Male Average is Over, sentences to ponder male fact of the day

In 1980, 66% of high-skilled men worked in cognitive occupations. Over the next 20 years, this proportion fell by 3 percentage points (pp) to 63%. Interestingly, this fall in the probability of working in a COG job was accompanied by a 3 pp rise in the fraction of college educated men not working (unemployed or out of the labor force).

That is from recent research by Cortes, Jaimovich, and Siu (pdf).  You will note that the chance of a woman working in those jobs rose over the same period, even though the supply of educated women relative to the supply of educated men went up a great deal over that same time period.  They find that the increasing importance of “female-oriented” social skills is a major reason for why women have so increased their presence in cognitive occupations.

Similar claims are very much a theme in my last book, Average is Over, so I am happy to see them verified in a more definitive manner.

Comments

More male inequality = more violence and social instability.
Why do you favor this, Tyler?? Just weird.

Oh, the plight of high-skilled men... Funny. If someone points out the social consequences of dramatic wealth or income inequality that has nothing to do with "keeping women in their place", we are told that if the police were shooting a few more Blacks America would be paradise.

Statistically speaking if the police shoot more blacks America would be much safer and more prosperous.

Q.E.D. Fascism is alive and well in the USA.

It is possible to note that the ACLU's efforts to improve America's civil liberties has caused a massive rise in crime - while still supporting the ACLU's efforts to improve America's civil liberties.

As statements of fact, 1. restraining the police leads to more Black deaths and 2. aggressive policing, even at the expense of some extra police shootings, reduces net Black deaths are true. Regardless of what policies flow from that.

"aggressive policing, even at the expense of some extra police shootings, reduces net Black deaths are true. Regardless of what policies flow from that."
A totalitarian regime probably would manage to curb crime much more effectively (compare China and Vietnam to Cambodia and Mongolia or Cuba to Brazil) than ours do, still we don't hear too much about how crushing Whites' civil rights (as a totalitarian regime would have to do) would lead to fewer Black deaths.

If you plot a graph of the crime rate nationally since the 1980s the graph is basically an exponential curve. We know that crime is overwhelmingly present in the black community. If you cool it with the emotional accusations and want to discuss this rationally - STRICTLY statistically speaking the large number of blacks in America the higher the crime rate, lower the productivity rate, and the lower median income there will be. Statistically speaking when a police officer shoots a black male the country is better off on these metrics. We are however a Biblically based nation, and hence a nation that looks out for its brothers. Ironically it is Obama and the left who want to open up the race-war flood gates by removing G*D from the public sphere.

A totalitarian regime would reduce Black crime and hence save more Black lives. That is certainly true. However it is not the crushing of White civil liberties that would make Black safer. Crushing White freedoms while leaving Blacks alone would do nothing to reduce the shooting of young Black men.

But by all means, let's agree that a Communist regime in the US would reduce Black crime. It might even reduce Black deaths although the death toll would be likely to be extremely high. Mostly peasants and intellectuals.

The Other Jim: "If you plot a graph of the crime rate nationally since the 1980s the graph is basically an exponential curve"

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0778268.html

More exactly, a decreasing exponential curva.

"Curve", I meant.

http://www.infowars.com/black-crime-facts-that-the-white-liberal-media-darent-talk-about/

Your link refers absolutely nothing about the evolution of crime rate

"However it is not the crushing of White civil liberties that would make Black safer."
Shooting or strangling unarmed or overpowered Blacks in Fergusson or Cleveland also doesn't do much for preventing Black deaths, yet how the far-right loves it!

Ferguson seems like an odd choice to bring up in this context. Garner as well since there was apparently no choking.

he ACLU’s efforts to improve America’s civil liberties has caused a massive rise in crime

What massive rise in crime. Violent crime rates are at historic lows.

Hilariously citing "infowars". Shall we counter with infoshop or alternet?

What massive rise in crime. Violent crime rates are at historic lows.

They're lower than they were in 1980, but not at historic lows. I suspect on clarification he'd tell you he was referring to litigation undertaken between 1960 and 1980, and more ineffectual attempts since. The practice of criminal justice between 1980 and 2015 was completely contrary to anything the ACLU would like. The ACLU is vile.

Shooting or strangling unarmed or overpowered Blacks in Fergusson or Cleveland also doesn’t do much for preventing Black deaths, yet how the far-right loves it!

