• 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

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,823
Reaction score
28,342
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
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. . . .
 
Its always good to see Will out there selling books for his friends at the American Enterprise Institute.

Lemme guess, the solution is.....lower taxes?
 
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.
 
Its always good to see Will out there selling books for his friends at the American Enterprise Institute.

Lemme guess, the solution is.....lower taxes?

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.

Please keep up the know-nothing barrage. It's amusing.
 
Please keep up the know-nothing barrage. It's amusing.
Know-nothing? How ironic.

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.
 
Know-nothing? How ironic.

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.

The know-nothing tirade continues. . . .
 
Funny how this is a crisis...when it starts to impact white males.
Who said the impact was exclusively on white males?
Derp...."starts to" implies others were impacted prior.

and even Will, as I already pointed out, made the distinction with Trump supporters.

Dont you know anything?
 
it's a librull plot to emasculate the american white man

derpp
 
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.
 
Funny how this is a crisis...when it starts to impact white males.
Derp...."starts to" implies others were impacted prior.

and even Will, as I already pointed out, made the distinction with Trump supporters.

Dont you know anything?

it's a librull plot to emasculate the american white man

derpp

Deflections from the issue. You can't oppose data with invective.
 
Deflections from the issue. You can't oppose data with invective.
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.
 
There are also more retirees as a percentage of the population than ever, you know people counted as working-age population but do not participate in the labour-force.
 
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.

Men staying at home doesn't even get close to explaining the issue. At the moment sixteen percent of the stay at home population is dads, so no, that doesn't explain it. You're also ignoring completely why people stay at home, which like it or not the job market is one such reason.
 
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's a librull plot to emasculate the american white man

derpp

Men staying at home quite literally emasculates men. You should probably learn what parenting to that level does to men before you comment back. Oh and yes, I'm talking about biologically proven consequences to the action.
 
Last edited:
This statement is so full of ****.

Actually it's not in the slightest. Parenting lowers a mans testosterone. A man that stays at home will have lower levels than a man that works and is a dad and good bit less than a man that doesn't parent children at all. In reality parenting emasculates men on a hormonal level by raising estrogen levels and lowering testosterone levels. Science is fun, ain't it?
 
This comes as a shock when we've continually shipped our manufacturing jobs overseas leaving more and more service sector jobs to remain?
 
Not in the hands of people like you that don't understand it, it isn't.

Considering that I didn't make any errors in my statement I have no idea what you're talking about. :shrug:

Parenting emasculates men. That's a proven scientific fact rather you like it or not.
 
Last edited:
On the emasculation part I 100% agree with you.

But there are in fact numerous studies that show fathers have lower levels of testosterone.

Why Fathers Have Lower Levels of Testosterone | TIME.com

But that doesn't mean being a father is somehow depriving a man of his male strength/role.

Umm..it kind does mean that, you know. And how is it possible that men becoming more involved in parenting to the point where the roles in the relationship have flipped not taking their role from them?
 
Back
Top Bottom