Quotulatiousness

March 3, 2011

“Where have the good men gone?” and the women who chase after jerks

Filed under: Economics, Education, Health — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 07:53

As I predicted a few weeks back, this topic appears to be a growing concern (at least in certain key urban media markets): “why are men so juvenile and why won’t they settle down?”

First up is Mark Regnerus:

We keep hearing that young men are failing to adapt to contemporary life. Their financial prospects are impaired — earnings for 25- to 34-year-old men have fallen by 20 percent since 1971. Their college enrollment numbers trail women’s: Only 43 percent of American undergraduates today are men. Last year, women made up the majority of the work force for the first time. And yet there is one area in which men are very much in charge: premarital heterosexual relationships.

First, it’s not at all a bad thing that women are catching up and in some cases surpassing their male classmates. Along with the good, however, are some wrenching changes to the society in which this change is taking place — especially to sexual relationships:

When attractive women will still bed you, life for young men, even those who are floundering, just isn’t so bad. This isn’t to say that all men direct the course of their relationships. Plenty don’t. But what many young men wish for — access to sex without too many complications or commitments — carries the day. If women were more fully in charge of how their relationships transpired, we’d be seeing, on average, more impressive wooing efforts, longer relationships, fewer premarital sexual partners, shorter cohabitations, and more marrying going on. Instead, according to the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (which collects data well into adulthood), none of these things is occurring. Not one. The terms of contemporary sexual relationships favor men and what they want in relationships, not just despite the fact that what they have to offer has diminished, but in part because of it. And it’s all thanks to supply and demand.

It’s not just raw numbers: the sexual balance hasn’t been significantly changed just because of the shift in the proportion of men and women going on to higher education. What has been impacted is something that doesn’t yield readily to slogans or seminars: women have strong preferences for men of higher status than themselves. This isn’t a social preference that can be talked around: it has much more to do with biology.

Women prefer to “date up” or “marry up”, and the pool of males that fit that criteria is getting smaller (fewer men are going on to university). This forces women to compete for the limited number of alpha males: instead of being pursued by eager men, (some) men are now being pursued by many women. Resulting, at least for that group of men, in copious supplies of women willing to exchange sex for attention.

Kay S. Hymowitz sees the extended adolescence for men as a new stage of life, pre-adulthood:

So where did these pre-adults come from? You might assume that their appearance is a result of spoiled 24-year-olds trying to prolong the campus drinking and hook-up scene while exploiting the largesse of mom and dad. But the causes run deeper than that. Beginning in the 1980s, the economic advantage of higher education — the “college premium” — began to increase dramatically. Between 1960 and 2000, the percentage of younger adults enrolled in college or graduate school more than doubled. In the “knowledge economy,” good jobs go to those with degrees. And degrees take years.

[. . .]

In his disregard for domestic life, the playboy was prologue for today’s pre-adult male. Unlike the playboy with his jazz and art-filled pad, however, our boy rebel is a creature of the animal house. In the 1990s, Maxim, the rude, lewd and hugely popular “lad” magazine arrived from England. Its philosophy and tone were so juvenile, so entirely undomesticated, that it made Playboy look like Camus.

At the same time, young men were tuning in to cable channels like Comedy Central, the Cartoon Network and Spike, whose shows reflected the adolescent male preferences of its targeted male audiences. They watched movies with overgrown boy actors like Steve Carell, Luke and Owen Wilson, Jim Carrey, Adam Sandler, Will Farrell and Seth Rogen, cheering their awesome car crashes, fart jokes, breast and crotch shots, beer pong competitions and other frat-boy pranks. Americans had always struck foreigners as youthful, even childlike, in their energy and optimism. But this was too much.

Given all of that, is it any surprise that fewer men are willing to exchange their pre-adult lifestyle with all its juvenile attraction combined with the adult trappings (cars, booze, drugs, etc.) for the “real” adult lifestyle?