You seem mentally to live in a mental world of talking points. The youngster in Cleveland pointed a replica gun at a police officer. The officer had no way to know it was fake because identifying features of toy guns had been removed. The police were called to the scene by rattled members of the public. As for Michael Brown, he attacked a police officer, tried to take his service weapon away, ran away, then turned around and charged the man. If you wish to avoid being shot by a police officer, it's advisable not to do these things. Works for most people.

Thomas Taylor October 13, 2016 at 7:08 am

Punishing a policeman for defending himself, exactly in line with common sense and the rules, as in Ferguson, has certainly led to an explosion of murder. Mostly Black-on-Black but the largest rise has been in Black-on-White murder.

15 Hazel Meade October 13, 2016 at 12:03 pm

Violent crime is down compared to the ACLU's heyday. They don't get what they want these days and so crime is down. But they used to have their own way with the media and the Courts. Then crime rose massively. We have not yet returned to those lows. Rape, for instance, is not much easier to prosecute with DNA tests and the like. It is still slightly higher than it was at the start of the 60s. But, as you say, down massively. Civil liberties come with a death toll.

"We are however a Biblically based nation, and hence a nation that looks out for its brothers."

What Bible would that be? The two most salient features of the Christian Bible are forgiveness and redemption, qualities that are in short supply in 2016 USA.

chuck martel October 13, 2016 at 6:29 pm

It is true that forgiveness and redemption are in short supply in 2016 USA. Just look at the way the Democrats and the mainstream media (I repeat myself) treat Trump. However it is also true that they form the basis of the criminal justice system. After all, we know that rehabilitation does not work. There is no point letting criminals out because they simply just re-offend. Christianity is a tough things to give up and we continue to believe in forgiveness and redemption.

I suggest we accept the end of Christian America, and removing Christianity from the justice system. As rehabilitation does not work, and there is no theological reason to pretend otherwise, we should simply execute everyone. Or as close to it as reasonably possible. Prisons are expensive. And dangerous. So thin them out.

There is no non-theological objection to this.

" surveillance video without audio of the shooting was released by police on November 26 after pressure from the public and Rice's family.[16] It showed Rice pacing around the park, occasionally extending his right arm. The video briefly shows Rice talking on a cellphone, and sitting at a picnic table in a gazebo. A patrol car moves at high speed across the park lawn and then stops abruptly by the gazebo. Loehmann then jumps out of the car and immediately shoots Rice from a distance of less than 10 feet (3.0 m). According to Judge Ronald B. Adrine in a judgement entry on the case 'this court is still thunderstruck by how quickly this event turned deadly.... On the video the zone car containing Patrol Officers Loehmann and Garmback is still in the process of stopping when Rice is shot.'"
"A second video obtained by the Northeast Ohio Media Group and released on January 7, 2015, shows Rice's 14-year-old sister being forced to the ground, handcuffed and placed in a patrol car after she ran toward her brother about two minutes after the shooting. It also shows that police waited for four minutes before providing any first aid to Rice."
It was an extra-judicial execution.

They'd have to shoot the right blacks. If they were skilled enough to kill the right blacks, they could presumably kill some of the right browns, whites, and yellows too.

I am not sure that follows. Cultures that have long exposure to civil liberties tend to have young criminals who flaunt their criminality. Black American criminals are not hard to spot as they wear gang colors. Cultures that have long exposure to a lack of civil liberties tend to be a little more circumspect. It is hard to spot Italian mafia figures. Traditionally they look like respectable businessmen. They want people to think they are. The same with a lot of East Asian criminal groups - the young foot soldiers might enjoy looking tough, but if they survive until they are 30, they settle down, put on a suit and start acting like pillars of the community. The exception is Japan where there is a clear modus vivendi between crime and the police in Japan and so criminals are willing to look like criminals. However they should be careful. When the Thai government wanted to clear up crime they just shot everyone with a tattoo.

Your assuming "all else equal". An america where police are more likely to shoot people is not all else equal, and may not be more safe.

Woah, so eugenics is acceptable again?
And I thought that all comparisons with the 1920s were frankly excessive.

Can you point me to empirical evidence that inequality = more violence and social instability?

Something suggestive: Latin America has had commonly intense skew distribution of incomes and high crime rates. Bad as it gets in this world on both counts, for the most part. The same was manifest in South Africa. A hypothsis former, to be sure.

http://anepigone.blogspot.pt/2008/02/economic-inequality-as-best-predictor.html

Yes, we need systematic inequality between the sexes to prevent inequality between males.

