshot/our-series-on-the-d...

With an entirely separate article on women: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/14/upshot/us-employment-women...

Don't assume the worst!

kuyfiuyg• 11 years ago

Well, it is an article about a specific subset of the population, namely men...

nraynaud3• 11 years ago

I am not currently working, I guess that leaves some space for women or under-represented people to work the job I would hold.

bryanlarsen4• 11 years ago

Jobs are not a zero-sum game. If you were working, you'd be spending more money so more jobs would be available. And the money you are spending is either coming from the other people's taxes, decreasing the number of jobs available, or it's coming from your savings, which reduces your banks float, which decreases the number of jobs available.

nraynaud3• 11 years ago

I don't know if this line of reasoning works for the subset of CS management jobs.

cryoshon• 11 years ago

Uhh, I'm not sure that this article is useful.

Plenty of the "men who don't work" are simply unemployed but are not counted on the unemployment numbers because they've been unemployed for a long time. This population isn't depicted in the article, which looks like a major oversight.

The only reason that there was a "rise of men who don't work" is that there was an economic collapse which we haven't recovered from, and possibly won't ever recover from by the pre-crash definitions of recovery.

taivare• 11 years ago

A father in despair , who had recently lost his employment , made this statement with his three young kids behind him .." if they make the pole to greasy .. people will stop trying to climb it " .

amyjess• 11 years ago

Have to wonder how many of them are people who just moved back in with their parents and gave up after they lost their jobs in the Great Recession and spent years trying and failing to find a job with no success.

peter3033• 11 years ago

The first graph animation is kind of distraction. the 2nd graph of the difference in time explains it better.

peter3033• 11 years ago

The labor-particpation-rate of working taxpayers fell about 7% (relative to itself 1-.63/.68) during the 21st century. This means fewer people paying social security taxes and three major programs those taxes support. This graph tries to explain what happened. Its was blamed on old people retiring early or becoming disabled. However, decreased working is spread across all age groups.

joshuaheard• 11 years ago

How can one be "retired" at age 16?

smanuel• 11 years ago

...and What They Do Instead

entrepreneurs?

mskd432223• 11 years ago

I'm probably considered one of these 'men who doesn't work'.

I finished my Bachelor's in Spring 2009 in finance, right after the collapse and took the first shitty job I could find. After a couple more finance related positions, I decided I needed to be doing something different and started teaching myself CS, Math, Stats.

I built a few moderately successful iPhone apps, enrolled in Harvard Extension's distance courses. The past couple years have been me teaching myself, taking distance courses, and doing contract work now and then.

I'm a decent programmer and built some pretty cool things.

I'm in the Bay Area (East Bay) and live in a crappy apartment and burning through what is left of my savings. I don't have a job. I don't have contract work. I don't have friends that work in the industry and grew up fairly poor.

Not asking for a 'pity-party', I guess I'm not sure what the next step is and feel disillusioned and paralyzed. I've never had a real job in Tech, I don't have credentials and not sure where to get started.

astrange• 11 years ago

I think you're already well positioned to get interviews. Most people don't have published iOS apps nor do they already live in the Bay, so you should be able to get something out of whatever the hot jobs site is these days.

The Rise of Men Who Don’t Work, and What They Do Instead

Related Stories