Single men have never been civilization’s most responsible actors; they continue to be more troubled and less successful than men who deliberately choose to become husbands and fathers. So we can be disgusted if some of them continue to live in rooms decorated with “Star Wars” posters and crushed beer cans and to treat women like disposable estrogen toys, but we shouldn’t be surprised.

Relatively affluent, free of family responsibilities, and entertained by an array of media devoted to his every pleasure, the single young man can live in pig heaven — and often does. Women put up with him for a while, but then in fear and disgust either give up on any idea of a husband and kids or just go to a sperm bank and get the DNA without the troublesome man. But these rational choices on the part of women only serve to legitimize men’s attachment to the sand box. Why should they grow up? No one needs them anyway. There’s nothing they have to do.

Over at Ace of Spades HQ, the Regnerus article got Ace thinking:

A related thought I’ve had concerns feminists’ religious doctrine that social restraints on sexual behavior is all caused by grubby, oppressive, vagina-shackling men. This doesn’t make sense at all, and never has made sense, and is an unchallenged meme in the Grrls Rule, Boys Drool leftist feminist culture not because it makes a lick of sense but only because it hangs all the evils of the world on the Designated Sexual Villains in the feminist morality play. Men, of course.

If one accepts the hard-to-dispute premise that, between the sexes, women prefer a higher-sexual-cost regime in which men are supposed to “work for it,” as it were, and men prefer a lower-sexual-cost regime in which their sexual needs can be gratified with almost no work whatsoever (compare and contrast female wish-fulfillment romcoms with male wish-fulfillment pornos, or even James Bond movies, actually), then of course it makes sense that women, rather than men, have a sound motive for increasing the sexual penalties for promiscuous sex whereas men have stronger motive for decreasing them.

[. . .]

Leftist feminists of the younger, sillier generation similarly attempt to claim that it is evil, controlling men who use the word whore to not merely brand actual prostitutes but to control the sexual expressions of everyday women. That is, they assert (and these extremely silly third-generation feminists seem to write about little else but this) feel that social disapproval of female promiscuity is almost entirely a male invention, because men, you see, want to keep women from having sex with other men, so we invent the usage of the word “whore” to describe a sexually-liberated woman and by infecting the culture with this disease of whore-branding, make sexually-promiscuous women feel badly about their sexual choices and force them to conform to a male, Christian-fundamentalist (of course) regime of female chastity.

To the extent that women participate in this oppressive regime of whore-deeming, it’s only because a false conscience has been imposed upon them by male-dominated media. Women call other women “whores” not because women wish to wound other women (their sexual competition) but because men have hypnotized them to think this way.

To control their scary vaginas.

It nicely illustrates the confusion brought on by the social and sexual mores in flux:

As has been noted many, many times (not that lefty feminists ever notice), we did in fact have a Sexual Revolution, and men won. And the strangest thing about this is that lefty feminists, while claiming (and falsely believing) themselves to be liberating women, have in fact been eagerly liberating men, liberating men from the need of offering any kind of satisfactory trade-in-kind to women for sexual favors.

In their strange inversion of reality, it’s men who have the means, motive, and opportunity to increase the costs of obtaining sex and it’s women, on the other hand, who have the strong interest in a promiscuity and commitment-free (or even dinner-date free) sex.

And men, who, in this role-reversed alternate reality feminists have concocted, desperately want women to keep their vaginas chaste, can only be “beaten” by giving it all away for free.

And of course keeping abortion not only legal but socially praiseworthy because, again in this comic-book “What If?” issue of reality feminists have concocted, men only want to have sex to produce children and women, of course, are far less game for procreation, viewing sex as primarily a vehicle for erotic gratification. But that’s a dementia for another day.