Discussions of 'equality between the sexes' in the current cultural context are humbug. What we have is a regime where woman have options, and men have obligations. (Along with some distasteful decorative accessories). If you want 'equality' in legal and formal settings, you're going to have to deport the family court judges to Saskatoon too.

I doubt that a 3% change over 20 years is statistically significant to three sigma (the new standard, not two sigma) so this study is much ado about nothing. Then again I'm not a chess master like TC is, who can see trends develop well before the rest of us lesser players.

I just want to add that people need to ignore the fact that Tyler originally focused on success being a function of how well people could master the application of IT skills to their own professions and is now saying its all about learning "female-type social skills". Look in case any of you commenters are asking - no the goal posts didn't move you're all just morons.

From Cowen, Tyler. Average Is Over: Powering America Beyond the Age of the Great Stagnation Penguin Group US. Kindle Edition. - all references to FEMALE are to chess players! LOL. One example: "[male chess] players are more impatient and female players are more likely to use up too much of their time thinking. The researchers also find that female players are more risk-averse than are male players; this is consistent with studies of investment behavior and portfolios from the financial world. " (p. 106)

One reference to the 'feminization makes a better workplace' issue is this passage, indirectly, by implication:

" If you’re a young male hothead who just can’t follow orders, and you have your own ideas about how everything should be done, you’re probably going to have an ever-tougher time in the labor markets..." (p. 32)

And then this endnote: "On women being more conscientiousness, see for instance David P. Schmitt, Anu Realo, Martin Voracek, and Jüri Allik, “Why Can’t a Man Be More Like a Woman? Sex Differences in Big Five Personality Traits Across 55 Cultures,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2008, 94( 1): 168– 82, doi: 10.1037/ 0022-3514.94.1.16. An important paper on related topics is Paul Beaudry and Ethan Lewis, “Do Male-Female Wage Differentials Reflect Differences in the Return to Skill? Cross-city Evidence from 1980– 2000,” National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper 18159, June 2012. On female success in working in teams, see Jeffrey A. Flory, Andreas Leibbrandt, and John A. List, “Do Competitive Work Places Deter Female Workers? A Large-Scale Natural Field Experiment on Gender Differences in Job-Entry Decisions,” National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper 16546, November 2010. On the importance of conscientiousness in the workplace and for earnings, see for instance Murray R. Barrick and Michael K. Mount, “The Big Five Personality Dimensions and Job Performance: A Meta-Analysis,” Personnel Psychology, 1991, 44( 1): 1– 26; Ellen K. Nyhus and Empar Pons, “The Effects of Personality on Earnings,” Journal of Economic Psychology, 2005, 26( 3): 363– 84; and Daniel Spurk and Andrea E. Abele, “Who Earns More and Why? A Multiple Mediation Model from Personality to Salary,” Journal of Business and Psychology, 2011, 26( 1): 87– 103.

But I do recall reading about this in TC's book, it's just that the keyword search on this topic fails.

Interesting. "... younge male hothead...own ideas about how everything shoulld be done...can't follow orders...ever-tougher time in the labor markets..."

I suppose Gates, Jobs, and Musk fit into that category. It is sad the labor markets deselects for those traits - culture has cosequences.

Tyler's book scared me, mostly because I agree with almost all of it. I have seen those trends for a long time. I know, confirmation bias. I only disagree with a few points: favelas are ok (I have been in many), low quality water and healthcare will be tolerated (too late for that, expectations have been set), and the 85% will be old AND complacent, The vote is a weapon and they won't be afraid to use it.

How many of them (Gates, Jobs, Musk) made a carrer in "the labor markets"? None of them worked -- or at least became famous-- working for other people. Jobs manage to be fired from his own company.

Wouldn't you expect that the % of women in cog professions rise with rising education? You may be thinking "No, because greater average education among women implies weaker selection" but I don't think so.

Also female style social skills would become more important as women rise in proportion and the environment is remodelled to fit. Even if female social skills are weaker in many ways - at maintaining single minded focus on the task, at social boldness, at recovering calmness quickly after work conflicts, etc. Nothing to do with a general social skill advantage.

