General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums30 Mindblowing Statistics About Americans Under The Age Of 30
#1 The labor force participation rate for men in the 18 to 24 year old age bracket is at an all-time low.
#2 The ratio of what men in the 18 to 29 year old age bracket are earning compared to the general population is at an all-time low.
#3 Only about a third of all adults in their early 20s are working a full-time job.
#4 For the entire 18 to 29 year old age bracket, the full-time employment rate continues to fall. In June 2012, 47 percent of that entire age group had a full-time job. One year later, in June 2013, only 43.6 percent of that entire age group had a full-time job.
#5 Back in the year 2000, 80 percent of men in their late 20s had a full-time job. Today, only 65 percent do.
#6 In 2007, the unemployment rate for the 20 to 29 year old age bracket was about 6.5 percent. Today, the unemployment rate for that same age group is about 13 percent.
#7 American families that have a head of household that is under the age of 30 have a poverty rate of 37 percent.
#8 During 2012, young adults under the age of 30 accounted for 23 percent of the workforce, but they accounted for a whopping 36 percent of the unemployed.
#9 During 2011, 53 percent of all Americans with a bachelor’s degree under the age of 25 were either unemployed or underemployed.
More...
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-10-04/30-mindblowing-statistics-about-americans-under-age-30
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)The reason there are so few full-time workers is because of corporate greed, fast food and retail employers don't offer full-time positions they only offer part time jobs with low pay with no benefits. Sadly these are some of the only jobs that young people can find, unions are desperately needed in these industries.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)made jobs until the corps outsourced, there is no need to demonize tech, especially when it allowed many jobs to be formed.
The2ndWheel
(7,947 posts)Technology has also made it possible to outsource far more easily. You don't get to just have to good side of technology.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)there's even a name for the phenomena of technology reducing jobs, it's called the Player Piano Phenomena after the book by Kurt Vonnegut.
100 years ago, it took 17 people to farm an acre of corn...now it takes 1 person to farm 15 acres. 20 years ago, it took an average shift of 12 people to run a grocery store...today it's 6 to run a store twice the size with half-to-two-thirds of the register-clerks displaced by self-checkout. We've gone from an average of 4 tellers to 2 in bank branches. Sure, the creation of self-check kiosks and ATMs created jobs to make those machines...but they employ less people than they displace. Computers and the internet make it possible to do most of a Sunday's errands from my desktop. Machinery has made mining safer but it's also reduced the number of people needed in a large-scale mining operation by about 75%.
Certainly we embrace technology and the technology creates jobs for people to maintain, service and run the technology...but there is a rabbit-hole here and the other end of that hole is the inevitability (and much sooner than people realize) of the necessity of a dole to pay people not to work in order to maintain wages and support the non-collapse of society and stave off riots. The world population is 7.4B people and it only takes the labor efforts of around 5B people to sustain 8B people...and that's falling. It's not unreasonable to expect that it only will take ~3B to sustain 9B.
TeamPooka
(24,217 posts)DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)with some odl fashioned tariffs, taxes and simple laws. The tech isn ot the problem, it is theanic ent idea of kings, though now we call them CEOs.
The2ndWheel
(7,947 posts)If it was easy, it would've been done by now. Or stopped in the first place. Or fix already.
I'm not sure how you don't think technology is a factor in the equation. Especially the speed at which technology improves these days. Back when you sharpened a stick to improve hunting, things took time to play out. Today, it's innovation for the sake of innovation.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)You forget that those in power will always sekk to remian in power, by any and all means. They will do this regardless of tech.
As far as demonizing tech, those who wear glasses, or had surgery, or had even so much as detnistry, have been empowered by tech, are you sayign we need to go back to some good old days that never were, because i assure you, even in those tribal days people likle to fetishize, there was still polticis, and the common person had much less at their disposal to defend themselves against the elite.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)dkf
(37,305 posts)But damn I hope this mess is okay in a few years. I am so sad for my nieces and nephew and the world they will graduate in to.
The need to provide them an inheritance is imperative.
Lasher
(27,553 posts)I get it. All those payroll taxes could instead be piling up in your personal accounts so that you can leave a larger inheritance.
I am so glad you've been banned.
hedda_foil
(16,371 posts)Caretha
(2,737 posts)of Molotov Cocktails. There are people in Washington and State governments that are playing with fire.
God have mercy on their souls.
it's an atrocity against Our Democracy that the House TEApublicans refuse to even put up a jobs bill, much less vote on one.
From Bill Moyers:
“When the president refused to buckle to this extortion, they threw their tantrum,” Bill says. “Like the die-hards of the racist South a century and a half ago, who would destroy the union before giving up their slaves, so would these people burn down the place, sink the ship.” He goes on to tell us where the “reckless ambition” of the Republicans could lead us.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023789259
aristocles
(594 posts)Last edited Sat Oct 5, 2013, 12:42 PM - Edit history (1)
Child #1: Age 30. Works as a portfolio manager for a global real estate investment firm in Chicago. Purdue Krannert Business School. $80,000 per year. Owns a condo. Rides his fixie bike to work, even during the winter.