Also interested enough to comment on the article was Monty:

. . . this cultural trend has left many men unsure about their place in the new order of things. The traditional role as primary breadwinner and head of the household has been removed, but nothing has come along to replace it. The predominantly-liberal media and entertainment complexes have spent decades denigrating men as hapless buffoons or abusive troglodytes. Modern Hollywood heart-throbs are not square-jawed heroes in the Gary Cooper mode, but rather thin, indolent, androgynous, and (most importantly) non-threatening. And while some women often wonder out loud “Where are all the decent men?”, there’s plenty of evidence at hand that given a choice, they’re still more attracted to the moneyed jerks of the world.

Monty also points out that there’s not just a strong set of hedonistic reasons pushing young men to stay in that “pre-adult” stage of life:

The big problem with modern heterosexual relationships is that apart from the sex, there’s really not much in it for men any more. Men have few legal rights over their own progeny; family law for decades has whittled away a man’s parental rights to little more than a financial obligation. If the woman already has children from a previous marriage, the man incurs an enormous burden in return for very little gain: in most cases he has no parental rights over the children, he competes for his wife’s time with the ex (and the ex’s family), and he incurs huge financial burdens but gains very little actual power in the household. A man’s sexual life is viewed with suspicion and sometimes disgust by women, who seem to want to train a man’s sex drive in the same way they train a naughty dog. A man alone with a small child is a man always on the verge of being accused as a child molester or abuser — society has made single men afraid to even approach children who are not their own (and sometimes even when the children are their own).

In short, men have been systematically demoted from their traditional place in society. This is good because it has given many women far richer and more interesting lives; but very bad because it has given men nothing in recompense. Women retained many of their old power-centers (child-rearing, home-making, etc.) but gained a lot of new power as well. For men, most of the change has been on the negative side of the ledger. From the male viewpoint, the only positive aspect of the change is that it’s much easier to have uncommitted sex, and even here the long-term harm far outweighs any short-term gains.

Men play video games, and watch sports, and hang out with their friends, because they enjoy it. It’s no more an “adolescent” activity for men than, say, shopping with their girlfriends is for women. Men do have complicated inner lives. They have hopes and dreams of their own that are not necessarily connected to the women they may be seeing. Men desire comfort and happiness in their lives no less than women do, but they seek it in different ways. Marriage — even a long-term relationship — has to benefit both partners, and in recent decades many men have simply found it to be not worthwhile.

Jon, who brought the original link to my attention, had this to say about the phenomenon:

How pervasive is this issue? I think the feminization of males is mostly a “big urban” thing, rather than universal. The closer you are to a dense urban centre, the more hipsters and girly males you seem to get. There seems to be an inverse square law happing here — the further away you get from the dense urban core, the fewer pansies you seem to find. Media and academics would have us believe that the fem-men in rural areas are simply closeted and are hiding their softer sides out of fear, but of course they would say that: they cannot conceive of the possibility that anyone outside of their own social environment might actually be different.

February 17, 2011

Once upon a time, working in public service entailed a bit of sacrifice

Filed under: Bureaucracy, Cancon, Government — Tags: , — Nicholas @ 09:37

But that old notion of “lower wages but better pensions” for public service work has gone the way of the buggy-whip industry. Now, public servants get better wages, much better pensions, and generally much more generous benefits. Even through the recession, federal and provincial wages continued to outpace those in the private sector:

Both images are details from this National Post graphic.

February 10, 2011

Workplace diplomacy

Filed under: Bureaucracy, Randomness — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 12:42

An aside to an email discussion we were having provoked DarkWaterMuse to post his thoughts on the matter:

Diplomacy is a major cause of workplace inefficiency. Mostly, it doesn’t actually matter how things get said.

dwm tends to say whatever is rattling around at the top of his head. Too often what rattles around up there then manages to roll down mysterious passageways carved throughout his brain before it tumbles off the tip of his tongue.

Sometimes the words that escape just lay there, stunned and motionless on the floor, as other people in earshot simply glare at them.