My simple explanation would be that male-dominated cognitive occupations (e.g. Silicon Valley tech) and have faced public scrutiny, charges of discrimination, and pressures to diversify, while female-dominated cognitive professions (nursing, K12 education) have faced no such pressures. This seems to have created a general preference for female job candidates -- even where (perhaps especially where) males have been the majority:

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/04/14/study-suggests-stem-faculty-hiring-favors-women-over-men

Given all these social (and sometimes legal) pressures, I'm a little surprised the changes aren't greater than those reported here.

Yes, the push for girls in k-12 stem has been intense. Boys are an afterthought.

"Also female style social skills would become more important as women rise in proportion and the environment is remodelled to fit."

I suspect this is a more likely explanation than what Tyler said:

"They find that the increasing importance of “female-oriented” social skills is a major reason for why women have so increased their presence in cognitive occupations."

It strikes me as less likely that "female-oriented" skill demands are driving the change and more likely that higher numbers of females are reshaping the work place and placing higher value on "female-oriented" skills. Tyler's statement is a "the cart is pushing the horse" claim.

Women shouldn't be in leadership. Full Stop. I think the Bible teaches us that women should not have authority over a man. But now in the hyper-feminist Obama era we have adopted an extremely unbiblical way of working and living and the chickens have come home to roost.

That's ridiculous. Mountains of anthropological evidence shows that humans are extremely culturally plastic. There are very few limits on social arrangements that people will rebel against due to their innate nature. Importing women into the workforce, particularly high-intelligence women into high-skilled positions, offers significant economic advantages. For example Japan's low female labor force participation is one of the driving factors behind its two decade stagnation. The first generation may exhibit push-back against cultural re-arrangement, but the long-term dividends are too attractive.

Just because we CAN have other social arrangements does not make in moral. We had a country that worked better than any other in the world eight years ago, Obama's searing hatred for his adopted country has now manifested itself in skyhigh unemployment and a culture completely inconsistent with Biblical precepts.

I really love how we are told Obama destroyed paradise (the paradise of Enron, non-job recoveries, lies about Iraq uranium plus the worse recession in living memory). Before that, it was Clinton. Before that it was Carter. Before that it was Johnson. And all way back to Roosevelt.

Wasn't Enron exposed under the Bush Administration and its executives prosecuted? When the company ran into trouble Ken Lay couldn't get his calls answered at Bush's White House, but Bob Rubin did pick up the phone.

It was under the Bush's watch that it happened. Saying that the Ponzi scheme was exposed when it was too big and blew up into the victims' face is a little to much. It is a shame there was no preemptive strikes against the swindlers.

It was under the Bush’s watch that it happened.

Bush had been in office less than a year when Enron imploded. Andrew Fastow's creative accounting happened on Blige Clinton's watch.

"The company has been one of Mr Bush's biggest corporate backers. According to the Centre for Public Integrity, an independent research group, Enron, its employees and directors had given $623,000 to support Mr Bush from 1993 to November 2001. "
...
"It contains elements of a classic political scandal. A huge company based in Mr Bush's home state of Texas and led by his biggest campaign contributor files the biggest bankruptcy in American history. A small group of top executives sell shares before it collapses. At the same time thousands of employees are barred from selling, and lose not only their jobs but their life savings and pensions as well. Meanwhile there are revelations of frequent contacts between the company and top administration officials."
Again, it happened under Bush and THANKS TO Bush.

Every word of that Doug is either incorrect or arguable. There is no anthropological evidence that humans are even slightly culturally plastic. Rather human relations are pretty much the same all across the planet. What studies show is how the differences are minor. Social arrangements, therefore, are pretty much the same across the planet as well. Again, the details may vary but when you get a society where uncles look after their sisters' children, it is so unusual it is worthy of comment (and likely to be false).

Encouraging women into the work force has turned out to be eating our seed corn. It encourages the slow disappearance of productive populations. It is a short-term sugar rush with no positive long term benefit at all. Japan's problems are many, but a lack of women in the work force is not one of them. Japan would be better off forcing women out of education at 15 with marriage following soon after.

"Rather human relations are pretty much the same all across the planet."

Compare tribal muslim societies with eastern polynesian societies (about, for example, sexual mores).

"Encouraging women into the work force has turned out to be eating our seed corn. It encourages the slow disappearance of productive populations."

At least in developed world, seems the opposite - countries with much women in workforce (like Northern Europe) have high natality (at least, more than Southern Europe), while Japan (with few women working) has low natality.

