
When Factory Jobs Vanish, Men Become Less Desirable Partners - hunglee2
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/03/manufacturing-marriage-family/518280/?utm_content=buffer73ece&utm_medium=social&utm_source=linkedin.com&utm_campaign=buffer&amp;single_page=true
======
watwut
"They found that manufacturing declines significantly affected the supply of
what they termed “marriageable” men—men who are not drinking or using drugs
excessively and who have a job. (...) the numbers of marriageable men relative
to women declined, because men had migrated elsewhere, joined the military, or
fallen out of the labor force."

How many in which category? The article treats men who moved away as the same
problem as being junkie. Social problems like alcoholism and drugs are talked
about as if they would be same as being unemployed. It is odd conflation, it
is not the same, not even nearly.

~~~
taurath
Tells you how far society would have to go to ever accept able bodied people
not working for a living.

~~~
Razengan
The root problem seems to be that we have made money (or rather, the ability
to make some) an ends instead of a means.

I don't know how all of the 8 billion people on this planet can be expected to
meaningfully contribute to something (that can't be done better and more
cheaply for everyone by automation) and "earn" their money, without seriously
crippling technological advancement (e.g. the advent of self-driving vehicles,
or robot lawyers/doctors.)

~~~
77pt77
This means that on a societal level we will probably implement some kind of
artificial scarcity or even make belief work.

The later is in a way already happening just to keep unemployed people
occupied:

Have a look at Potemkin economy:

[http://davidstockmanscontracorner.com/frances-potemkin-
econo...](http://davidstockmanscontracorner.com/frances-potemkin-economy-fake-
companies-fake-jobs-fake-propserity/)

> Candelia is one of a number of so-called “Potemkin” companies operating in
> France.

> Everything about these entities is imaginary from the customers, to the
> supply chain, to the banks, to the “wages” employees receive and while the
> idea used to be that the creation of a “parallel economic universe” would
> help to train the jobless and prepare them for real employment sometime in
> the future, these “occupations” are now serving simply as way for the out-
> of-work to suspend reality for eight hours a day

Society fears a large unoccupied class. Whether that fear is warranted or not
is a different thing.

~~~
vocatus_gate
It's absolutely warranted. I spent time in South Africa, specifically
Johannesburg and Durban, and due to completely unrestricted immigration there
is a massive unemployed population (there simply isn't enough work for all the
people coming in to the country), and crime rates have gone through the roof.

"Idle hands are the Devil's workshop." Human beings do not naturally drift
towards societally beneficial behaviour when lacking productive activities to
engage in.

~~~
77pt77
> "Idle hands are the Devil's workshop."

I was almost having a mental countdown until this exact expression popped up.

What you wrote is true, but that unemployed population didn't have any money
or their needs met.

What would happen if living was really easy and work either unneeded or just
downright impossible to get?

~~~
ryandrake
> "Idle hands are the Devil's workshop."

This puritanical belief makes the idea of Basic Income politically un-doable
through most of the world, along with the belief that a living is something
that must be earned through productive work.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> This puritanical belief makes the idea of Basic Income politically un-doable
> through most of the world, along with the belief that a living is something
> that must be earned through productive work.

It's just a framing problem.

For example, the Earned Income Tax Credit in the US is a small de facto UBI.
If you eliminated all US welfare programs and used all the money to increase
the amount of the EITC you will have effectively solved the problem.

In theory the EITC requires you to earn money, but if you eliminated the loss
of welfare benefits that currently occurs if you report earning any amount of
money, suddenly you'll discover that everybody everywhere has "income" from
doing odd jobs for their friends and so on, most of which they've been doing
the whole time in exchange for in-kind services but (illegally!) not reporting
it as income because reporting it previously caused a net loss rather than a
net gain.

------
mvitorino
I find it odd that the article manages to completely ignore/miss the effect of
welfare and the change in incentives it may result in. Also, it appears that
statistically, single mothers are much more likely to vote Left than Right.

In the sci-fi movie Advantageous, a future society with a lot more automation,
has high unemployment rates. Recruitment (which in the movie is mostly done by
AI) eventually evolves to a consensus whereby most jobs are assigned to men
because otherwise society would become a lot more dangerous to everyone.