Even worse though is when dwm doesn’t say anything at all. That probably means either there’s a log jam of words building up pressure inside his head, a clear sign of imminent unbounded and unpredictable cranial flatulence, or he’s mentally undressing one of the women who happens to be trapped in the same meeting room.

dwm has never really appreciated the need for diplomacy. Especially when there’s clearly work to be done. He subscribes to the notion that people like to be part of success, however it manages to manifest.

As it turns out, diplomacy isn’t necessary for success. It’s just necessary to manage the people who aren’t focused on it.

I’m not convinced, as I’ve found diplomacy to be one of the most frequently used “tools” in my arsenal. I suspect DarkWaterMuse, as primarily a “producer” of essentially original content has less functional need for the social lubricant of careful wording than someone like me (a “consumer” if you will), who generally requires the active co-operation of others to provide me with the raw material I happen to need to accomplish my tasks.

His point about diplomacy being “a major cause of workplace inefficiency” would more closely hit the mark if he were using it to describe weasel wording rather than diplomacy. As Sir Humphrey Appleby says “A good Civil Servant must be able to use language not as a window into the mind but as a curtain to draw across it.” What is ideal for a civil servant is toxic for good working relationships in non-bureaucratic environments.

February 7, 2011

Licensing as a tool for restricting competition

Filed under: Bureaucracy, Economics, Government, Law — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 12:21

Stephanie Simon addresses the pro and con positions on licensing for various jobs:

[E]conomists — and workers shut out of fields by educational requirements or difficult exams — say licensing mostly serves as a form of protectionism, allowing veterans of the trade to box out competitors who might undercut them on price or offer new services.

“Occupations prefer to be licensed because they can restrict competition and obtain higher wages,” said Morris Kleiner, a labor professor at the University of Minnesota. “If you go to any statehouse, you’ll see a line of occupations out the door wanting to be licensed.”

[. . .]

At a time of widespread anxiety about the growth of government, the licensing push is meeting pockets of resistance, including a move by some legislators to require a more rigorous cost-benefit analysis before any new licensing laws are approved. Critics say such regulation spawns huge bureaucracies including rosters of inspectors. They also say licensing requirements — which often include pricey educations — can prohibit low-income workers from breaking in to entry-level trades.

Texas, for instance, requires hair-salon “shampoo specialists” to take 150 hours of classes, 100 of them on the “theory and practice” of shampooing, before they can sit for a licensing exam. That consists of a written test and a 45-minute demonstration of skills such as draping the client with a clean cape and evenly distributing conditioner. Glass installers, or glaziers, in Connecticut — the only state that requires such workers to be licensed — take two exams, at $52 apiece, pay $300 in initial fees and $150 annually thereafter.

California requires barbers to study full-time for nearly a year, a curriculum that costs $12,000 at Arthur Borner’s Barber College in Los Angeles. Mr. Borner says his graduates earn more than enough to recoup their tuition, though he questions the need for such a lengthy program. “Barbering is not rocket science,” he said. “I don’t think it takes 1,500 hours to learn. But that’s what the state says.”

In harder economic climates, expect to see a push towards trying to get some form of certification or licensing imposed in new fields. For example, I’ve seen several attempts to introduce mandatory certification for technical writers, usually with the intent of limiting access to the (reduced) pool of writing jobs in the field. Usually the biggest fans of certification are those who think they’re in a good position to dictate the requirements for certification (and often run courses/seminars which, I assume, would automatically appear in the final list of requirements).

January 28, 2011

QotD: If those were the “good old days” then to hell with them

Filed under: Economics, History, Politics, Quotations — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 09:37

One of the difficulties progressives face is trying to make centralized planning sound like a good idea. Even the president, with all his rhetorical genius and majestic vagueness, can struggle with the task. So, from time to time, it’s important to mold history a bit to, you know, make a point.