Tribal Muslim societies have very similar sexual mores to Polynesian societies. Girls are expected to remain virgins. They can expect violence up to and including death if they are not. Both societies are patriarchal. Men do most of the agricultural work. Men fight. Women do not. Women tend to the houses. Men build them.

If an alien came from outer space he might be hard pushed to recognize any difference at all.

Mali has a higher birth rate than Norway. I am willing to bet fewer women are in paid employment. That Northern European countries are paying Third World Muslim refugees to have children and hence making it appear they have a higher birth rate is besides the point. It is part of the problem not part of the solution.

"Tribal Muslim societies have very similar sexual mores to Polynesian societies"

First, I wrote "eastern Polynesian societies", not "Polynesian societies" (as you know, there is a big polemic about the similarities versus differences between western and eastern polynesian sexual mores)

"Girls are expected to remain virgins. They can expect violence up to and including death if they are not."

In eastern polynesian societies???

http://www.chronicle.com/blogs/innovations/were-samoans-promiscuous/27941

"Men do most of the agricultural work."

Men do most of the herding work (in muslim societies) and of the fishing work (in polynesian societies); at least in polynesian societies both women and men do agricultural work, I think (my impression is that, as general rule, in horticultural societies, agricultural work is a mainly women's job).

"That Northern European countries are paying Third World Muslim refugees to have children"

Iceland almost don't has immigrants, has the highest female participation in workforce in the world and have a relatively high fertility. Let think a bit - unless you engage in the silly helicopter parenting, the main cost of having children is the money, not the time (and specially if we are talking about the difference between having one versus two versus three children, instead of the difference between having children or not: after the moment you have a children, additional children have much more cost in terms of additional money than of additional time); females working means more money at home, then more children.

"Girls are expected to remain virgins. They can expect violence up to and including death if they are not. Both societies are patriarchal. Men do most of the agricultural work. Men fight. Women do not. Women tend to the houses. Men build them."
Biblical Israel, up to murdering non-virgins.

" unless you engage in the silly helicopter parenting, the main cost of having children is the money, not the time (and specially if we are talking about the difference between having one versus two versus three children, instead of the difference between having children or not: after the moment you have a children, additional children have much more cost in terms of additional money than of additional time);"
IME this is exactly backwards.

Miguel Madeira October 13, 2016 at 7:03 am

Anthropology is deeply committed to Margaret Mead. So much so they will lie to protect her memory. But yes, all parts of Polynesia. It is a mistake to confuse the response of metal-poor islands to meeting people with a lot of iron, with the fantasies of the Hard Left over the destruction of the family. So yes, in eastern Samoa, as even Mead was forced to admit, girls could expect a beating from their brothers or boyfriends if they were not virgins.

Let think a bit – unless you engage in the silly helicopter parenting, the main cost of having children is the money, not the time (and specially if we are talking about the difference between having one versus two versus three children, instead of the difference between having children or not: after the moment you have a children, additional children have much more cost in terms of additional money than of additional time); females working means more money at home, then more children.

The West is vastly better placed to have children now than in my grandparents' generation. We do not have as many children. Money and time have nothing to do with it. There are other factors at work - the constant denigration of women's traditional roles being one of them. Women report being much unhappier in the modern world (and the sex lives of conservative women is better). The solution seems obvious. Out of the work force and back to the kitchen.

"Anthropology is deeply committed to Margaret Mead. So much so they will lie to protect her memory. But yes, all parts of Polynesia. It is a mistake to confuse the response of metal-poor islands to meeting people with a lot of iron, with the fantasies of the Hard Left over the destruction of the family. So yes, in eastern Samoa, as even Mead was forced to admit, girls could expect a beating from their brothers or boyfriends if they were not virgins."

Samoa is western polynesia, and the studies of Margaret Mead were about western polynesia - I was talking about eastern polynesia.

"Out of the work force and back to the kitchen."
Hey, maybe you can even get a job, then, and leave Super Mario alone. Hope springs eternal

"Mali has a higher birth rate than Norway. I am willing to bet fewer women are in paid employment."
Mali has a much higher fertility rate than 1950's America. So not even Ike is enough, the West needs to become Mali to reap the wonderful benefits of sending women back to their kitchens.