EDIT: References:

[1] 74% of single mothers voting Democrat

[2] one quarter voting Republican

[1] [https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/single-mothers-
give-...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/single-mothers-give-
presidential-politics-a-new-
perspective/2013/06/02/b8f85702-cb90-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_story.html?utm_term=.dd8a17e22032)
[2] [http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/27/opinion/sunday/single-
moth...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/27/opinion/sunday/single-mothers-with-
family-values.html)

~~~
Drumlin
> Also, it appears that statistically, single mothers are much more likely to
> vote Left than Right.

If you're married to the state, then you vote for more of the state. It's one
of the many examples where liberty has been eroded in recent decades, but few
talk about it because it's a sensitive topic.

~~~
stephancoral
Ah yes, the sweet liberty of being unable to provide for your children.
Welfare is a pitifully small percent of the budget compared to military,
health, and education not to mention the massive amounts of corporate welfare
that happens ("I'll get those taxes down for you"). But you're right it's the
left voting single moms that erode our liberty. What about the right-voting
single moms? Are they "welfare queens" eroding our liberty too or are they
just good people who had to make a tough choice?

~~~
mvitorino
That is a straw man argument. Saying that a lot more money is spent elsewhere
does not refute the potential effects of welfare.

Also claiming that tax reduction is a form of welfare if very disingenuous
since basically that would mean the State would be entitled to take all of
your profit by default... meaning any amount of profit allowed would be
welfare.

~~~
nikdaheratik
It's not a "straw man", it's more like _reductio ad absurdum_.

And if you'll remember the 1990s, the entire plan to cut welfare benefits was
premised on the Earned Income Tax Credit taking up the slack. Which actually
worked in some ways though, if anything, it makes it easier for single mothers
to provide for a family by working a low wage job. Which has distorted the
"marriage market" though in different ways from the welfare benefit.

------
bitL
Some people from former Yugoslavia mentioned that during the war all women
clustered around the few men that had means for survival and who led gangs or
were involved in all kinds of shady business bringing in resources. I guess
the effect described in the article is similar.

~~~
gotchange
I hate to sound this much politically incorrect but women in these times of
social unrest and upheaval turn into resources themselves and this clustering,
as you described it, would be more of involuntary and less of at will.

This doesn't mean that women in these situations wouldn't tend to gravitate
toward the most power male with the largest resources in the pack but in most
case it's the other way around.

~~~
pasquinelli
Which is really more politically incorrect to say, that women are basically
looking for a man to provide for them, or that, more or less, pimps are
survivors?

------
imgabe
It sounds like manufacturing jobs left, so the men have no jobs, but the women
still have jobs. Yes?

Why won't the men compete for the jobs the women are getting?

Alternatively, the men could stay home and take care of the kids while the
women work at the jobs they have, providing the stable two-parent household.

It seems like a large portion of the problem is tied up in men's idea of what
constitutes a "manly" role. I don't mean to trivialize the difficulty of
changing one's perspective, but changing diapers _has_ to be a better option
than dying from an Oxycontin overdose doesn't it?

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
No matter how much feminism pretends otherwise, women are not keen to form
lasting relationships with unemployed men.

The reality on the ground is that many women consider extended unemployment a
good-enough reason to end a marriage.

A cynical but not unrealistic view is that humans tend to display loyalty to
performed roles in relationships, not to individuals.

If one individual stops performing their assigned role, the relationship ends.

~~~
booleandilemma
I read an article recently saying that women want men to be the breadwinners
and they also want them to do the housework. We can't win.

[http://on.mktw.net/2li9AOT](http://on.mktw.net/2li9AOT)

~~~
mjevans
We can, through automation of /everything/.