Early on in his State of the Union, for instance, President Barack Obama reminisced of an age when “good jobs” meant “showing up at a nearby factory or a business downtown.” A time when you “didn’t always need a degree, and your competition was pretty much limited to your neighbors,” and, if you “worked hard, chances are you’d have a job for life, with a decent paycheck and good benefits and the occasional promotion. Maybe you’d even have the pride of seeing your kids work at the same company.”

Way to dream big! Really, was this country ever about being proud that your children ended up in the same plant you slaved in for 30 years? Even with a promise of a union pension and — if you’re lucky — an “occasional” promotion, it sounds like a soul-crushing grind you’d want your offspring to escape, tout de suite.

Luckily, in the real world, history tells of a story filled with dynamic movements of people, class climbing, churning innovation, booms and busts and widespread embrace of risk-taking.

Now, as the president explained, “painful” changes have crashed down on his revisionism and Americans have been forced to compete, find India on a map, move from town to town and study.

David Harsanyi, “Who are we in ‘Sputnik moment’?”, Denver Post, 2011-02-28

January 21, 2011

Have you ever asked yourself if you should work for free?

Filed under: Economics, Humour, Randomness — Tags: , — Nicholas @ 08:38

If so, Jessica Hische can help you figure out the appropriate response:


Click to see full image (NSFW language)

H/T to Tim Harford for the link.

December 17, 2010

Gay and lesbian couples’ income levels

Filed under: Economics, Education, Randomness, USA — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 12:59

As this article asserts, I don’t remember where I heard the “fact” that gay couples had higher incomes than heterosexual couples, but it seemed likely to be true. Apparently not:

The myth of gay money holds that “gays” (really just gay males) are high-income or rich. Why? Mostly because they don’t have kids, especially not when two guys live together. (That would make them DINKs.)

This myth was relentlessly propagated through the 1990s and persists today. Maybe you couldn’t put your finger on where you heard it (perhaps in a newspaper article?), but the stereotype is out there. And it isn’t true.

[. . .]

Why do gay males have generally lower incomes than straight males?

  • Gay males have more education than straight males, but they do not choose male-dominated professions as often as straight males do. In fact, they choose female-dominated and/or service professions much more often. Male-dominated professions (like construction) have generally higher wages than female-dominated professions (like secretarial).
  • Gay males work fewer hours than straight males.

Why do lesbians generally have higher income than straight females? It’s almost the inverse of the gay-male trend.

  • Lesbians also have more education than straight females, but they work longer hours — because, generally speaking, they are less likely to have children to take care of at home.
  • Lesbians are overrepresented in male-dominated professions that pay better than female-dominated professions.

What about discrimination? It’s a ready excuse to explain away the “few” gays who don’t meet the stereotype of being affluent. (That’s what press coverage would tell you – that just a few of us aren’t affluent. In reality, it’s most of us.) But the statistical evidence for discrimination as a cause of lower gay incomes is weak at best, and of course falls down completely in the case of lesbians, who, most studies agree, have higher incomes than straight females. Discrimination is clearly a factor sometimes; it just isn’t a credible explanation for the whole effect, which doesn’t apply to half of the population we’re talking about.

H/T to Freakonomics blog for the link.

December 14, 2010

QotD: Buzzword Bingo, resumé edition

Filed under: Bureaucracy, Humour, Quotations — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 12:30

Are you a motivated multitasker with extensive experience that has helped you become a results oriented team player?

Does your online resume say you have a dynamic and innovative skill set which has led to a proven track record of being entrepreneurial in a fast paced world?

Then congratulations, you’ve successfully used all 10 of the most overused buzzwords on LinkedIn in just two sentences.

[. . .]

And just so you know we tried, we did manage to get all 10 buzzwords into one single colossally cringe-worthy sentence sure to make any human resources manager’s skin crawl.

Heaven help the poor guy who has this phrase on his LinkedIn profile:

“Hi, I’m a motivated multitakser with extensive experience as an entrepreneurial and results oriented team player whose innovative and dynamic skills have helped me become adept at working in a fast paced world with a proven track record.”