SMFS, fully 1/3 of the workforce in the United States in 1957 was female, and that was consisted with a total fertility rate of about 3.5. The major change since the 1950s has been the movement of women into professional-managerial occupations, which were formerly a male preserve leavened with a modest corps of spinsters. While we're at it, Israel maintains ample female labor force participation along with the occidental world's highest fertility rates.

I suspect that most "Mountains of anthropological evidence" are coal spoil tips.

"For example Japan’s low female labor force participation is one of the driving factors behind its two decade stagnation."

1) Japan's female participation is now equal to that in the U.S. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/10/07/how-american-women-fell-behind-japanese-women-in-the-workplace/

2) Japan's female participation was lower than the U.S. but not exactly "low." It also couldn't have been a "driving force" in stagnation.

3) A little known fact that the pundit economists have gotten wrong for many years is that U.S. and Japanese growth *per capita* has been almost identical from 2000. Go back to 1990, and you see similar 1990 to 2015 growth with one big exception: The U.S. did well from around 1995 to 2000 while Japan was overall stagnant those five years. Japan was also hit by the 1997/98 Asian financial crisis whereas the U.S. was not.

Mountains of anthropological evidence shows that humans are extremely culturally plastic.

Kind of a let down for cultural antrhopologists if they discovered they're just observing epiphenomena. Might create certain biases.

Increased labour participation in high cognitive fields by women also decreases total fertility rate destroying the very genes that make participation in high cognitive fields by those women possible. When changing cultural practices you should not focus on short-term benefits, lest you find yourself reaping the whirlwind later on down the road.

I wonder if Sarah Palin is Obama's fault, too.

What does Gov. Palin have to do with this discussion? What about her would cause anyone to refer to her as someone's 'fault'?

Women in leadership positions apparently are a sin of "Obama's hyper-feminist era" (read above comments). I was wondering if Mrs. Palin owes her political career to Obama and how would it ever be chronologically possible.

Are you a troll? Why would you even bring up the bible?

This reads like a particularly bad facebook post from that uncle nobody likes.

I shall savor the brutal drubbing you and you ilk are about to take on election day.

I shall savor it when Pres. Trump deports you to Saskatoon.

Avowed enemies of Trump:

Blubbering, screeching, weepy, mush minded lefties
War rabid neocons
Harebrained libertarians living in Deamland 3000
Comfortably ensconced political class and their media lackeys
Timid, mousy academics very careful of their reputation (they'll starting mincing words in the opposite direction as soon as the political climate changes)

There is not a better litmus test for a man of the people.

One of the more delicious ironies of this year's political circus has been watching libertarians flock over to the party of Big Government and put off their hopes for a return to robber baron rule for another thousand years.

Um, we do not use the Bible (or the Qu'ran or the Bhagavad Gita or the Book of Mormon or the Tao Te Ching...) to govern modern societies.

No, you don't. In places where your assumptions don't prevail, you can just bloody take it, like the rest of us are expected to.

No, we use the Talmud.

The posts here are all trolling. I am slower than I ever imagined.

As an MRA neckbeard basement-dwelling anti-feminist, this thread got too trolly/racist/hyperbolic even for me.

I think that men are given short shrift in western society, sure. I'm not sure that the higher education gap is as concerning as it's made out to be. I think that maybe men are coming out ahead by not getting $100,000 of debt for getting a business degree. I have a hard time imagining even a STEM degree being worth that, let alone a gender studies one. The problem here, in my opinion, is that employers lazily use degrees as shorthand for competence.

I have a pet wonder-if it's the debt that's the signal, as well as the diploma. People with lots of student debt are probably safer to hire- less likely to be late for work, quit, sue, or otherwise make trouble.

+1

Nothing indicates confidence in your job prospects like $120k in student loans.

We could find a way to allow the debt without requiring the schooling. Maybe discount pre-paid income tax?

My experience with employers suggests about 35% are that exploitive, and 0% smart enough to pick up on that. Good theory otherwise!

I'm all for equality of opportunity in employment and education, believe it is good for everyone. But Education and vocational training are a hot mess right now. It's difficult to tell what the cost-benefits of higher ed are now, in the future (not discounting the possibility it will be free or forgiven 5 years hence)... Plumbers and welders don't really go out of style.

I work in the legal industry, where debt loads are regularly in the $200-300,000 range. And I have heard partners intimate as much.

I live in the Midwest, where 50k/year is decent income.

That sounds like insanity. Debt slave for 6 years isn't enviable, even if the alternative is worse.