Child #2: Age 28. Works as a financial analyst for a major midwestern bank. MBA. $70,000 per year. Owns his own home in an exclusive Cleveland suburb. One infant son. Wife is 28, MBA, real estate developer. Two cars, paid for in cash.
Child #3: Age 24. Manager at a major fashion retailer. $50,000 per year. Apartment in an upscale Cleveland suburb. Car, paid for in cash.
'nuf said.
dkf
(37,305 posts)Good job. How'd you do it? What kind of college did they go to? Private school too?
I'm trying to figure out the formula.
Brigid
(17,621 posts)There is a mindset these days that if you get into the right school, pick the right major, move to the right place, you'all do fine. Not so.
RedCappedBandit
(5,514 posts)Do you understand statistics?
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)
DireStrike
(6,452 posts)
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)Especially the idiot riding a fixie on snowy streets.
aristocles
(594 posts)The idiot spent his junior year in Florence. He speaks Italian and Mandarin fluently. He just returned from a backpacking trip to Hong Kong, Singapore, and Australia. Last year he spent two weeks hiking in Costa Rica.
Some yuppy.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)aristocles
(594 posts)He got his first job at 14. He put himself through college with several jobs, including work as a financial adviser, which was, shal we say, lucrative.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)And you have to fend for yourself? BS!
I agree with Scuba.
Gah...
JI7
(89,244 posts)i think your story is either BS or you come from a family with connections .
just like you see kids of wealthy and famous parents getting jobs with major companies all the time.
Response to aristocles (Reply #67)
enki23 This message was self-deleted by its author.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)hmmm.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)"Hey, if my kids are doing just fine..."
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)
renate
(13,776 posts)I don't know why your son would be called a yuppie asshole for having the kind of life that anybody would wish for their child if that were what the kid wanted. He sounds like an interesting, energetic, curious person. I think we all wish for the kind of economy that would make having three financially self-sustaining young adult children a perfectly ordinary situation and it's really, really awful that it's become so unusual... but that's no reason anybody should not be happy for your kids.
Lasher
(27,553 posts)
pscot
(21,024 posts)JI7
(89,244 posts)no need for loans
JI7
(89,244 posts)i'm guessing they were raised in a pretty well to do home .
woolldog
(8,791 posts)Tells you all you need to know.
Response to woolldog (Reply #88)
darkangel218 This message was self-deleted by its author.
SoCalDem
(103,856 posts)Statisticians deal in macro...not micro
Demit
(11,238 posts)Because a society doesn't need anything else. MBAs who buy cars with cash are all we need for a stable society!
last1standing
(11,709 posts)but it's kind of rude to brag about them in a thread discussing job statistics for young adults.
Please try to remember that while your kids are living the American Dream, many DUers likely have kids who are struggling in a failed economy - as does the nation as a whole.
Enrique
(27,461 posts)
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)And I don't think many will disagree that your kids are very much the exception. Most of their generation is screwed, big time.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)The older one is back in school, completing a degree in physics. He had difficulty finding work in CAD (computer aided design) after getting a degree in that field, which is why he returned to school.
The younger one has a 4-year degree (major in psych, minor in business) and works about thirty hours or so a week delivering pizza. In his case, he's happy doing that. It gives him the flexibility he wants to do other things that matter to him, like playing ultimate frisbee and doing stand-up at comedy clubs in his city.
Both of those are a far cry from the ones who desperately seek full-time employment.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)bhikkhu
(10,714 posts)
Whether we wind up with a healthy economy for them to work in or not remains to be seen, but all the building blocks are certainly there. If the sequester were ended and any reasonable level of government spending resumed, I think we would see a large increase in public jobs (which pay well and generally require college degrees) to complement the large increases in private employment.
The most important thing to turn the tide going forward, then, is a functional government, and I think we all know what the problem is there. The elections in 2014 will be big deciding factor; or not, depending on whether people think we are heading in the right direction with all the nonsense that's been going on now, and over the last couple of years.
FreeJoe
(1,039 posts)#1 The labor force participation rate for men in the 18 to 24 year old age bracket is at an all-time low.
College increased 37% between 2000 and 2010. I would imagine that would drive down labor force participation.
#2 The ratio of what men in the 18 to 29 year old age bracket are earning compared to the general population is at an all-time low.
It would be more useful to compare median wages between the age brackets over time. As written, the comparison is probably skewed by the changing in proportions of people in different age brackets. The baby boomers are in their prime earning years, so they are earning a disproportionately larger share.
#3 Only about a third of all adults in their early 20s are working a full-time job.
Again, this would be better if it excluded full time college students.
I could go on with many of these. I'm not saying that there aren't huge problems today and that youth bear more than their share of those problems, but using misleading statistics to make the claim is not really helpful.
dkf
(37,305 posts)Due to unemployment and retraining or getting a masters because the job market isn't ready.
Looking at the unemployment stats which one would think does not count college students backs up the bad numbers.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)
Rates of college enrollment among men has been flat for 30 years.
They're staying home, playing ultimate frisbee and doing standup because the workforce doesn't want them.