Ta-da!

Matt Hartley, “The 10 most overused employment buzzwords on LinkedIn”, Financial Post, 2010-12-14

October 25, 2010

Amity Schlaes’ (condensed) The Forgotten Man

Filed under: Books, Economics, History, Politics, USA — Tags: , , , , , — Nicholas @ 13:07

An article encapsulating some of the key points of Amity Schlaes’ The Forgotten Man in PDF form:

We all know the traditional narrative of that event: The stock market crash generated an economic Katrina. One in four was unemployed in the first few years. It resulted from a combination of monetary, banking, credit, international, and consumer confidence factors. The terrible thing about it was the duration of a high level of unemployment, which averaged in the mid teens for the entire decade.

The second thing we usually learn is that the Depression was mysterious — a problem that only experts with doctorates could solve. That is why FDR’s floating advisory group — Felix Frankfurter, Frances Perkins, George Warren, Marriner Eccles and Adolf Berle, among others — was sometimes known as a Brain Trust. The mystery had something to do with a shortage of money, we are told, and in the end, only a Brain Trust’s tinkering with the money supply saved us. The corollary to this view is that the government knows more than American business does about economics.

Another common presumption is that cleaning up Wall Street and getting rid of white-collar criminals helped the nation recover. A second is that property rights may still have mattered during the 1930s, but that they mattered less than government-created jobs, shoring up home-owners, and getting the money supply right. A third is that American democracy was threatened by the rise of a potential plutocracy, and that the Wagner Act of 1935 — which lent federal support to labor unions — was thus necessary and proper. Fourth and finally, the traditional view of the 1930s is that action by the government was good, whereas inaction would have been fatal. The economic crisis mandated any kind of action, no matter how far removed it might be from sound monetary policy. Along these lines the humorist Will Rogers wrote in 1933 that if Franklin Roosevelt had “burned down the capital, we would cheer and say, ‘Well at least we got a fire started, anyhow.’”

To put this official version of the 1930s in terms of the Monopoly board: The American economy was failing because there were too many top hats lording it about on the board, trying to establish a plutocracy, and because there was no bank to hand out money. Under FDR, the federal government became the bank and pulled America back to economic health.

When you go to research the 1930s, however, you find a different story. It is of course true that the early part of the Depression — the years upon which most economists have focused — was an economic Katrina. And a number of New
Deal measures provided lasting benefits for the economy. These include the creation of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the push for free trade led by Secretary of State Cordell Hull, and the establishment of the modern mortgage format. But the remaining evidence contradicts the official narrative. Overall, it
can be said, government prevented recovery. Herbert Hoover was too active, not too passive — as the old stereotypes suggest — while Roosevelt and his New Deal policies impeded recovery as well, especially during the latter half of the decade.

H/T to Monty for the link.

October 19, 2010

The less-visible effects of workplace demographic changes

Filed under: Economics, History, USA — Tags: , , , , , , — Nicholas @ 12:12

Monty points out that we’ve passed a significant equilibrium point in employment statistics:

Women are vital to the American workforce, and have been since at least the 1940’s, but this recession may have shifted the balance of economic power decisively to women. Men have been the traditional household “breadwinners”, with the wife’s income being seen as augmenting the male’s income, but this recession has hit men disproportionately harder than women. Women are far more likely to work in industries (like services and healthcare) that are more insulated from the downturn, whereas men are far more likely to work in the hard-hit trades and manufacturing sectors. Women also have many more protections — both regulatory and social/cultural — than men do. There are many deep ramifications to this change — the impact of long-term male unemployment on the family; the loss of status, power and prestige that goes with being unemployed; the male self-image and value to society. (Studies of unemployed men during the Great Depression are not happy reading — many of the chronically unemployed males left their families rather than assume a lower status in the family, and were also far more likely to be dictatorial and violent towards their wives and children.)

