Yes there has been an American male culture collapse

During the last 50 years, the earnings of prime-age men in the United States have stagnated and dispersed across the education distribution. At the same time, the labor-force participation rates of men without a college education have steadily declined. While wage and participation trends are often linked for this population, we have argued that this connection cannot solely be the result of an inward labor demand shift across a stable and elastic labor supply curve. The uncompensated labor supply elasticities implied by the twin declines of wages and participation during the 1970s, 1980s, and 2000s appear too large to be plausible. Moreover, labor-force participation continued to decrease in the 1990s while wages were rising. While the increasing availability of disability benefits and the increase in the fraction of the population with prior incarceration exposure may help explain some of the participation decline, we doubt either factor can explain the bulk of the decline.

We have argued that more plausible explanations for the observed patterns involve feedbacks from male labor demand shocks, which often involve substantial job displacement, to worker adjustment frictions and to family structure. Marriage rates, and corresponding male labor supply incentives, have also fallen for reasons other than changing labor demand. Moreover, we have noted interactions between labor demand and disability benefit take-up, and between mass incarceration and family structure. These factors have all converged to reduce the feasibility and desirability of stable employment, leading affected men—who may not often be eligible for disability or other benefits—to participate sporadically in the labor market and depend primarily on family members for income support.

That is from the concluding remarks of Ariel J. Binder and John Bound, in the most recent Journal of Economic Perspectives.  I’ll just highlight one bit again, bolded by me:

At the same time, the labor-force participation rates of men without a college education have steadily declined. While wage and participation trends are often linked for this population, we have argued that this connection cannot solely be the result of an inward labor demand shift across a stable and elastic labor supply curve.

In case you missed it.


Comparing real wages over a 50 year period is a totally nonsensical idea because of how radically different consumption possibilities are. Bundle-based measures of inflation are bogus and an embarrassment to our profession.

In California it is illegal to be white male.

Still better than being a Latino male. Or a black man.

The day when men of all backgrounds stop playing victim is the day when they will live a successful life and be able to handle a strong, successful woman like me. Take your pity olympics elsewhere.

Nobody wants you, so who cares?

Speak for yourself!

There's one - you. She's all yours.

I want to be with her but I'm afraid she will judge me weak.

Unquestionably believe that which you said. Your favorite reason appeared to be at the internet the easiest factor
to be aware of. I say to you, I certainly get
annoyed at the same time as other people think about
concerns that they just don't realize about. You managed to hit the nail upon the top and also outlined out the
entire thing without having side effect , people can take a
signal. Will likely be back to get more. Thanks

Unsuccessful, low confidence women line up for a chance at EdR's special package of the same.

I bet you could stop a clock!

As for me, I have had more than my fair share in love and life, for which I am very grateful.

I am not done yet.

It was that accursed white male that razeed me; made a poor pegging lubber of me for ever and a day! And I’ll chase him round Good Hope, and round the Horn, and round the Norway Maelstrom, and round perdition’s flames before I give him up. And this is what ye have shipped for, men! to chase that white male on both sides of land, and over all sides of earth, till he spouts black blood and rolls fin out. What say ye, men, will ye splice hands on it, now? I think ye do look brave.

Still and all, it's a mutual, joint-stock world, in all meridians.

Young white men dropping out of the job market:

America doesn't produce men anymore. Only beta cuckolds.

I propose that this is the result of the sexual harassment law and its follow-on, the #MeToo movement. It has become much more dangerous to be a man in today's workplace.

Survival of the fittest. If you can't hack it in the workforce, you will be selected out. Only the strong and the worthiest can survive.

Aye, Chuck! If a man can't earn a wage by the sweat of his own brow, or have 500 times the median income gifted to you by your father so you could have 7 surviving children with your first cousin, then drowning in the gene pool is all ye fit for!

These two words are even more worthy of bold highlighting - 'mass incarceration.'

It's worth highlighting because "mass incarceration" is a stupid narrative--as if those men did not commit crimes, most of which are violent crimes in the case of felony convictions.

'as if those men did not commit crimes, most of which are violent crimes in the case of felony convictions'

And it is fascinating to speculate why America had such a wave of violent crime that was a justification for mass incarceration. Particularly when combined with a society keeping ever more permanent records - in the not so distant past, being imprisoned for several months in Nebraska after a being involved in a bar fight or other physical altercation would not have been much of a barrier at being employed in Georgia. Or instead of being imprisoned, an 18 year old in such a situation might have been offered the chance of enlistment in the armed forces as an alternative.

The point of mass incarceration is not so much that there are people who commit violent crimes requiring punishment - something true in essentially all societies - but it is instead what is the value of initially imprisoning someone for a period of time, which in turn leads to very high barriers to employment after that first sentence.

It is a broad discussion, of course - one that starts with wondering what is so different in the U.S. that there are so many violent crimes. A European or Canadian or Australian might provide at least a couple of answers, but one knows how most Americans seem to be able to overlook the obvious.

Such as how does a society re-integrate those of its prisoners who, of course, will continue to be members of society until their death. We know the answer of the prison guard union already, but why let self-interested parties exclusively determine public policy?

As if most who are convicted and serving were only involved in bar fights. Typical Eurocentric bias too.

'As if most who are convicted and serving were only involved in bar fights.'