When there is no more work, in the house or out, all that is left is room for
enlightenment or self-destruction.

~~~
mos_basik

        Some say the world will end in fire,
        Some say in ice.
        From what I’ve tasted of desire
        I hold with those who favor fire.
        But if it had to perish twice,
        I think I know enough of hate
        To say that for destruction ice
        Is also great
        And would suffice.
    

I rather think the choices are self-destruction through violent conflict and
self-destruction through lack of purpose/lethargy. But maybe that's only
nation states. Or maybe I just have an unreasonably glum view of human nature.

------
S4M
Out of topic but...

> This group includes Olivia Alfano, a 29-year-old single mother living in
> Evansville, Indiana, where she works as a waitress at Red Lobster. The money
> is pretty good, she told me: She drives a BMW and was able to buy a house
> last year.

Am I the only one who is surprised by that? (I don't live in the US)

~~~
0x445442
In addition to the other replies we have this interesting social custom in the
U.S. where certain jobs have been arbitrarily recognized as worthy of extra
compensation by the paying customers (tipping). So with a number of states
raising minimum wage combined with tips and given the right conditions of cost
of living, frugal living, and money management I could see it being pulled
off.

~~~
mcguire
As a general rule, the minimum wage does not apply to "tipped" jobs.

" _The American federal government requires a wage of at least $2.13 per hour
be paid to employees that receive at least $30 per month in tips. If wages and
tips do not equal the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour during any pay
period, the employer is required to increase cash wages to compensate. As of
May 2012, the average hourly wage – including tips – for a restaurant employee
in the United States that received tip income was $11.82._ "

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipped_wage_in_the_United_St...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipped_wage_in_the_United_States)

~~~
wtbob
I think that you're misreading that: it states that: a different minimum wage
(but still a minimum wage) applies to workers earning tips; and the standard
minimum wage still applies if their wages & tips are insufficient to equal the
minimum wage.

In other words, the minimum wage does apply, and even with tips the employer
must pay at least some money.

Everyone I know who's ever worked for tips has tended to make quite a lot,
considering.

~~~
mjevans
I'd much rather the real cost just be built in to the experience. However as a
single participant in the market I don't have much real hope of affecting that
outcome.

------
kstoneman
The article implies that it's solely the woman's decision to marry, but the
reality is more complicated. Many men are choosing not to marry since it is
fraught with economic risk to do so. This has been building for a generation.

> “You don’t want to marry a man who is in all likelihood not economically
> viable, because it’s not a free lunch,” Autor said.

"Not economically viable" is the exact phrase used in the movie "Falling Down"
by the man who was denied a loan by a bank and was arrested while the Michael
Douglas character looks on sympathetically. His wife ditched him, too.

------
godmodus
I disagree with the title and message with its overall sentiment.

Yes, old school partnerships are dying, but that doesn't make males more
disposable.

If anything,it gives men and women more options and opens up our society to
fine tuning. (effects of large scale single momhood/dadhood, competetive job
markets and novel family and supporting social structures) the old was nice,
but if a single unit can function and achieve what a complex unit used to, wed
all benefit. Supposing the experiment doesn't end in failure and twist
society. Though even if it does, we'll self correct. After all, nature still
rules us.

It's a culture of work hard, fuck-young and marry-old(er) for partnership for
the coming future, we'll see where that takes us.

~~~
127
I don't see how factory jobs vanishing give men more options. Yes, for the
lucky few who still have marketable jobs that aren't subsidized by the public
sector, they have more money and options. For the vast majority of men, the
job market is a much more brutal place than it was before with a lot fewer
actual options.

~~~
godmodus
I understand your argument, but it assumes humans don't adapt.

So what if the coal mines close down?

We dont live in aculture where needs stop evolving. Where there's a need,
there's industry of some sort.

Humans brains adapt, especially generationally.

I dont see Germany suffering any detrimental consequences of the modern
workplace (where I am right now) and infact it's flourishing.

That Said, the education system and the industrial system works close together
here, and it's a better system than most. So countries need to pitch in to the
effort if educating it's populace for modern day jobs

~~~
c06n
> So what if the coal mines close down?

Then people need to get a very good education to get one of the new jobs.
Because the old jobs are dying out, those you could get into with little
education.

The problem for men? That boys fare far worse in school than girls. This gets
rarely addressed, e.g. the vast difference in reading comprehension.

Boys then should just adapt? Well, whenever women seem to have a disadvantage
(the whole MINT-discussion), society is supposed to fix it. Whenever men have
problems, they remain their individual problems, and it's definitely their
fault. No systemic forces here to be seen, move along everybody.