What happens if one comes from a rich family and doesn't have to borrow money?

i learned pretty quickly to hire the guilt-driven. Debt-driven sounds similarly promising.
Thanks. Will report in a year or so.

What about the secular trend of increased occupational licensing? A simple occupation can become a cognitive job once you require a needlessly difficult test. For example counting pills probably wouldn't be a "cognitive high-skilled job" until you require people get admitted into pharmacy school.

Counting pills is done by pharmacy technicians. That aside, pharmacy has been a licensed occupation and has required extensive schooling for over a century.

The split in "not working" used to be 8-27 M-F. By 2000, it was 11-22. Nothing else apart from the "cognitive" share changed much, so it looks like there was reshuffling of non-work responsibilities between men and women, still with a big skew toward men as workers.

The HR gurus are saying that soon most jobs will be what they are calling "hybrid jobs" requiring both technical knowhow and sales/marketing/administration skills: http://www.inc.com/jessica-stillman/get-ready-for-the-rise-of-the-hybrid-job.html http://fortune.com/2016/03/11/hybrid-job-skills/

This is largely the case already for senior tech jobs.

Children's books should be updated: no more telling yuppie offspring to dream about becoming astronomers or dancers - now it will be VP of telescope professional services and dance troupe marketing strategist.

I think one of the drivers here is that our technical systems are getting so complex, that no single person can possibly master even specific sub-fields. Just look at the rising average number of co-authors of recent scientific papers versus those from thirty years ago. Since one person can't possibly no everything, collaboration is increasingly essential. That requires traditionally technical roles to be more heavily loaded on social interaction.

Since one person can’t possibly no everything, collaboration is increasingly essential.

The HR gurus are envisioning more shallow technical knowhow combined with sales/marketing/management skills. Actual technical collaboration is a different skill set.

Technical skills are pretty worthless we just need to expand H1B visas and bring in more Indians. Perhaps they aren't as good but no one really cares about that they'll do the job for much less money. That's why today only low-IQ whites go for engineering careers.

:'(

/low iq white engineer

AND you say you live in the Midwest to boot! So you also have no ambition in life. Well I guess engineering is fine for you, I consider it to be on par with being a gas station attendant or fry cook in terms of a career. I'm glad we are finally seeing this reflect in the markets in terms of diminishing status and pay for engineers.

The rest, sure, but it's not true that I have no ambition! Why do you think I spend a quarter of my paycheck on Super Millions Instant Win Scratcher tickets?

Can't explain that, can you?

Data from Times Higher Education, % of female in universities,

FPct NUni NStude NFem NMale Country

74.00 1 9583 7091 2492 Qatar

69.00 1 29303 20219 9084 Belarus

66.33 4 108378 71892 36486 Romania

66.00 1 13960 9214 4746 Iceland

...

57.00 1 35889 20457 15432 Saudi Arabia

56.12 22 517320 290309 227011 France

55.23 23 623629 344440 279189 Canada

54.86 32 789711 433196 356515 Australia

54.15 90 1520837 823503 697334 United Kingdom

50.28 135 3086547 1551838 1534709 United States

44.01 24 336023 147870 188153 Taiwan

32.39 15 219743 71164 148579 India

32.18 38 519462 167187 352275 Japan

28.34 2 29611 8391 21220 Pakistan

Those numbers surprise me - the order is the opposite of what I expected.

1) What do men do in Qatar?
2) Under the American system, the poor get poorer and the rich get richer. The system and those who profit handsomely from its heinousness don't care about the lives they destroy.

The more a group dominates a society, the less its members need to be qualified to get a job. For a Qatari or Saudi male citizen, not studying or getting a religious degree is the rational choice.
The same would happen to white men in Apartheid South Africa.

OK, it is a good partial explanation-- I should have thought of it, but Pakistan and India (Benazzir Bhutto and Indira Gandhi nothwithstanding) can not be so women-friendly and Romania can not be so man-dominated. I admit, I am surprised with some of those numbers.

Romania is not so man-dominated. What we have is a large workforce applying the HR policies of foreign companies that have invested in Romania. Meaning that, in the corporate sector, the abundance of women is proverbial for every area (finance, HR, marketing, PR, press, budgeting, accounting) except the most highly skilled technical work, which is still mainly dominated by men. While we do mouth some of the Western cliches about gender gaps and feminism, the fact is that young corporate women are a large portion of the high earners, at least in the large cities where white collar industries are en force. However, I feel that Communist egalitarian policies left us with a more comfortable coexistence with women in the labor force, without requiring browbeating, culture wars, regulations or a toxic work environment. You find women in every line of work, even as bosses (old women, as well, not just the newer generations) with no question as to their competence, since experience has shown they can be just as incompetent as the male bosses... especially the politicians.