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)The poster upthread said that increasing college attendance could explain why young men are less likely to be employed. The graph shows that this isn't a viable explanation because although college attendance rates are on the rise, attendance by men is not - the male college enrollment rate has been basically flat for 40 years.
"Blame"? Why? Do you think there is something wrong with that?
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)[img]
[/img]
I know feminism ignores these stats...but that doesn't mean they don't exist.
Women make up 60% of the college student population. Yet they need more help than men?
It appears to me women are doing just fine here.
theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)Gender Wage Gap Widened In 2012, As Women Workers Were Held Back By Recovery
The Huffington Post
|03/07/2013
The economy may be recovering, but it’s leaving women behind.
The pay gap between male and female workers widened last year for the first time since the beginning of the economic recovery. Women earned 80.9 percent of what men earned in 2012, compared to 82.2 percent in 2011, according to a study released Thursday by the Institute for Women’s Policy Research.
Male workers saw their pay go up slightly from 2011, while women workers made a little bit less than they did in 2011. As a result women made about $163 dollars less per week in 2012 than men.
The widening pay gap can largely be explained by the types of jobs women are gaining and losing, Ariane Hegewisch, one of the study’s researchers told The Huffington Post. In 2012, government budget tightening led to cuts in public sector jobs, which disproportionately affected women. At the same time, job growth for women came in low-paying sectors like retail and service….
http://www.forbes.com/sites/meghancasserly/2013/02/14/gender-pay-gap-wider-2012-and-its-great-for-women/
Schaeffer might be able to argue that the overall gender pay gap is misleading—to be fair, comparing men in ALL jobs with women in ALL jobs is easy to laugh off as misleading. How could you possibly control for choices of college education, career paths, etc. given such an enormous pool of job types and salaries?
But lucky for me (and President Obama), the joys of the data don’t end there. In management professions, men earn $1,328 each week while women earn $951—a 71.6% gap. In financial professions it’s 74% and in legal occupations an abysmal 53.7%. These men and women, surely, achieved the same level of education, chose the same career path and dedicate similar full-time hours to their fields, don’t they Sabrina?
Let’s be realistic. If we’re seeing these numbers today President Obama was certainly made savvy weeks ago. As someone who believe in the sad reality of these salary statistics (and as a person who lives in a world where discrimination is all too easy to witness first-hand), I for one hope he’s waiting to break them out at precisely the right political moment….
http://www.npr.org/2013/06/10/189280329/50-years-after-the-equal-pay-act-gender-wage-gap-endures
Catherine Hill is research director for the American Association of University Women. She says the pay advantage young women supposedly have disappears when you control for the level of education. Her research shows that, just a year out of college, women are at a 6.6 percent pay disadvantage. Hill says a big part of that is the anticipation of motherhood.
For example, she says, employers may ask themselves: Am I really going to spend the money to put this woman into a training program? She's just going to leave me, after all.
"And that kind of discriminatory behavior really boxes women in, so we all get penalized because people fear that women are going to leave the workplace," Hill says.
And she says the pay gap compounds over time, hurting women in their retirement years….
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/09/04/gender-income-gaps-persist-among-doctors-study/
Female doctors earn an average of $56,000 less each year than male doctors, according to a new study, which found that gap hasn't budged since the late 1980s.
Researchers used a nationally-representative survey conducted in 1987 through 2010 and found that although earning gaps shrank over time among non-healthcare workers, that was not the case for doctors and certain other health professionals.
"There is something that's intrinsically going on within the physician workforce," Dr. Anupam B. Jena, the study's senior author from Harvard Medical School's Department of Health Care Policy, said.
"We would have suspected that the gender gap between males and females would have converged somewhat over the years, and what we found was that it was relatively constant…"
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/labor/news/2012/04/16/11391/the-top-10-facts-about-the-wage-gap/
Given the unfortunate fact that the gender wage gap appears to be here for a while, here are the top 10 facts you need to know about unequal pay:
1.In 2010 women who worked full time, year round, still only earned 77 percent of what men earned. The median earnings for women were $36,931 compared to $47,715 for men, and neither real median earnings nor the female-to-male earnings ratio have increased since 2009.
2. The gender wage gap does not only affect individuals—entire families are impacted by women’s earnings. In 2010, in nearly two-thirds of families (63.9 percent), a mother was either the breadwinner—either a single working mother or bringing home as much or more than her husband—or a co-breadwinner—bringing home at least a quarter of the family’s earnings. When women’s wages are lowered due to gender discrimination, their families’ incomes are often significantly lowered as well.
3. Women earn less than men within all racial and ethnic groups. In 2010, the latest year for which data are available, white women earned 78.1 percent compared to white men, African American women earned 89.8 percent compared to black men, Hispanic women earned 91.3 percent compared to Hispanic men, and Asian women earned 79.7 percent compared to Asian men. The wage gap is lower for black and Hispanic women in part because wages for people of color tend to be lower overall. This gap occurs within racial/ethnic groups as well. In 2010, according to the Census Bureau, African Americans earned only 58.7 percent of what whites earned, while Hispanics earned only 69.1 percent of what whites earned….