A last comment about Germany: The lack of jobs for unskilled workers is
definitely a huge problem. It makes it incredibly difficult to integrate
everybody with a, shall we say, sub-par education. Almost half of the Turkish
hailing migrants in Berlin are unemployed. 75 % of them did not graduate from
secondary school.

~~~
JBiserkov
>Almost half of the Turkish hailing migrants in Berlin are unemployed. 75 % of
them did not graduate from secondary school.

Wow, this is staggering. Do you remember where you saw those figures? (I don't
doubt them, I just want to quote them in other discussions.)

~~~
c06n
Unfortunately it's mainly German sources. I hope Google Translate can help
here. They may also report different numbers, depending on who would be
included in "Turkish migrants". Some address Turkish citizens (who have a work
permit in Germany), some address German citizens of Turkish descent.

The numbers I used are from this article:
[https://www.taz.de/!5176721/](https://www.taz.de/!5176721/)

> 75 Prozent der Migranten türkischer Herkunft haben keinen Schulabschluss,
> fast jeder zweite ist arbeitslos.

> 75 % of migrants of Turkish descent do not graduate from school, almost
> every second is unemployed.

It's from 2008. Upon reflection I would expect that the situation is not as
dire anymore, due to Germany's positive economic development.

In any case, the trend in Germany hints towards a dire situation in any case
(2009): [http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/immigration-
surv...](http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/immigration-survey-shows-
alarming-lack-of-integration-in-germany-a-603588.html)

> Some 30 percent of Turkish immigrants and their children don't have a school
> leaving certificate, and only 14 percent do their Abitur, as the degree from
> Germany's top-level high schools is called -- that's half the average of the
> German population.

This article from 2016 references a report from the Federal Statistical Office
of Germany. It states that over 40 % of the Turkish immigrants and their
children only achieve a very basic school leaving certificate
("Hauptschulabschluss"). With this type of certificate, it is difficult in
Germany to even get into a vocational school. Also, over 1/3 of the Turkish
immigrants are poor: They earn less that 60 % of the mean income.

[https://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/article155700942/Warum-so-
vie...](https://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/article155700942/Warum-so-viele-
Tuerken-in-Deutschland-scheitern.html)

[https://www.destatis.de/DE/Publikationen/Datenreport/Datenre...](https://www.destatis.de/DE/Publikationen/Datenreport/Datenreport.html)

Out of the 3 million Turkish migrants in Germany, 275,000 have received
unemployment benefits in 2015. Only people actively seeking employment are
eligible for those benefits. I could not find the absolute number for Germany
for this population. But for the whole of Germany, we have 39 million workers,
out of a population of over 80 million. The Turkish migrants tend to be
younger, so a larger percentage does not belong to the workforce yet.

I would therefore assume that the unemployment rate is around 20 % for Turkish
migrants in Germany, and considerably higher in Berlin, due to the "special"
economic status of Berlin as a whole. The article below is from 2001 and has
them at 42 %:

[http://www.tagesspiegel.de/berlin/tuerken-in-berlin-beruf-
ar...](http://www.tagesspiegel.de/berlin/tuerken-in-berlin-beruf-arbeitslos-
in-dritter-generation/214260.html)

Summing up, while the specific numbers should be subject to scrutiny, the
trend remains abysmal.

~~~
JBiserkov
I see, thanks for the detailed response.

------
meric
The article claims the effect of varying employment levels on society are
different depending on gender- lower male employment means lower marriage
rates. Lower women employment means higher marriage rates. Lower marriage
rates imply higher numbers of children born out of wedlock. Children born out
of wedlock are more likely to have disadvantaged backgrounds. But increasing
number of single mothers reduce the stigma of being a single mother, and
allowing single mothers to "soldier on".

~~~
Red_Tarsius
Civilization is built on monogamy. People might not like the sound of it, but
that's the reality of the situation. This is why all successful cultures and
religions promote marriage, while tagging everything else as 'degeneracy'. You
can't build a society if 90% of men are frustrated, disenfranchised and blow
things up, and children are raised by single parents. You need a social
contract that gives men a purpose and a legacy (sex), so that they can focus
their efforts toward the development of the tribe.