Social support agencies are not well-equipped to deal with this change, and it will continue to disrupt “normal” life for years to come, unless the economy is allowed to right itself — yet another excellent reason to tell the politicians to stop meddling.

Another valuable observation from the same post:

This is a point I’ve made many times: the economic demographic most impacted by immigrant labor are teens. Low-end “starter” jobs tend to be low-skill, low-paying, part-time jobs, and adult immigrants are often favored over teens for these jobs by employers (they often have families to support, are considered more reliable, etc.). This means that the teen labor-participation percentage has fallen from 50% in 1970 to 25% today. (And even 25% is probably too high.) When faced with this lack of job opportunities, teens often opt to go back to school — but this in turn saddles them with a lot of debt for (in many cases) not much gain. For many teens, it’s simply a way of deferring adulthood, not a way to gain additional skills or knowledge. (I had my first paying job at 14; my first “real” W2 job at 16. I worked nearly full-time all the way through college, and worked full-time during the summers. I wonder how rare this is now?) Another interesting aspect to the immigrant/teen issue: the language barrier. If you’re a teen who doesn’t speak Spanish, just try and get a landscaping or construction job in the Southwest. The same goes for many fast-food crews and oil-change/tire-repair places. Still, we’re not the only ones with immigrant troubles.

Another side to the increasing longevity of western culture is the delayed start to “adult” life: now that a college diploma or university degree has about the same relevance that a high school diploma did a generation ago, young folks are entering the workforce several years later than earlier generations. This delays family formation, children, home-buying, and all the other aspects of independent-from-the-parents life.

No wonder so many of the “rules” no longer seem to apply with so many things changing.

October 14, 2010

The anomaly was the “nuclear family” era, not today

Filed under: Economics, Education, USA — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 07:57

In so many stories about adult children moving back home after college, the default attitude seems to be that this is “not normal”. This is false: for most of human history, the default living situation has been multiple generations living in the same dwelling. The “nuclear family” era was the break with everything that had gone before. That being said, this should be no surprise:

Getting a degree used to be a stepping stone to limitless career opportunities. Now it’s more of a hiatus from living under your parents’ roof.

Stubbornly high unemployment — nearly 15% for those ages 20-24 — has made finding a job nearly impossible. And without a job, there’s nowhere for these young adults to go but back to their old bedrooms, curfews and chore charts. Meet the boomerangers.

“This recession has hit young adults particularly hard,” according to Rich Morin, senior editor at the Pew Research Center in DC.

So hard that a whopping 85% of college seniors planned to move back home with their parents after graduation last May, according to a poll by Twentysomething Inc., a marketing and research firm based in Philadelphia. That rate has steadily risen from 67% in 2006.

October 13, 2010

QotD: Economic misconceptions

Filed under: Economics, Education, Quotations, USA — Tags: , — Nicholas @ 00:04

Students typically come to an economics class with many misconceptions, not just random errors but systematic biases.

Bill Goffe recently (2009) surveyed one of his macro principles classes and found, for example, that the median student believes that 35% of workers earn the minimum wage and a substantial fraction think that a majority of workers earn the minimum wage (Actual rate in 2007: 2.3% of hourly-paid workers and a smaller share of all workers earn the minimum wage, rates are probably somewhat higher today since the min. wage has risen and wages have not).

When asked about profits as a percentage of sales the median student guessed 30% (actual rate, closer to 4%).

When asked about the inflation rate over the last year (survey was in 2009) the median student guessed 11%. Actual rate: much closer to 0%. Note, how important such misconceptions could be to policy.

When asked by how much has income per person in the United States changed since 1950 (after adjusting for inflation) the median student said an increase of 25%. Actual rate an increase of about 248%, thus the median student was off by a factor of 10.

