
The Rise of Men Who Don’t Work, and What They Do Instead - zwei
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
======
cryoshon
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.

------
nhaehnle
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.

~~~
jxf
> 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/](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...](http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2013/04/18/177745599/former-
social-security-commissioners-and-others-respond-to-our-disability-story)

~~~
megaman22
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).

------
jasonkester
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.

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

[http://www.reddit.com/r/financialindependence](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.

~~~
Clanan
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!

~~~
geebee
I'm not going to disagree, since your advice is good. If you're having trouble
financially, don't go crazy on Christmas gifts, eat out all the time, or buy
expensive clothes.

But keep in mind, in SF, a 3br house or apartment south of 280 (a bit blighted
in spots, but far safer than its reputation) starts at 800K, and really,
unless you're at the outskirts and buying a property in need of considerable
work, you're probably going to shell out over a mil. Child care is easily over
$2k a month, so 50K a year.

So at least in SF, you're probably looking at about 90k+ on housing and child
care. Health care is another huge cost, but it's hidden.

What percentage of that is really spent on creature comforts like expensive
travel or christmas gifts? New clothes? You're a parent, you've seen what
things cost at lower cost spots like Old Navy or payless shoes. It's not a big
expense. I do a lot of hand-me-downs (I have 2 kids myself), but in the end,
I'd estimate very generously that clothing costs about 0.5% of the yearly
budget.

Now, one could certainly reasonably say that living in SF is a financially
illiterate thing to do (though if this is the case, then many of the employers
claiming a shortage of software developers are actually claiming that there is
a shortage of financially illiterate developers, since these companies are
generally located in SF or Silicon Valley).

But is Boston, New York, Washington DC, Seattle, or LA really that much
better? I think it just goes from impossible to difficult.

The reason I mention this is that I believe the middle and working classes in
the US are eroding, and while some of this can be self-indulgence (look at the
way some people treated houses as piggy banks, for example), I wouldn't write
off middle class struggles as financial illiteracy or excessive self-
indulgence.

~~~
Bahamut
In Northern Virginia, you can get a pretty nice house in Fairfax for $500k -
the SF and Silicon Valley market is special for its terribleness (NY too).

~~~
geebee
500k isn't cheap, but of course vastly better than a mil (it sounds like
fairfax is a fairly nice place, so you'd probably be comparing it to parts of
SF that are more like 1.5mil). Any idea what daycare costs over there,
typically? Though at 500k for housing, you have the option of one spouse
scaling back on work, and if not, the lower mortgage cushions the extra cost
of childcare.

This is an aside, but when silicon valley companies say there is a desperate
shortage of software engineers, Obama[1] nods gravely in agreement. Why
doesn't he at least _ask_ why they don't let people work from places like
Fairfax? I understand that there are benefits to being in the valley, but if
the shortage is _that_ desperate, wouldn't they at least try?

As for the original point, even if things get easier outside SF, I'd still say
that you'd need to be taking some pretty serious shopping trips for kids
clothes to approach the chunk of the budget that goes to health care, housing,
and child care/education, even in a less brutal housing market like Fairfax.
As for good public schools, well of course that's a relief once they get out
of day care age, but you still shell out - I have two kids in public school,
and just paying for the local YMCA run after care (so my wife or I can pick
them up after work) is $6k per kid per year (so $12k total for me). We
cancelled cable, which saved us about $1k a year.

[1] not to pick on Obama, this is common reaction from politicians.

~~~
Bahamut
No clue on daycare costs, but keep in mind this - the counties all around the
DC area have the highest median annual income in the US, and Fairfax is
probably one of the richest in the area.

The Valley companies in general don't like remote workers, despite all that is
said about the shortage. The executives/managers want the convenience of being
able to bother an engineer on whim. Amusingly, remote work is in practice more
common in the DC area (and for more than just software engineering), in part
because the federal government has driven telework as a huge perk.

~~~
geebee
I googled around a bit and found some discussion threads on this

[http://www.dcurbanmom.com/](http://www.dcurbanmom.com/)

sounds like 2k a month isn't unusual, but you can get this down if you look
around and find a more neighborhood based one. These exist in SF too, they are
licensed but tend to be run out of someone's house.

I'd say that for two kids, you'd probably be at over 3k a month _easily_ in
fairfax. Mortage on a 500k house with a 10% down would probably be about
another 20k a year, so you're looking at a conservative estimate of $56,000 a
year for childcare and mortgage costs (I know there's a deduction, but there
are also property taxes and other housing related costs that in my experience
offset this and then some). Keep in mind that if you're a 2 income
professional family, your income is too high to qualify for a tax deduction
for child care (I always wonder why people haven't identified this as one of
the things that deters women from re-entering the workforce).

This is perfectly manageable on a good tech salary with a second spouse
working - in SF, those numbers would probably be closer to 100k. So what is
perhaps impossible in SF is absolutely workable in fairfax, though of course
this really just scratches the surface, I don't know much about life in DC.

I'd still maintain that housing, health care, education/child care costs in
both places probably still vastly eclipses the savings you can get from
cutting back on things like cable, cars, or travel, unless you're extremely
self indulgent or are in an unusual situation (such as a sick family member
living at some distance from home).

------
M8
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.

~~~
matthewmacleod
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.

~~~
BurnWhenRead
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.

~~~
sukilot
Prenuptials apply to the spouses, not children , who obviously cannot sign
them. Are you saying that women are not held to prenup agreements, or that men
forget that they cannot sign a prenup with their future children?

------
bluedino
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
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
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.

------
mskd432223
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
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.

------
m-i-l
See also
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8738646](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8738646)
from December

------
peter303
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.

------
nodata
Because everyone must _do_ something!

~~~
Dewie3
Well, _men_ have to according to most people.

------
taivare
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 " .

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

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

~~~
bryanlarsen
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.

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

~~~
bryanlarsen
No, it only works from a very broad perspective. If you take a CS management
job, there are fewer CS management jobs available, but there are more jobs
elsewhere in the economy.

~~~
nraynaud
good, so back to my feminist sweat pants and couch.

------
amyjess
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.

------
logicallee
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)?

~~~
adamjernst
Because it's part of a series: [http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/12/upshot/our-
series-on-the-d...](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/12/upshot/our-series-on-
the-decline-of-work-an-introduction.html)

With an entirely separate article on women:
[http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/14/upshot/us-employment-
women...](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/14/upshot/us-employment-women-not-
working.html)

Don't assume the worst!

------
peter303
The first graph animation is kind of distraction. the 2nd graph of the
difference in time explains it better.

------
joshuaheard
How can one be "retired" at age 16?

------
smanuel
> ...and What They Do Instead

entrepreneurs?

------
Dewie3
Nice numbers, but what's the point? Times they are a changin'?

~~~
ghettoCoder
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.

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

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

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