EDIT: To clarify, I do NOT condone violence toward non-traditional
arrangements. Sorry if I came off that way.

~~~
yummyfajitas
At this point the men you discuss are sitting around playing video games and
doing oxy. They don't seem to be threatening society in any way.

[https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/our-
miserable-21...](https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/our-
miserable-21st-century/)

~~~
dripton
As someone who's always been employed, this confuses me. How do the
permanently unemployed afford video games and drugs, in addition to rent and
food? Sponge off their parents? Their partner? The state? I'd love to see a
real study.

~~~
douche
If you are permanently unemployed, you don't pay taxes, you get subsidies for
food, for rent, for health care, for heating, and for a plethora of other
services, if you know how to game the system properly. You may be on
"disability", and if you're smart about it, you probably work a little bit off
the books, cash-only.

There's a whole system of perverse incentives and interacting welfare programs
that produce income cliffs where it is suboptimal to work more and have
greater income, because that small increase in wages results in a much larger
loss of services.

------
rmason
I'm not sure if those living on the coast can relate, but that article sure
explains what I've seen over the last 35 years here in Michigan.

------
cmdrfred
8,000 years ago they estimate that 17 women reproduced for every 1 man[0]. In
a society without work for most men, I suspect a similar ratio to arise again.
Especially if we continue to tell young men to stop behaving like young men in
order to attract women.

[0][https://psmag.com/8-000-years-ago-17-women-reproduced-for-
ev...](https://psmag.com/8-000-years-ago-17-women-reproduced-for-every-one-
man-6d41445ae73d#.f91mx82t4)

~~~
mirimir
Wow, that is fascinating! I'm guessing polygamy plus slavery.

------
PunchTornado
Too many things are linked to jobs. It will be a hard thing to break.

I wonder if the universal basic income will be enough to make the societal
shift needed in this case.

~~~
Red_Tarsius
I fear that universal basic income might be the nail in the coffin of marriage
and monogamy. Basically, government would replace any need for a male
provider.

It's a recipe for disaster. _Civilization is built on monogamous
relationships_ : children being raised by a couple (statistically a far better
environment than single parenthood), young men and women focusing their energy
for the betterment of society.

~~~
rimantas
Repeating a statement will not make it a fact.

~~~
Pica_soO
Actually, due to a brain bug, in the species brains, repetition equals truth.
Was in hacker news recently, so im only repeating that..

~~~
alexvoda
Actually, that HN thread left a mark on me. Before that I was vaguely familiar
with the concept. "History is written by the winners", the concept of
superstitions, marketing, appeal to the majority, etc.

But I was mostly dismissing it, considering that rational thought would in the
end triumph. Considering that, in the least, each repetition should bring
extra information for the effect to manifest.

That thread prompted me to give some though to the subject and the answer I
arrived at so far does not make me happy at all. Realizing that repetition by
itself is enough, clarifies some things I did not understand and simply
classified as reality not making sense.

I feel ever more justified in my energy consuming efforts to fact-check
information I receive and in my strides to present information as
opinion/personal thought/conclusion based on sources/mere reproduction of
sources instead of truth. I am more aware of this than before but at the same
time it causes a lot more stress to me now than it did before.

I am less willing than I was to engage in live discussions where I receive
information, because that places a burden of fact checking on me and I can not
always do that at the speed of real life. And depending on the interlocutor I
can not rephrase the discussion in terms of hypothetical statements.

~~~
Pica_soO
The burden of proof really is a burden- one sometimes wishes one could take
the whole heap of aggregated knowledge from one discussion board to the next.
With automated named references to counter arguments.

The problem is, people would tend to not read this Wiki:Discussion page, as
its "external" to the community, so in addition a system for metering
trustworthiness (trusted by users i trust) would be needed.

------
uptime
A lot of the lessons here need to be built into the raising of young men. I
can't claim to know all the topics we need to master, but hyping up and
honoring any domestic labor has to be up there. Keeping a household running
well is no joke. If you give any population a limited set of options for self
and social worth, you're gonna have a bad time.

------
crdoconnor
This parallels what's happened in Japan, too (the decline of Salarymen, rise
in temp work and the decline in birthrate + marriage & relationships).

