• 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

Sorry, but that's a point not made in the OP article. Nor is there any specific spotlight on white males.

So the graph I quoted was not reflective of our society's being closer to gender equality?
 
It is, but that's not the author's point.

Oh, so gender equality is a bad thing. Got it.

And so many men wonder why women think that most of us are jerks.
 
Oh, so gender equality is a bad thing. Got it.

And so many men wonder why women think that most of us are jerks.

No. Gender equality is a good thing, and no post of mine has suggested otherwise. You're debating against yourself.
 
No. Gender equality is a good thing, and no post of mine has suggested otherwise. You're debating against yourself.

And yet you very clearly said in the OP:

The percentage of men in the workforce continues to decline. I doubt this is a good thing.

So which is it? Is gender equality a good thing or not?
 
And yet you very clearly said in the OP:



So which is it? Is gender equality a good thing or not?

The percentage of men, as a subset of the whole male population. It has nothing to do with women in the workforce.
 
The percentage of men, as a subset of the whole male population.

Ohhhhh. You should have made that clearer. A comparison with the percentage of all women in the workforce over time would help address the following point:

It has nothing to do with women in the workforce.

Is it? Are you sure about that? Based on what statistics?
 
Ohhhhh. You should have made that clearer. A comparison with the percentage of all women in the workforce over time would help address the following point:



Is it? Are you sure about that? Based on what statistics?

The term "percentage of men in the workforce" is always in the context of the total male population. I conclude you don't deal with these statistics often.

Women are not part of the discussion. Their gains are their gains. Good for them.
 
The percentage of men in the workforce continues to decline. I doubt this is a good thing.

The labor-force catastropheBy George F. Will

The “quiet catastrophe” is particularly dismaying because it is so quiet, without social turmoil or even debate. It is this: After 88 consecutive months of the economic expansion that began in June 2009, a smaller percentage of American males in the prime working years (ages 25 to 54) are working than were working near the end of the Great Depression in 1940, when the unemployment rate was above 14 percent. If the labor-force participation rate were as high today as it was as recently as 2000, nearly 10 million more Americans would have jobs.
The work rate for adult men has plunged 13 percentage points in a half-century. This “work deficit” of “Great Depression-scale underutilization” of male potential workers is the subject of Nicholas Eberstadt’s new monograph “Men Without Work: America’s Invisible Crisis,” which explores the economic and moral causes and consequences of this:
Since 1948, the proportion of men 20 and older without paid work has more than doubled, to almost 32 percent. This “eerie and radical transformation” — men creating an “alternative lifestyle to the age-old male quest for a paying job” — is largely voluntary. Men who have chosento not seek work are two-and-a-half times more numerous than men who government statistics count as unemployed because they are seeking jobs. . . .

It is certainly a problem that has been growing. And it almost certainly has to do with changes in the structure of society, family and social programs.
 
The term "percentage of men in the workforce" is always in the context of the total male population. I conclude you don't deal with these statistics often.

Women are not part of the discussion. Their gains are their gains. Good for them.

If you cannot see what is seriously wrong with the highlighted statement, then you really shouldn't keep digging your hole any deeper.
 
If you cannot see what is seriously wrong with the highlighted statement, then you really shouldn't keep digging your hole any deeper.

The thread is about the declining percentage of men in the workforce, as a percentage of the total male population. If you want to assert that women's gains have something to do with that then please provide data.
 
The point of the Italy comparison was to show that US benefits cannot explain the US nonparticipation rate.
And yet US benefits are less than those of countries with higher participation. Thus the explanation must lie elsewhere.
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.
You can't keep yer story straight, first you claim Disability Benefits cannot explain the declines in participation rates....then you read over and over that it is the point both Will and Eberstadt are in fact making.....so you then need to create caveats neither author make to make your argument look less ignorant.

This is typical chit from you, your argument is clueless what the authors you cite are arguing, you get called out.....and then you start yer parsing and walking back yer argument. I know what both of these authors are arguing....and it all comes down to an argument to cut benefits using specious argument. You are just a lousy student who doesn't understand the talking points. For a "historian", yer a really lousy reader.
 
The thread is about the declining percentage of men in the workforce, as a percentage of the total male population. If you want to assert that women's gains have something to do with that then please provide data.
You already have "the data", I already provided it.
 
You can't keep yer story straight, first you claim Disability Benefits cannot explain the declines in participation rates....then you read over and over that it is the point both Will and Eberstadt are in fact making.....so you then need to create caveats neither author make to make your argument look less ignorant.