I could go on but hopefully you'll get the idea and refrain from enlightening us on your woefully inadequate knowledge of women in the workforce and the gender wage gap.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Women tend to choose careers for different reasons than men do.
Men choose careers for one reason: money. The result is that men are 92% of workplace fatalities, work roughly 14% more hours per week and spend more time in their career, yet are more likely to be unemployed.
The observation from your post "comparing men in ALL jobs with women in ALL jobs is easy to laugh off as misleading." is spot on. The way to normalize for this isn't "to compare all legal jobs" or "all management jobs".
The AAUW made at least a cursory attempt to normalize the effect of choices. After correcting for hours worked, job titles, qualifications and tenure, they found that the wage gap was less than 5%. They didn't attempt to quantify what role negotiating for salary played or the effect that a 9% higher unemployment rate has.
It is also worth noting that women entrepreneurs make less than male entrepreneurs. Since the self-employed don't have a boss to discriminate against them, why is there a pay gap?
Unless women take jobs on the commercial fishing boats and other dangerous professions, work 14% more hours and take the volatile and risky jobs which pay more, this phenomenon will continue to be what it currently is; a manifestation of choice.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)The fact that boys get worse grades despite getting better test scores shows that teachers give grades on criteria other than understanding of the subject matter. I'd call it bias.
But yeah, if a person is math-inclined, they will factor in the ROI of tuition and books and may find that the human services bacherlor's degree may not be mathematically justifiable when the option is $15/hour at the lumberyard.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Many studies have shown boys will stigmatize the hard working studious boys, many girls do too- but they get pressure from every side. Women are learning they cannot rely on the old school model of dependence on men, even if they have given them children. They are learning the value of self reliance and being pro active about planning. This is awesome. Boys tend to be short term thinkers, assuming things will work out because they can make 15$ an hour right now, and it;s just foolish. They need better mentoring to consider the long term and make better choices.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)In a subthread about why different choices yield different compensation, it turns out the "short term thinking" is associated with a 23% pay premium.
1) Women as a group dominate college.
2) Men as a group are paid more.
3) College is a good investment.
It's difficult to reconcile all three ideas.
Personally, I think #2 needs a big huge asterisk to explain why men are paid more despite lower levels of education.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)probably because they got it for free since day one of their lives. *shrug*
recently I was chatting with someone here about that report on how many countries didn't allow women paid employment.
Silly fella assumed that meant the women weren't working to support their families at all. All the women on my Mom's generation put in 12-16 hours a day, and the easiest days of their lives were the few years they were young and had paid employment, and less responsibilities outside that paid employment. They worked as children, they worked hard as soon as they quit those jobs. They just didn't get paid. Thank god women have opportunities these days, at least in America.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)It's not a big conspiracy that pay in certain careers is low, it's a manifestation of supply and demand. Colleges turn out more social services graduates than governments are able to employ.
Don't tilt at the windmill, take the job working on an oil rig if money is the prime motivation.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)went off to the office, LOL. Sad that the large existing pay differential leads too many couples to assign the breadwinner role to men. It is slowly changing, and some of that because young men are too short sighted to value their education. In your latest example, hard to work on an oil rig or other heavy labour when your 55- 65. You're out on your ass.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Women's careers tend to pay less than men's careers, partly because "men's careers" are a thing.
It stands to reason that a job which completely uses up your health in a 30 year career pays more, but a conscientious parent does what it takes to promote the success of their family, even if at great personal cost.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)As is work/ life balance vs being an absentee parent.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)them accordingly for the last century. But society didn't because women took a back seat. But now, it's more likely than ever men will work those jobs too.
Dash87
(3,220 posts)Also, women do work long hours and do work dangerous jobs (I see female cops all of the time).
Also, cops make $60,000 at best versus doctors (a lot more). There are many female doctors. In fact, women occupy many high-paying positions and yet still make less.
It's not the jobs women hold. Many of the "male-dominated" jobs you're alluding to are low to mid-level paying jobs. Women also occupy these jobs but get paid less than their male coworkers.
Part of it, I believe, is sexism. Our society still hasn't fully warmed up to women in previously male-dominated positions. Women are assumed to be less capable, too emotional (which is a laugh considering men are just as emotional but society forces them to hide it), and "in the way." Others want to maintain the "good old boys club."
Did you know that some people still believe that women are naturally less able to do math and science than men? They think this is a biological fact. Some have silent biases that affect how much they pay or who they hire.
Also, women choose jobs for the money as well. Why else would they?
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)For example, are male doctors are paid more because there are more male specialists and more male surgeons?
A lot of the jobs women tend to gravitate towards are support positions. Many fields that are high stress, high risk, or high liability are still heavily dominated by men. Men are willing to take less desirable work for more money. Women tend to be more picky about their employment options.
Men tend to work more hours than women. More men are willing to work graveyard shifts which typically pay a premium on top of their normal pay.
The only way you can prove a wage gap is to take a male employee and a female employee that do the same work, work the same hours, have the same qualifications, and do the same quality of work and then compare their paychecks. If we are just going to simply add up all the female paychecks in the country and all male paychecks in the country....then of course men are making more money. You can't do it that way.