Of course, being a caveman, I disagree that these are unalloyed good things. Our fertility rate is in the crapper, while promiscuity is going up, marriage is going down and women sacrifice their most fertile years to indulge in frivolous consumerism. I know extraordinary women who spend like there's no tomorrow, sometimes more than their quite large paychecks (credit cards are de rigueur), with no thought of settling down unless it is with the perfect man. I'd much rather move towards a societal model where they marry in their early 20s,immediately after college, have children, then continue their education or start working when the children are in school (6 years old) and they are in their late 20s or early 30s. Flexi work is also nice. Of course, ideally, we would become rich enough to afford a single income household as a fixture of the middle class, since both partners working translates into a lack of production of non-monetary household services and goods (homecooked meals, child care), and also of community world.

Girl culture in this country is pretty toxic. It's symbiotic with laddie culture which is ... pretty toxic.

Which is symbiotic with everything else in the country, which is pretty toxic. The American System must be crushed.

Who's going to do that, Thiago, you Brazilians? You'll be even easier to defeat than you were in 1891.

It is a lie. In 1891, Brazil defeated the Navy Rebellion, the Southern Rebellion and the British.
And Prophet Bandarra has said that Brazil will rise like a lion and crush the serpent with its heel.

re Japan:

This 2013 article states that 43% of Japanese university students are female. A large gap remains at the teaching level where only 5% of full professors are female and make up only 10% of associate profs.

http://www.kyoto-u.ac.jp/en/research/international/publications/documents/ra41-5.pdf

The Althouse Rule is that whenever scientists find male-female differences, these must be reported as female superiority. A corollary (as exemplified by this post) might be that whenever there are differences in economic outcomes between men and women, if women are disadvantaged, it must be reported as an unnatural failure of society that is to be remedied, but if men are disadvantaged it is to be reported as a natural, inevitable failure of maleness.

Yes, much trolling.

Remember that the hope was that as automation removed rote jobs, "we'd all" move to more cognitive ones.

If that fails to happen, then invisible hand has failed to give us the lives "we all" wanted.

Admit it and design a social response.

Three well-placed moderate-yield nuclear bombs detonated in low earth orbit. EMPs annihilate everything more complicated than a vacuum tube. Jobs for everyone! And as a bonus, the nuclear winter will give us a much-welcome cool spell.

I'm pretty sure the invisible hand was meant to punish everyone with non-exceptional IQs. Seems to be working exactly as intended.

I referenced GOP autopsies yesterday. "No we don't want to change" was the main response.

Sad. I guess these dirt-kicking responses are more of the same.

Problems deserve thoughtful solutions. Actual policy.

Evidently, cognitive jobs are those performed by orthographic conceptualizers and non-cognitive work is done by object manipulators. This division is somewhat misleading in that reasoning and problem solving are a regular part of object manipulators' duties while, at the same time, orthographic conceptualizers NEVER manipulate objects (except telephones and computer keyboards) in the course of their work.

Well, except for architects and surgeons.

Surgeons are object manipulators.

Yes that's my point. Or are you saying surgeons are not also orthographic conceptualizers? Not sure I'd agree. Architects are also both. Probably could think of a few more like that, dentists maybe? Materials scientists?

"Yes that’s my point. Or are you saying surgeons are not also orthographic conceptualizers? "

I misunderstood your point. Yes I would agree with you.

TC, PLEASE consult any H.S. English Composition teacher and rephrase:"You will note that the chance of a woman working in those jobs rose over the same period, even though the supply of educated women relative to the supply of educated men went up a great deal over that same time period."
The chance rose, "even though" the supply rose? Wow!
I have zero idea what you mean here. You were talking about "highly skilled" men (those with a post-baccalaureate degree? (given your bias, I assume a Master Plumber wouldn't be "highly skilled"). Then you switch to "women". Not highly skilled women, but women. Apples and Oranges. Worse, you then throw in "educated women" (as opposed, I presume, to those women without any formal education?). What a semantic mess!

Comments for this post are closed