~~~
kalleboo
Doesn't Japan have low unemployment and a relatively strong manufacturing
sector?

~~~
crdoconnor
As does the United States. It's not about overall unemployment, it's about the
ratio of shitty jobs : non-shitty jobs.

------
loydb
For a really deep dive (albeit an overly-scholastic one) into this topic,
check out _Those Who Work, Those Who Don't: Poverty, Morality, and Family in
Rural America_ by Jennifer Sherman. It's a fascinating book (and makes me
happy not to have been a logger).

------
am_i_down
My dog doesn't care that my factory job vanished.

------
sergiotapia
"Women cannot go backwards in lifestyle."

"She may not leave you the day you lose it, but the countdown has begun."

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiZSG2vDMIo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiZSG2vDMIo)

------
wink
This article confused me a little, I think it's neither here nor there
regarding a main point.

I mean, I get the basic facts, but I find it oddly jumping around between the
men's situation, interjecting manual labor in fields that are dominated by
women and then going off in the direction of single parents. Not that I would
expect any kind of mentioning possible solutions, but this piece left me
scratching my head a little .

------
cd_cd
This articles is a bit flippant. The study apparently outlines a problem in
these regions both socially and economically. The articles then goes on to
pick a single case in order to imply that it's actually good news for women -
and by inference nothing for us to be concerned about.

------
caseydurfee
Sadly, I feel like a great number of comments in this thread could be
summarized as:

If a woman prefers a man with wealth or status, she's a gold-digger, and
feminism is wrong about women -- they want traditional gender roles. Women are
just naturally drawn to wealth and status despite what feminism says they
should want.

If a woman has sex with a man regardless of his wealth or status, she's a
slut. Feminism is wrong about women -- they are naturally attracted to "bad
boys", not "Good guys" who are responsible and work hard. "Good guys" are
being cheated out of sex by women. If they support feminism despite the fact
that women no longer value social/economic status, which reduces their chances
to have sex, they are "white knights".

If a woman won't have sex with a man, it's because she's a frigid bitch --
feminism has made men irrelevant. Feminism is responsible for suicide bombers
and spree killers because they couldn't get sex from women.

It's amazing to me how much pseudoscience and entrail-reading comes into
discussions of gender. It's so tightly linked to our experience of the world
that it's almost impossible not to spin one's own experiences into quasi-
rational explanations.

For example, this quote from the article: "A substantial number go on to have
children with a second partner, or even a third, creating complex and unstable
family lives that are not good for children."

Says who? Human beings have pretty much always lived in extended clans with
"complex family lives". The nuclear family is a pretty recent invention in the
history of homo sapiens. The whole article seems to be trying to paint a
picture that humans lived in nuclear families from the dawn of time to just a
few years ago -- that it is taking children away from the way they are meant
to be raised. In fact, this is bringing humans closer to the way they've
pretty much always lived, in extended clans with complex family trees, with
incredibly complex language for describing those relations.

"This creates challenges for the people (usually women) who have to raise a
child without the economic or social support of a partner. Their struggles are
why the authors see such an uptick in children living in poverty in the
aftermath of a decline in manufacturing employment."

This is just terrible writing. Women raising children without support of a
partner would, by definition, not be affected by the decline in jobs for men.
The whole article (and many of the comments here about it) are filled with
these kinds of self-refutations and self-fulfilling prophecies. People just
start with a conclusion when it comes to gender and work backwards.

I'm wary to offer my own opinions on these issues, because they might be just
as full of confirmation bias, question begging, and social proof-seeking.
Maybe human beings are just really bad at discussing this topic.

~~~
Paul-ish
> For example, this quote from the article: "A substantial number go on to
> have children with a second partner, or even a third, creating complex and
> unstable family lives that are not good for children."

> Says who? Human beings have pretty much always lived in extended clans with
> "complex family lives". The nuclear family is a pretty recent invention in
> the history of homo sapiens.

I think the article is saying complex AND unstable, not complex THEREFORE
unstable. The assumption being instability is bad, complexity alone isn't bad,
but both together can be worse than instability alone.

> "This creates challenges for the people (usually women) who have to raise a
> child without the economic or social support of a partner. Their struggles
> are why the authors see such an uptick in children living in poverty in the
> aftermath of a decline in manufacturing employment."

> This is just terrible writing. Women raising children without support of a
> partner would, by definition, not be affected by the decline in jobs for
> men.