Yes there is discrepancies. There is some inequality. I won't dispute that. Women are not in higher paid positions in equal numbers as men. Is that due to sexism to keep women out of those jobs? Or is it because women simply don't want those jobs? That's a question I cannot answer. Many of our jobs are still gender-specific. There are many more female nurses than male nurses. There are many more female dental hygienists. There are many more female secretaries. There are many more male truck drivers. There are many more male construction workers. Etc, etc.... Is that sexism or personal choices?
DebJ
(7,699 posts)That's why the men are the ones who lost the most jobs: employers kept
the employees who a)made the least money and b)did the most work LOL
DebJ
(7,699 posts)I have read that a number of people who would have entered the workplace, if there still WAS
a workplace, went to college so as to be doing SOMETHING to further their future. College
wasn't a first choice, but a default choice.
Igel
(35,293 posts)The workforce participation: Does that take into accounts those with a good reason for being outside the workforce? College and other training, for instance?
The families with head of household under 30: Does that control for number of children and marriage rate? Neither of these are intrinsic to being under 30. It's a question of, "Is this the real factor involved or is it derivative?"
If we're looking at full-time employment rates, are we looking at the entire cohort of kids 18-29 years old? Or some sort of adjusted number--say, BLS stats?
If those under 30 account for 23% of the workforce but 36% of the unemployed, is this a new situation? A return to an old one? Need context.
Same for the bachelor's degree holders. Needs to be finer-grained. Esp. since the number itself is rather artificial: A lot of kids graduate at 22, but some graduate at 23 (the 5-year recipients) or even 24 (those on the 6-year plan, those who did two years of military before going to college, those who were part-timers at community college before 'getting serious'). So in some cases the problem is that in 1, 2, or 3 years they didn't get either a job or the "right" job. How many had been looking for 3 years? How many 2 years? How many 1 year? How many had been looking 3 months? And do we really get upset if it takes a year for a college grad to get a job that doesn't count as "underemployed" (either in hours or in skill set)?
Otherwise it's like a # I heard recently: Only 28% of American adults are able to understand science reporting as presented in the NYT or WaPo. This was horrendous. American civilization was doomed! Of course, 25 years ago the # was only something like 12%, so it's a lot better now. But that 28% number was presented and the most likely reader inference was that things had gotten worse--not better. No context, hard to have a valid interpretation. But since outrage is what's wanted and not understanding, I guess the article served the purpose--making some people pissed off, making others feel superior, and selling newspapers
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)
Men
Women
BainsBane
(53,026 posts)so white men can waltz into high paying jobs without having to compete with 75% of the population. It's really awful they let us out of the house and men don't get everything handed to them anymore simply because they are white and male.
That some repeatedly complain about women earning 77 cents on the dollar shows just how little they respect basic democratic concepts of equal rights.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)You missed your exit. Strawman was previous turn.
BainsBane
(53,026 posts)Have you heard of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that led to laws banning discrimination in the workplace, which have benefited women of all races and men of color?
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)You were mentioning something about 77 cents? Please continue, governor.
Young men are disproportionately underemployed because their education is a lower social priority.
BainsBane
(53,026 posts)Do tell.
Lack of education is indeed a problem. It causes people to whine that they don't have everything handed to them just for being male. It means they can't be bothered to think about the overall trajectory of the American economy, deindustrialization, the decline of unions, and outsourcing--evidently all perpetrated by the evil women of America.
Women are paid less than men for the same jobs, even though it is illegal. You are evidently angry we are paid at all. In my experience, men who are intelligent and competent are not threatened by strong, educated women, or the fact that those women exist in sizable numbers in the economy. Your ideology projects all of your problems onto woman kind because you refuse to even attempt to understand basic economic and historical factors. Rather than focusing on international capitalism, you blame women, just like White Supremacists blame people of color for their problems.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)BainsBane
(53,026 posts)Is that really so difficult? I'm not reading great tracks of stuff just to follow a point. If you can't make your own argument, what is the point of even being here?
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)The observation that there are many more google hits for "scholarships for women" than "scholarships for men" is reflective of the fact that "scholarships for women" are more common because they are a higher social priority.
Let's put it another way;
-Barack Obama, June 23rd 2012
It's policy.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Response to hrmjustin (Reply #42)
lumberjack_jeff This message was self-deleted by its author.
BainsBane
(53,026 posts)So everyone can see how awful the Civil Rights act of 1964 and enforcing the 14th amendment is for the whiners of America.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)How about "no"? Does "no" work for you?
"You racist!" Is the weakest possible argument against the facts I just showed you, since you're the only one mentioning race.
BainsBane
(53,026 posts)Not men of color? And you're going to pretend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 had absolutely no impact on white men's share of wages and relative participation in the labor force? What's the solution, make it legal to refuse to hire based on race and gender just so white men can walk into jobs without facing competition?
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)a) first off, the graphs I posted reflect labor force participation, not wages.
b) second, it's you repeating 77 cents as if the civil rights act never happened.