Alex Tabarrok, “Economic Misconceptions”, Marginal Revolution, 2010-10-11

October 12, 2010

Monty on structural unemployment

Filed under: Economics, Education, Technology, USA — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 12:07

Monty is still too busy with real life to do a daily Financial Briefing, but he’s dropping by a few times a week with his insightful-and-acidic thoughts at Ace of Spades HQ:

Welding jobs may be plentiful, but that’s no help to you if you’re not a welder. This is called “structural unemployment”, and it has no real short-term solution. It results from a disconnect between current worker skills and employer requirements. It’s really a form of malinvestment. Students train in subjects like Postmodernist Literary Theory and The Hermeneutics of Lesbian Cinema, but the job market is asking for engineers and plumbers. Workers in fading industries won’t or can’t retrain. The last time this problem cropped up was during the 1982 recession: the old manufacturing jobs were gone, and the hundreds of thousands of Rust Belt factory workers — many now middle-aged, with high union wages and benefits packages they didn’t want to lose — either could not or would not re-train into other fields. This led to a long cycle of stagnation in which the American upper midwest remains mired to this very day. Pull quote:

Victor Calix Cruz, 51, has been job hunting for two years after being laid off from construction work in Miami. He, his wife and their two teenage children are “surviving” on his wife’s disability and his unemployment payments, he said. While he heard of openings at hotels, he hasn’t applied because the pay and benefits aren’t as good as what he had before.

I don’t imagine that your unemployment check matches what you were making before either, Chief. It’s like the old Rolling Stones song: you can’t always get what you want.

August 27, 2010

Uncertain economic conditions mean weak growth

Filed under: Economics, Government, Politics, USA — Tags: , , , , , — Nicholas @ 09:01

As I’ve argued before, the economy won’t start to really recover until the political situation stabilizes. In an article from earlier this year, Robert Higgs makes this point very well:

The explosion of the federal government’s size, scope, and power since the middle of 2008 has created enormous uncertainties in the minds of investors. New taxes and higher rates of old taxes; potentially large burdens of compliance with new energy regulations and mandatory health-care expenses; new, intrinsically arbitrary government oversight of so-called systemic risks associated with any type of business — all of these unsettling possibilities and others of substantial significance must give pause to anyone considering a long-term investment, because any one of them has the potential to turn what seems to be a profitable investment into a big loser. In short, investors now face regime uncertainty to an extent that few have experienced in this country — to find anything comparable, one must go back to the 1930s and 1940s, when the menacing clouds of the New Deal and World War II darkened the economic horizon.

Unless the government acts soon to resolve the looming uncertainties about the half-dozen greatest threats of policy harm to business, investors will remain for the most part on the sideline, protecting their wealth in cash hoards and low-risk, low-return, short-term investments and consuming wealth that might otherwise have been invested. If this situation continues for several years longer, the U.S. economy may well suffer its second “lost decade” for much the same reason that it suffered its first during the 1930s.

Unfortunately, the incentives for politicians are biased toward meddling, so don’t anticipate a slowing down of political “fixes” any time soon. If the US mid-term elections later this year return a “gridlocked” government, the economy might start to adapt to the current conditions and only then will any significant growth begin to take place. Given a relatively static political situation, businesses can at least make some plans based on their regulatory/legislative conditions as they are. Until some kind of stability is established, no businessperson in their right mind will take on major new plans: entrenching your existing business is far safer, while trying to do something radically different incurs too much risk. Risk, that is, over and above the “ordinary” risk of expansion, launching new products, or entering new markets.

August 26, 2010

The (real, true, terrifying) risks of working at home

Filed under: Humour — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 09:35

Working from home is one of those mixed blessings, you don’t have the morning commute, you don’t have to fight for parking space or room on the bus, and there’s no dress code. You also tend to lose some of that all-important human contact with your co-workers. But I didn’t realize it could be this bad:

H/T to holykaw.alltop.com.

« Newer Posts — Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress