• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Decline in Male Workforce Participation

Umm..it kind does mean that, you know.

Umm...no it doesn't. Being a father doesn't somehow make you less masculine.

And how is it possible that men becoming more involved in parenting to the point taking the role of women somehow not take their role from them?

You are thinking in terms of traditional gender roles.
 
Umm...no it doesn't. Being a father doesn't somehow make you less masculine.

Lower testosterone levels and higher estrogen levels does it fact make you less masculine. The behavioral and emotional differences caused by the hormonal shift make the man more capable of taking up the role.

You are thinking in terms of traditional gender roles.

So? If you look at the progression from then to now it would seem some men are assuming the role that women once had. In fact, the society as whole seems to be attempting to flip the roles on men.
 
Last edited:
I already spoke to the AEI "data"...and what the AEI solution is:


The solution is "welfare" cuts, which leads to....wait for it....tax cuts.

The whole "disability benefits are causing lower worker participation" myth was debunked long ago, it is only found as a talking point within rw "think" tanks.

But hey, lets keep the neoliberal macro dream coming, keep lowering taxes, keep defunding state education, let the wealthy keep more of "their" wealth......and you are just going to keep getting more white males not finding meaningful employment. Funny how this is a crisis...when it starts to impact white males.



You never countered my response, you answered with "invective".

Ironic and derpy.

Actually, you dodged the OP data and responded to a strawman of your own making. The author explicitly excludes benefits as a cause.

The U.S. economy is not less robust, and its welfare provisions not more generous, than those of the 22 other affluent nations of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. Yet the United States ranks 22nd, ahead of only Italy, in 25-to-54 male labor-force participation. Eberstadt calls this “unwelcome ‘American Exceptionalism.’ ”
 
One of my best friends from high school doesn't work. His wife does. He takes care of the house and their kid. Everyone is happy. I fail to see the issue.

That's fine. Such arrangements are not common enough to explain the numbers.
 
Parenting emasculates men. That's a proven scientific fact rather you like it or not.

facedesk.png


So what you're saying is, to be a real manly man, don't be a parent.
And science proves this.
 
facedesk.png


So what you're saying is, to be a real manly man, don't be a parent.
And science proves this.

Science does in fact prove that parenting is bad for men, yes. It changes their brain and their hormone levels to be more feminine to increase their parental abilities. Of course, it does similar things to women, but well, they're women in the first place, so a good thing in this regard.
 
Science does in fact prove that parenting is bad for men, yes. It changes their brain and their hormone levels to be more feminine to increase their parental abilities. Of course, it does similar things to women, but well, they're women in the first place, so a good thing in this regard.

So if a man's brain gets a little more feminine because he cares for his children, that's a bad thing ?
And if a woman works in construction, does her estrogen level lower ? Her brain gets more masculine ?

Ok.

Who gives a **** ?
 
So if a man's brain gets a little more feminine because he cares for his children, that's a bad thing ?
And if a woman works in construction, does her estrogen level lower ? Her brain gets more masculine ?

Ok.

Who gives a **** ?

I wouldn't imagine construction has any effect on the hormones of women.

It is of course a bad thing for a man's testosterone levels to lower, his estrogen levels to increase and his brain be altered to be more feminine. I don't see why anyone would disagree with that.
 
It is of course a bad thing for a man's testosterone levels to lower, his estrogen levels to increase and his brain be altered to be more feminine. I don't see why anyone would disagree with that.

Why exactly ? Is a female brain really so terrible ?
 
Why exactly ? Is a female brain really so terrible ?

You are a man, you know. It doesn't make much sense to desire to be more feminine. Besides science has also shown that men aren't even needed in the raising of children.
 
You are a man, you know. It doesn't make much sense to desire to be more feminine. Besides science has also shown that men aren't even needed in the raising of children.

The man who decides to raise his children doesn't necessarly desire to be more feminine. He just wants to take care of his kids. I don't see anything wrong with that.

I'm comfortable enough with my masculinity that I don't find it necessary to question others.
 
The man who decides to raise his children doesn't necessarly desire to be more feminine. He just wants to take care of his kids. I don't see anything wrong with that.

I'm comfortable enough with my masculinity that I don't find it necessary to question others.

I agree with you. That said, I'd just point out this tangent is not the point of the OP, which points to a phenomenon well beyond decisions to stay home with children.
 
The man who decides to raise his children doesn't necessarly desire to be more feminine. He just wants to take care of his kids. I don't see anything wrong with that.

I'm comfortable enough with my masculinity that I don't find it necessary to question others.

What their motivations happen to be doesn't change the reality of the situation. When they decide to stay at home with their children they are negatively impacting their body.
 
It is of course a bad thing for a man's testosterone levels to lower, his estrogen levels to increase and his brain be altered to be more feminine. I don't see why anyone would disagree with that.

I work from home and take care of more "parenting" responsibilities than my wife does.

If you messed with my wife, my kids, or my home I'd still kick the snot out of you or shoot you in the face, whichever.

Apparently your theory has some holes?
 
Actually, you dodged the OP data and responded to a strawman of your own making. The author explicitly excludes benefits as a cause.

The U.S. economy is not less robust, and its welfare provisions not more generous, than those of the 22 other affluent nations of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. Yet the United States ranks 22nd, ahead of only Italy, in 25-to-54 male labor-force participation. Eberstadt calls this “unwelcome ‘American Exceptionalism.’ ”
That is not excluding it as a cause, it is saying that in his mind we are making the same "mistake" as the EU, providing benefits that are too generous and too easily obtained..... those are the main causes for the declining white male participation rates:


Eberstadt does not say that government assistance causes this, but obviously it finances it. To some extent, however, this is a distinction without a difference. In a 2012 monograph, Eberstadt noted that in 1960 there were 134 workers for every one officially certified as disabled; by 2010, there were just over 16. Between January 2010 and December 2011, while the economy produced 1.73 million non-farm jobs, almost half as many workers became disability recipients. This, even though work is less stressful and the workplace is safer than ever.

Largely because of government benefits and support by other family members, nonworking men ages 25 to 54 have household expenditures a third higher than the average of people in the bottom income quintile. Hence, Eberstadt says, they “appear to be better off than tens of millions of other Americans today, including the millions of single mothers who are either working or seeking work.”

Dont you even read YOUR OWN FRIGGING SOURCE MATERIAL?
 
Actually, you dodged the OP data and responded to a strawman of your own making. The author explicitly excludes benefits as a cause.

The U.S. economy is not less robust, and its welfare provisions not more generous, than those of the 22 other affluent nations of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. Yet the United States ranks 22nd, ahead of only Italy, in 25-to-54 male labor-force participation. Eberstadt calls this “unwelcome ‘American Exceptionalism.’ ”

And just to note, G Will used this same argument, citing the same author, 4 years ago:

As evidence of the moral costs, Eberstadt cites the fact that means-tested entitlement recipience has not merely been destigmatized, it has been celebrated as a basic civil right. Hence the stunning growth of supposed disabilities. The normalization and then celebration of dependency help explain the “unprecedented exit from gainful work by adult men.”

Since 1948, male labor force participation has plummeted from 89 percent to 73 percent. Today, 27 percent of adult men do not consider themselves part of the workforce: “A large part of the jobs problem for American men today is not wanting one.” Which is why “labor force participation ratios for men in the prime of life are lower in America than in Europe.”​


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...083ca97c314_story.html?utm_term=.2a5e934de32b
 
That is not excluding it as a cause, it is saying that in his mind we are making the same "mistake" as the EU, providing benefits that are too generous and too easily obtained..... those are the main causes for the declining white male participation rates:


Eberstadt does not say that government assistance causes this, but obviously it finances it. To some extent, however, this is a distinction without a difference. In a 2012 monograph, Eberstadt noted that in 1960 there were 134 workers for every one officially certified as disabled; by 2010, there were just over 16. Between January 2010 and December 2011, while the economy produced 1.73 million non-farm jobs, almost half as many workers became disability recipients. This, even though work is less stressful and the workplace is safer than ever.

Largely because of government benefits and support by other family members, nonworking men ages 25 to 54 have household expenditures a third higher than the average of people in the bottom income quintile. Hence, Eberstadt says, they “appear to be better off than tens of millions of other Americans today, including the millions of single mothers who are either working or seeking work.”