Even the American Association of University Women reports that the pay gap is less than 5%.
receive the same pay? The answer is no. The evidence shows that even when the “explanations” for the pay gap are included in a regression, they cannot fully explain the pay disparity. The regressions for earnings one year after college indicate that when all variables are included, about one quarter of the pay gap is attributable to gender. That is, after controlling for all the factors known to affect earnings, college-educated women earn about 5 percent less than college-educated men earn. Thus, while discrimination cannot be measured directly, it is reasonable to assume that this pay gap is the product of gender discrimination
http://www.aauw.org/files/2013/02/Behind-the-Pay-Gap.pdf
Honest people use honest arguments.
BainsBane
(53,026 posts)Look in the mirror.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)Other than the extreme wingnut minority of the GOP who think the 1950s were the glory years of the republic, no one is suggesting women to go back to the kitchen.
It's just being suggested that young women are doing far better in this economy than young men. And that needs to be evaluated.
Why is it that every time we talk about an issue that effects men, feminists act like the discussion is meant to hurt women?
Men have problems in this world too.
BainsBane
(53,026 posts)There are some Democrats far to the right of the GOP on gender issues.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)You are assuming that if someone posts stats that women are doing better than men, than women need to be brought back down. I don't see that argument being made anywhere here.
I think what does need more attention is why men are not doing as well. Why are men not going to college? Why are boys having trouble in schools? Why are men having trouble with employment? Why are men losing motivation? A lot of these trends somewhat mirror Japan's "lost generation."
No one is saying it's because of girls. But if the statistics show girls are soaring in these categories, but men are dropping, then something is going on that is gender-specific that if effecting men. If feminists want to be part of the conversation, that's fine. But society isn't going to ignore this. It can't afford to.
BainsBane
(53,026 posts)a year now, so I know what they think. They have been quite explicit on the matter. Have a look in the group yourself.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)Not sleazy innuendo.
Look in the mirror was your advice. I suggest you take it.
BainsBane
(53,026 posts)among them a small number of highly reactionary male supremacists in this country. What is obvious is that they they feel inadequate about their own lives and rather than dealing with that, project their failings onto women as a whole. Clearly, they have no capacity to distinguish between personal issues and political ideology. They enjoy whining and moaning and as a result are colossal bores. Some even whine about how oppressed they are because they have to work for a living. Their numbers are quite small, and ultimately they are entirely insignificant, especially, it seems, to themselves.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)I think it's pretty easy to spot them. They have my sympathy because they seem unable to recover from whatever perceived wounds they have received from life.
As for me, I've never been happier.
BainsBane
(53,026 posts)You seem awfully bitter for someone who claims to be so happy. Attacking complete strangers out of no where and complaining that the fact you have to work for a living, while people throughout the world are desperate for jobs? If that's happy, I'd hate to think what you see as misery. I guess I just don't understand the mentality that would make someone thing that should be able to sit around all day and not provide for themselves.
As for bile, I'm guessing that's what you call not recognizing white upper-middle class men are the most persecuted people in the world. If only they have been born in Mexico, they could be President now. Boo hoo. Woe to the privileged.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)BainsBane
(53,026 posts)one day they'll figure out how to rid the earth of us.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)And it is not pretty, dear.
BainsBane
(53,026 posts)You're one who imagines the world is lined up to oppress upper-middle class men. You're the one who accused me of trying to have you banned when in fact I did the opposite and suggested a friend put in a word to save you from yourself (which I now regret doing). I'm not the one complaining that I actually have to work because women have turned me into a wage slave. I have absolutely no problem assuming responsibility for supporting myself. I work because the economy compels me to, like every other human being on the planet except for the extreme rich. I actually feel quite fortunate to earn enough to pay for food and housing because I know is comparison to most of the world, I am extremely fortunate.
I am perfectly comfortable with my views, and nothing I say approaches bile. Not believing upper-middle class white men are the most oppressed group in human history doesn't make me hateful. It means I'm part of the reality based world and don't premise a so-called ideology on self pity. Now by all means, go back to being the happy go lucky guy that prompts you to attack random stranger online rather than engaging in a discussion about matters of substance.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)I do not think nor did I ever say that women forced me to become a wage slave. Nor do I think that white upper-middle class men are the most oppressed group in human history.
Again, the fact that you have read that into me is truly only an illustration of how distorted and bizarre your thinking is.
You see threats and attackers where there are only shades created by your imagination.
BainsBane
(53,026 posts)while women have the choice to stay at home to work. I pointed out to you some months ago that notion is limited only to middle and upper-middle class white families from the latter part of the twentieth century. You considered that point so insignificant, it didn't enter your consciousness and you again repeated the same whine. You hence refuse to acknowledge the life experiences of anyone outside that small group in that short period of history. Now, it's clear you have never been exposed to much social or labor history, but rather than thinking your own experience might not be universal, you continue to assume it is, even when presented with evidence to the contrary. I will repeat below a recent post I wrote. For confirmation on the historical analysis, you might read the jungle or pick up any recent college-level American history textbook, or even just do a search on Amazon for labor history and women's labor history, including slavery, in particular.