This is typical chit from you, your argument is clueless what the authors you cite are arguing, you get called out.....and then you start yer parsing and walking back yer argument. I know what both of these authors are arguing....and it all comes down to an argument to cut benefits using specious argument. You are just a lousy student who doesn't understand the talking points. For a "historian", yer a really lousy reader.

False. I like seeing you whip yourself into a frenzy. The fact is that data were presented. Reply with data or concede.
 
False. I like seeing you whip yourself into a frenzy. The fact is that data were presented. Reply with data or concede.
I don't need to, you are rejecting the "data" that underlies the argument your sources are using and the argument they make....you don't know the argument they are making.
 
No. You did not.
Yes. I did. You. Just. CANT. REMEMBER. A. DAMN. THING:


Eberstadt, noting that the 1996 welfare reform “brought millions of single mothers off welfare and into the workforce,” suggests that policy innovations that alter incentives can reverse the “social emasculation” of millions of idle men. Perhaps. Reversing social regression is more difficult than causing it. One manifestation of regression, Donald Trump, is perhaps perverse evidence that some of his army of angry men are at least healthily unhappy about the loss of meaning, self-esteem and masculinity that is a consequence of chosen and protracted idleness.​


LOL...US women were coming into the workforce long before 1996, as a matter of fact they only made up 26% in 1940, and now make up 60%...explaining some of the downward male levels (competition, caring for families...).

What is really funny is G. Will implying Trump male supporters are largely welfare recipients.
 
I don't need to, you are rejecting the "data" that underlies the argument your sources are using and the argument they make....you don't know the argument they are making.

Yes. I did. You. Just. CANT. REMEMBER. A. DAMN. THING:

Lower percentage in the workforce than in 1940. Bring data or be silent.
 
Lower percentage in the workforce than in 1940. Bring data or be silent.
Do you intentionally mislead yourself or is it just a habit?

You claimed (in post 65) I did not provide data on women entering the workforce, I did (in the reposted quote) and gave reasons on how that affect males.

I have no idea what "Lower percentage in the workforce than in 1940. Bring data or be silent." means.
 
Do you intentionally mislead yourself or is it just a habit?

You claimed (in post 65) I did not provide data on women entering the workforce, I did (in the reposted quote) and gave reasons on how that affect males.

I have no idea what "Lower percentage in the workforce than in 1940. Bring data or be silent." means.

It was in the OP. Lower percentage of men in the workforce than in 1940. Women in the workforce are irrelevant.
 
It was in the OP. Lower percentage of men in the workforce than in 1940. Women in the workforce are irrelevant.
To you, not to the argument....which you continue to display a near complete ignorance of.
 
Sorry, but you don't get to debate your own strawman.
If you or the authors do not accept that women entering the workforce have had an effect on the number of men in the workforce, it is not our fault. It has an effect as I and others have noted. It is a legitimate, rational explanation for part of the male decline. It exists, your denial of the effect has no bearing on if it is real.
 
The percentage of men in the workforce continues to decline. I doubt this is a good thing.

The labor-force catastropheBy George F. Will

The “quiet catastrophe” is particularly dismaying because it is so quiet, without social turmoil or even debate. It is this: After 88 consecutive months of the economic expansion that began in June 2009, a smaller percentage of American males in the prime working years (ages 25 to 54) are working than were working near the end of the Great Depression in 1940, when the unemployment rate was above 14 percent. If the labor-force participation rate were as high today as it was as recently as 2000, nearly 10 million more Americans would have jobs.
The work rate for adult men has plunged 13 percentage points in a half-century. This “work deficit” of “Great Depression-scale underutilization” of male potential workers is the subject of Nicholas Eberstadt’s new monograph “Men Without Work: America’s Invisible Crisis,” which explores the economic and moral causes and consequences of this:
Since 1948, the proportion of men 20 and older without paid work has more than doubled, to almost 32 percent. This “eerie and radical transformation” — men creating an “alternative lifestyle to the age-old male quest for a paying job” — is largely voluntary. Men who have chosento not seek work are two-and-a-half times more numerous than men who government statistics count as unemployed because they are seeking jobs. . . .




Not as much motivation as there once was. The Gubmint won't let you starve... marriage lacks its former appeal, so WTF bother building a well-feathered nest... etc...
 
If you or the authors do not accept that women entering the workforce have had an effect on the number of men in the workforce, it is not our fault. It has an effect as I and others have noted. It is a legitimate, rational explanation for part of the male decline. It exists, your denial of the effect has no bearing on if it is real.

If you believe that is so then please provide data to support your claim.
 
Back
Top Bottom