I think the assumption there is that before these women would have a partner
with a full time job, but instead they have no partner and have to work +
raise a child. This isn't saying that women who didn't have a partner before
are worse of now, it is talking about a demographic shift from having a
partner to not.

------
usmeteora
As a female engineer perpetually in male dominated environments whether at
work or at a bar being served mostly by male bartenders who I have come to
build a repore with. It ends up being a casual mutually beneficial way to
exchange banter and discuss social life but get perspectives and experiences
from people who lead very different lives, and here is what I find. I find
that most lower middle class men struggling to find jobs who have a complaint
about this DO NOT have an issue finding women. They have an issue with women
who do not financially contribute, and trap them into paying child support for
a kid they never planned on having, and women who feel entitled to men being
the sole provider, stripping away their freedom, and them men are trying to
get away from women and commitments, not towards them. They are looking to
travel and have experiences and do things they enjoy instead of repeating the
failures they saw their parents go through. Theyve seen their parents fight
over money, their dads lose jobs, their parents get divorced and I don't know
who is asking for that life back but I think its the older men who lost
everything because I don't know any noneducated man my age that actually wants
that, they are running away from it at all costs.

I not only find this with lower middle class men but men I work with as well.
They are getting sick and tired of being manipulated by women and trapped into
families they never planned to or agreed to and being expected to do all the
work financially for the rest of their lives...

I find in male dominated environments with men of higher socioeconomic status,
that they end up dating financially needy women who are incentivized to lock
them into a long term financial relationship because theres not enough
economically independent women to date.

Additionally, I find women like me tend to be much more attractive to them for
the reason that working women doing well and climbing the socioeconomic ladder
by ourselves are attractive because we have ambition, which in their
socioeconomic stratus is not something they are conditioned to, so not only is
it attractive because you have more in common to talk to someone about, but
its also from their point of view rather exotic and rare, and thus instantly
more desireable. While a comment below stating chinese stats is generally
worriesome, in America, the issue is not that lower income men can't get
women, its that they cant get the women that they want. While most of the
comments talk about how these women need to be more openminded, I find myself
as a socioeconomic 26yr old woman progressing in my technical career in
engineering and software development, I find that there is not nearly enough
women, and that we need many more.

IF this happens (and that happening whether its happening and causes behind it
happening or not is a WHOLE different discussion) over time then the standards
men have for women will raise. While these men are pining after women who in
reality don't exist in great numbers, just highly highlighted, the other 95%
of women are incentivized to compete on a personal and economic level if they
find men on their level and above their socioeconomic level are choosing women
who make their own money, and they will begin to understand they are the only
ones providing for themselves and over time women will seep into previously
considered male dominated environments and take on more management and
leadership roles.

Over the long run, this will hopefully allow men and women to engage in short
or long term relationships or whatever they choose as we all become more
accepting and openminded based on the person and less on the economic benefits
they can provide. Progress is painful, and as one of the few women pioneering
in it, I get pressure form men i work with to date and marry, men who serve me
drinks to date and marry, and I get hate and drama from all the girls who are
mad at me for making more money than them (who have no problem dating men with
money but lots of problems with women making money, and can't seem to solve
that issue in their head)

In general, its not as glamorous as it seems if you are actually a full time,
preference for low drama female with your career as your first priority. Women
like us are highlighted as the pain point of the issue, but we are not the
cause of it, and over time hopefully the solution.

The other complaint I have about this whole argument is if women are getting a
higher socioeconomic status while men complain they don't have jobs, then
there are clearly jobs, they are just stereotypically female jobs, so instead
of men complaining that the universe isnt entitling and providing them to the
(in the grand scheme of things incredibly fleeting and nonpermanent
manufactoring jobs) they should be more open to becoming nurses, teachers,
government jobs and other jobs that are clearly in a great shortage for that
women are not only working full time side jobs while taking night classes to
become nurses and etc but raising kids while doing it often times as a single
parent.

If they can do it men can do it, they just don't want to because its an
uncomfortable stereotype to break, but in WWII many women stepped into
manufactoring jobs to fill the void in America, so men need to do the same
thing.