With that caveat, I'd like to explore the uninformed assumption that women have the choice to stay at home while men do not. The question itself reveals an inability to look outside the world of white middle- and upper-middle class America, as well as a lack of knowledge of US history. Poor and working class women, white and of color, have worked outside the home since the separation of public and private spheres in the late 18th and 19th centuries. Historically, African American women, who had limited access to jobs, often worked as domestics. Anyone with any familiarity of labor history knows that women and children alike labored in factories in the Gilded Age (as Upton Sinclair's The Jungle illustrated). Only with the advent of the Progressive Movement were child labor laws enacted, while the growth of unions excluded women from factory work. Women took on sweat work, being paid by the piece for sewing garments in their own homes or in sweatshops where groups of women furiously sewed and did other piece work without the security of an hourly wage afforded their fathers, husbands, and brothers.
Imagining women only entered the workforce starting in the 1960s (or during WWII) ignores the reality of ordinary, working Americans. The Leave it to Beaver ideal of the stay at home mom was never universal, though it was more obtainable for white middle-class Americans in the 1950s-1970s than today. For many families, however, it was never an option. Therefore assuming that women somehow have greater choice to stay home than men reveals an inability to look outside a bourgeois mentality. It's hardly surprising that those who deny the existence of patriarchy would be blind to realities of class and race as well. It shows how elitist the male-centric view of the world is. While women of color have rightly challenged white feminists to look beyond their race-based assumptions, it seems that concept remains unfathomable for MRA adherents or others who devote their time to worrying about men's plight. The fight to hold on to male privilege hence entails blindness to the dynamics of race and class that have always intersected with gender in proscribing the options any of us have in life.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)My OP was about the fact that in our current society (the world that the people here at DU are living in primarily) is one in which men have less choices than women do with regards to staying at home.
If it is your contention that in 21st century America, men have more of a choice to stay at home and not work than women do, please say so.
BainsBane
(53,026 posts)It applies to a very small section of America today. The notion itself is race and class based.
Only families with a certain degree of economic privilege even have that option. It is certainly true that social attitudes devalue work in the home because of its association as women's work, so that men who take on that role can be subject to disrespect, even to the point of having their masculinity challenged. Rather than internalizing those notions, you are in position to challenge them. That is the effect of sexist attitudes that sees raising children as something other than work. Stay at home mothers experience judgement from many working women, and I expect that judgement is even harsher on men. That derives from sexism, from the patriarchy you so scoff. It is a prime example of how patriarchy hurts men as well as women.
Your point about women working outside the home as a choice in contrast to an obligation for men is simply false for the vast majority of women in this country and the world. We all work because we have to survive. It's as much of a choice as eating, shelter and staying alive is a choice. That is the nature of the world, not just under capitalism but before the development of capitalism, though the nature of that work has changed with wage labor.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)Which is it? False or only applying to a small section?
Speaking of small sections. would that "small section" be about as small, say, as the small section of people that post on political discussion boards? If so, I'd say it is pretty damned relevant.
But seriously, you really didn't answer the simple question.
Who has more of an option to spend time at home while their significant other earns the bulk of the income? Although getting harder and harder for women to do so, it is even harder for men and though you may be correct about the root's of why men are denigrated for doing so being found in sexist attitudes towards women, that does nothing to diminish the fact that men are subjected to and thus victimized by that reality.
BainsBane
(53,026 posts)Again you are talking about a small privileged slice of society and refusing to consider a reality outside that world exists. That is why I challenged you on race-and class-based assumptions. You talk about men and women as thought the tiny segment that interests you is somehow universal. The fact is, for most families there is no option for one parent to stay home. Moreover, a large segment of households are headed by single mothers, who work both in and out of the home. Additionally, countless studies show that most women who work outside the home also take on the vast majority of work in the home.
I do not dispute that men are affected by the social stigma associated with child rearing. I would not choose the word victimization. The question I have is why you feel compelled to inflict that judgement on yourself? Thoughtful people know that work has tremendous value. We know that the stigma against it is because women's work has long been devalued. Today, these are essentially decisions made between partners, and typically the person who earns more continues to work outside the home. That is far more often the man, since men's wages continue to exceed women's.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)But, sadly, I did not.
As to your PERSONAL questions about me and my choices, they have no place in the discussion nor do you have any right to ask me such personal questions expecting a response. Would you invite similar personal questions into YOUR life and have every post you made be turned into a question demanding details of YOUR life?
BainsBane
(53,026 posts)The fact that you invoke the terms men and women without qualification assumes it. When I told you I worked starting at age 13, you insisted that way my choice but it wasn't necessary, showing you have no conception of life outside the bourgeois bubble. The fact that you again posted the same stuff after being told by multiple people the experience was not universal shows you care not one wit about the experiences of ordinary Americans.
Obviously you have nothing to say on the subject other than tired and demonstrably false stereotypes. You cannot summon either sociological evidence or personal anecdote. Your reaction above shows that you are entirely unprepared to deal with the subject matter and instead revert back to hostility, your go-to position when your argument falls apart.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)"When I told you I worked starting at age 13, you insisted that way my choice but it wasn't necessary, showing you have no conception of life outside the bourgeois bubble."
Either you are hearing voices or you are just making shit up now.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)But men are still pressured to be the breadwinners. This pressure comes from both sides...men and women. The societal stereotypes are something Im not sure society is ready or able to move beyond.