Dont you even read YOUR OWN FRIGGING SOURCE MATERIAL?

The point of the Italy comparison was to show that US benefits cannot explain the US nonparticipation rate.
 
And just to note, G Will used this same argument, citing the same author, 4 years ago:

As evidence of the moral costs, Eberstadt cites the fact that means-tested entitlement recipience has not merely been destigmatized, it has been celebrated as a basic civil right. Hence the stunning growth of supposed disabilities. The normalization and then celebration of dependency help explain the “unprecedented exit from gainful work by adult men.”

Since 1948, male labor force participation has plummeted from 89 percent to 73 percent. Today, 27 percent of adult men do not consider themselves part of the workforce: “A large part of the jobs problem for American men today is not wanting one.” Which is why “labor force participation ratios for men in the prime of life are lower in America than in Europe.”​


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...083ca97c314_story.html?utm_term=.2a5e934de32b

And yet US benefits are less than those of countries with higher participation. Thus the explanation must lie elsewhere.
 
FYI, male participation in the labor force has been declining for as long as they've kept track. I.e. since 1948.

fredgraph.png

(*cough* Thanks, Obama)

It is very interesting that the OP mourns the march to equal opportunity as a bad thing. Oh those oppressed white males! :roll:
 
That is not excluding it as a cause, it is saying that in his mind we are making the same "mistake" as the EU, providing benefits that are too generous and too easily obtained..... those are the main causes for the declining white male participation rates:


Eberstadt does not say that government assistance causes this, but obviously it finances it. To some extent, however, this is a distinction without a difference. In a 2012 monograph, Eberstadt noted that in 1960 there were 134 workers for every one officially certified as disabled; by 2010, there were just over 16. Between January 2010 and December 2011, while the economy produced 1.73 million non-farm jobs, almost half as many workers became disability recipients. This, even though work is less stressful and the workplace is safer than ever.

Largely because of government benefits and support by other family members, nonworking men ages 25 to 54 have household expenditures a third higher than the average of people in the bottom income quintile. Hence, Eberstadt says, they “appear to be better off than tens of millions of other Americans today, including the millions of single mothers who are either working or seeking work.”

Dont you even read YOUR OWN FRIGGING SOURCE MATERIAL?

And just to note, G Will used this same argument, citing the same author, 4 years ago:

As evidence of the moral costs, Eberstadt cites the fact that means-tested entitlement recipience has not merely been destigmatized, it has been celebrated as a basic civil right. Hence the stunning growth of supposed disabilities. The normalization and then celebration of dependency help explain the “unprecedented exit from gainful work by adult men.”

Since 1948, male labor force participation has plummeted from 89 percent to 73 percent. Today, 27 percent of adult men do not consider themselves part of the workforce: “A large part of the jobs problem for American men today is not wanting one.” Which is why “labor force participation ratios for men in the prime of life are lower in America than in Europe.”​


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...083ca97c314_story.html?utm_term=.2a5e934de32b

In trying to understand the US situation there is no reason not to consider benefit levels as a contributing cause, but the author has also made clear that can't be the whole answer. Unless you have a serious ideological ax to grind I don't see how anyone can consider that unreasonable.
 
It is very interesting that the OP mourns the march to equal opportunity as a bad thing. Oh those oppressed white males! :roll:

I don't imagine you realize when women entered the workforce, do you? Of course, I'm not blaming women entering the workplace for it, but I have no doubt it played a part.
 
I don't imagine you realize when women entered the workforce, do you? Of course, I'm not blaming women entering the workplace for it, but I have no doubt it played a part.

They enter it every single day.
 
They enter it every single day.

That's not an answer, you know. If you knew the answer you would realize how the two have a correlation.
 
It is very interesting that the OP mourns the march to equal opportunity as a bad thing. Oh those oppressed white males! :roll:

Sorry, but that's a point not made in the OP article. Nor is there any specific spotlight on white males.
 
That's not an answer, you know. If you knew the answer you would realize how the two have a correlation.

You asked a question and I gave the answer. Too bad if it doesn't fit a particular narrative.
 
Back
Top Bottom