For now its a bit of an awkward phase for men because they are used to being
the ones that get to choose and women have always been very willing to compete
in looks and otherwise to get access to that financial stability as it was the
only socially acceptable way to do so for so long without permanently
striating yourself into a considered deplorable condition.

Men need to realize over time women becoming more independent is a good thing
for everyone. Gorwing pains will always exist in society, its how we adapt to
them that makes both men and women successful and competitive candidates in
the working field and in the personal relationship realm.

This ongoing complaint I keep hearing about men wanting to fall back into
manufactoring jobs and women getting jobs is a more a complaint about how they
wish things would never change and how they want people to accomodate them
instead of steering the dicsussion to how to adapt to reality.

------
brohoolio
Reminds me of the book Tally's Corner. The lack of consistent work caused all
sorts of interesting outcomes for society.

------
1897234234
Modern life is just bizarre, and especially so for men. We used to perform
tasks that were immensely valued by women. Our rewards were directly dependent
on our abilities. We worked hard and we achieved goals. Modern life is none of
those things for most men. There is very little difference between the pay in
many jobs, whether they are typically performed by men or women. These jobs
often don't reward you for your abilities but rather reward you for who you
know or how good your are at politics. Most jobs are also boring. With the
money obtained, whether you are male or female, you can go and buy your meat
at the supermarket and pay someone to build your house and so on.

Men seem to have been replaced by a master-slave relationship with masses of
people working for a small group of large companies that provide for both men
and women. It is like large businesses are the new man. I feel like they are a
middle-man that simply should be replaced. I tend to agree with the unabomber
in that modern life simply isn't compatible with humans.

~~~
empath75
When you say sentences like the last one, you might want to consider getting
psychological help. There are all kinds of critics of modern life one could
reference that aren't mass murderers.

~~~
tomp
Why the ad hominem? Just because he was a terrorist doesn't mean that all his
opinions were invalid.

~~~
empath75
The only reason anyone knows what he thought is that he murdered people until
he forced the media to publish his depraved opinions. He wasn't an original
thinker. There are plenty of people who wrote critiques of modern life that
didn't have to murder people to get attention for them.

------
andai
Well, I guess us guys will just have to start marrying each other!

------
godmodus
Again this link?

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13791645](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13791645)

~~~
saycheese
It happens, if I were you I'd just repost that comment here as another top
level comment.

------
closeparen
If you're ever in doubt about tech's sexism problem, revisit one of the HN
comment threads where gender roles come up and marvel at the unchecked support
for the idea that women should be stay-at-home mothers. Then, for bonus
points, check out a divorce thread.

 _Civilization was built on all sorts of identity-based subjugation
relationships_ and as we chip away at them, in the long run, it gets better.

If your implicit assumption is true (women only stay in relationships because
they require a partner's income to survive) then we have a moral imperative to
provide escape hatches from those toxic relationships as quickly as possible.

~~~
pokemongoaway
Do you see what you did here? Someone comes up with a hypothesis that is
scientific and not a moral question, and you succeed in politicizing and
moralizing it in one fell swoop. Why is it important to derail this line of
questioning? If government and welfare systems effect the organization of
families, relationships, reproduction, courtship - and the like - then isn't
that a worthy thing to study?

~~~
watwut
It was not scientific hypothesis nor proposal for research, it was statement
of opinion presented as fact.

~~~
pokemongoaway
I'm not sure how fearing that universal basic income would significantly
decrease monogamous relationships is opinion presented as far. I'm not going
to defend this other commenter, but it is a reasonable topic that I don't like
to see get derailed so easily.

------
jahaja
Presenting a rose-tinted view of american history must be HN's national sport.

~~~
dang
Please don't post generalizations about HN as a rhetorical device. Plenty of
differing views on American history get expressed here—unfortunately often
leading to flamewars. That's in the nature of inflammatory material, and your
comment certainly doesn't help.

We detached this comment from
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13795608](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13795608)
and marked it off-topic.

~~~
jahaja
That is not a "differing view". It's a blatantly incorrect view - as indicated
by the reply of the account you subsequently banned.

But I accept your disapproval of my jibe towards HN.

------
sauronlord
I am ashamed that tax dollars were used for such a study.

Poor men cannot afford weddings and children. Shocking.