The societal pressure is enough to completely ruin relationships. There are studies that suggest when women make more than her husband, there is a greater chance of divorce.
Yes, a lot of the pressure is coming from men who are trying to maintain social control. After all, money is power in this world. But the pressure also comes from women who may begin to think after a long stressful day, "is my husband doing enough?"
I remember an article I read that talked about 3 or 4 women with high incomes. And they were complaining about not being able to find good men to date and marry. And I quickly realized what their problem was. First, yes...a lot of men out there would be intimidated by such women. So there is that. But they also seemed to prefer upper class men. They wanted their income to be supplemental to the family, not the primary source. My point in mentioning this is that women are having just as much difficult time moving beyond stereotypes as men are.
I can tell you for a fact there are women out there, lots of women out there, who still expect the man to be the breadwinner and provider of the family. I know because I've dated those women before. They think that is just the way it's supposed to be. They think feminism made it so that they should have a choice between their job and their family.
So men are not the only issue here.
BainsBane
(53,026 posts)In fact, I have explicitly said otherwise.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)I mean, this is from the OP is a Gallup poll.
The poll showed a jump 1.2 percentage jump between mid 2011 and mid 2012, and then the drop in mid 2013.
How exactly is a poll reliable economic data?
One would have to go through all his links, to notice some of the employment stats are nearly five years old, and are not based on actual economic data.
The site tends to collect questionable data and spin them in RW terms.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021480218#post36
dionysus
(26,467 posts)
dkf
(37,305 posts)Nothing to see! Just move along please.
dionysus
(26,467 posts)you've made.
dkf
(37,305 posts)Banks suck, systemic failure is good and optimum! Start all over again with everyone poor as dirt so we can be equal!!!
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)... I mean, cause we can't trust Zero Hedge.... 
doc03
(35,324 posts)I am surprised it isn't worse than that.
Warpy
(111,229 posts)Young males who are not offered any sort of stake in the country or even in their own lives are going to do something about it.
I anticipate a wave of kidnappings and other extortion attempts.
I will deplore it but I will understand it. Rich men's ever increasing fortunes depend on their not understanding it.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)#29 Overall, approximately 25 million American adults are living with their parents according to Time Magazine.
In addition to the everyone in that age group joining the ever growing numbers of working poor, a proverbial bombshell would have to go off, because not ONE of the fascists in control of House has the balls to do anything even about THESE statistics...
Probably those fascist's answer to this is for a world event of epic proportions like Fukushima to simply kill off most populations who will have pitted against each other, grabbing at anything they can to survive a growing nightmare.
It's up to us, folks... We can't take this shit.
SoCalDem
(103,856 posts)Once the nest is empty, parents have a limited time to save up for their own aged-security. If they are helping adult children (and grandchildren), it limits their own possibilities, and someday they may find themselves still paying off debts incurred by adult children , and stuck with a too-big house that probably needs a LOT of repairs,(no extra cash to do maintenance).. Those children may be moving OUT and starting fresh and have no capabilities to reciprocate when Mom & Dad need help.
When parenting began in one's early 20's, and retirement began after 20-25 years on a job, retired-parents were relatively "young", and many HAD a "second-act"..
They could sell their home and downsize...
Their pensions (defined benefit) allowed them to get "smaller" jobs...or NO jobs, if they had paid off their homes..
They had time to travel, to get to know their grandkids...
They did not have student debt (their own and their kids')
Delayed parenting, student debt, and the elimination of pensions are the trifecta-of-doom for many millions of people..
llmart
(15,536 posts)that got to retire after 20 years, in their early 40's.
Just saying.
SoCalDem
(103,856 posts)The ones who had pensions were eligible, although many continued to work, IF they were physically able to keep doing that job, or if they still loved doing it. Their pension allowed them to do other things..other jobs that were less stressful, more fun....
Talk to random elders (75 & up).. MANY of them have multiple pensions and social security..
Boomers & youngers mostly have NO pensions...they (we) have what we have managed to save & what's left in 401-ks at the time we DO retire
llmart
(15,536 posts)The only people I know that were eligible for pensions after 20 years were military. I've worked in many different places - big corporations, small family owned companies, medium sized companies and have been in the workforce since I was 17 and graduated from high school. I'm still working and I'm almost 65. I am the quintessential baby boomer. No one that I worked for or with were eligible for a pension in their 40's - union included. I know ex-Ford factory workers who were union and started working at Ford (or Chrysler or GM) at about 20 years old and they may have been offered buyouts when they were 50 but it wasn't the traditional retirement and it wasn't after 20 years.
Those "random" elders of which you speak - they are my sisters and brothers and friends and neighbors. I don't need to go find random elders. I'm old enough to have a lengthy work history.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)That's what got my parents through the Great Depression.
What are the Republicans thinking shutting down the government at a time like this when people need help more than ever.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)like everyone else does ....in Bangladeshi
lonestarnot
(77,097 posts)indepat
(20,899 posts)tantamount to an atrocity punishable under international law imo.
WCGreen
(45,558 posts)recoup their losses from the 2008 stock melt down...