Possessing drugs, much less selling them, and then being imprisoned was a lot less common in 1960 too. The current numbers at the link should be helpful -

'Typical Eurocentric bias too.'

Excellent point - I'm pretty sure that South Koreans would provide answers that would be hard to tell apart from those provided by New Zealanders, particularly in regard to why it is so easy to be a violent criminal in the U.S., however.

The old drug war chestnut.

Of the 1.3 million people in serving time in state prisons for a felony conviction (serving 1+ years), only 14.8% were for drug-related offenses and only 3.5% for possession in particular (violent crime: 55%, property crime:17.5%, public disorder:11.9%). The rate is much higher for federal offenses (47% and almost all for selling, not possession), but there are only 167,000 federal prisoners.

See tables 12-15 (pp. 21-24)

Wait - public disorder is 11.9%? Seems like bar fighting has not fallen that far out of fashion.

And not to say anything about the numbers, you do know we are talking decades, and not a single point of time, right? That is, we are not talking about 1.3 million prisoners right now, we are talking about all the prisoners from the last decades. Of course there is an overlap, but mass incarceration was a generation long program, not simply a one time thing.

The murder rate doubled from 1964-1975.

I understand that we aren't supposed to remember this, but it had massive consequences, such as doing terrible damage to American cities.

It is a broad discussion, of course - one that starts with wondering what is so different in the U.S. that there are so many violent crimes. A European or Canadian or Australian might provide at least a couple of answers, but one knows how most Americans seem to be able to overlook the obvious.

Which US states have higher murder rated than the Canadian province of Nunavut?

BTW clockwork_prior,
I mostly agree with you that out laws are much too harsh and prison terms too long. Once served the criminals should be allowed to work and vote.
And let's legalize all drugs now.

Correlation is not causation, but mass incarceration has *something* to do with the mass committing of crime.

And the idea that those who are imprisonsed once have little alternative when it comes to leading a productive life due to that first sentence is probably a better case of correlation being causation.

Apparently, you never were on the receiving-end of a mugging.

There are many, many causes and correlations that need to be analyzed.

They can't help themselves. They have no choice. They got to eat and feed their addictions.

So, it's OK they can prey on you.

'you never were on the receiving-end of a mugging'

You would be right - but the several aggressive 'beggars' seemed to find the experience less than pleasant. Including one in Germany, where the woman I was with wondered why I acted like in such fashion, as she was sure it would end in violence - on the part of the 'beggar.' Which was not quite accurate, but there was no reason to correct her. (The story concerning a baseball bat armed pair at a friend's door is less relevant.)

'There are many, many causes and correlations that need to be analyzed. '

You mean having a criminal conviction in today's America does not make you virtually unemployable?

'They can't help themselves.' - Of course they can.

'They have no choice.' - Of course they do.

'They got to eat and feed their addictions. ' - No they don't.

'So, it's OK they can prey on you.' No it isn't, but then, I have never been preyed upon, so my opposition is based on belief in how society should function, not experience.

So the most signification thing is the alleged insurmountable difficulty of finding a job with a felony conviction, not any pathologies on the front end leading to crime or the poor record of rehabilitation in the U.S. at the back end.

'So the most signification thing is the alleged insurmountable difficulty of finding a job with a felony conviction....'

Why yes, for labor-force participation rates of men without a college education, I do think that the difficulties of finding a job with a felony conviction plays a much higher role in today's America than 50 years ago.

But you are of course right to point out just how poor American efforts are at rehabilitation are. Oddly, something that is also connected to finding employment - almost as if employment is the crux of a discussion on labor force participation.


"...several aggressive 'beggars' seemed to find the experience less than pleasant. ..."

Ahhh ... so you either used violence or intimidation to make life extra unpleasant for some poor aggressive beggar?

Shame on you!

And here I thought you abhored violence. Silly me.

Yes, and you can forget about being forgotten.

"There are no second acts in American lives." F. Scott Fitzgerald

There ain't now, that's for sure ...

Fitzgerald meant something different from what is usually meant by people repeating that mysterious, seemingly wrong-headed line.

Good. Keep weak and dim-witted men from reproducing. America will be a strong nation again in one generation.

+1. Both Trump and Dems want more high skilled immigration. The combination of low IQ men breeding less and more high IQ men coming into the country can only lead to good things.

actually because of the welfare state IQs are already dropping.

Magical thinking. Do you even gave a ghost of a causative mechanism on mind for that claim?

Would someone please translate the portion in bold? I dont speak Economist.

It's saying that the drop in labor force participation can't be due solely to a drop in demand for hiring men without college educations (jobs moving overseas, more jobs requiring college education, demand shifting to women, etc.) Some of the decline comes from the supply side, men in this group not wanting to work or not being capable of working. Hence, the reference to male culture.

It will be a fun exercise to count how many demand-side explanations show up in the comments, despite the bolding.

One in the next comment down.

Why is that amusing to you? The bolding clearly says it is not the sole cause meaning there is more than one reason. Both demand side and supply side arguments should be welcomed.

In the 1960s and 1970s, many states raised welfare for single mothers, which facilitated a reversion to an economic model often seen in places like New Guinea and sub-Saharan Africa in which women are the bread-earners and support idle men.

This is nonsense. No pre-modern society could support an idle population well in excess of 50% (I'm counting children too). The men in those societies had labor roles, albeit somewhat (not totally) different from the male roles in early Europe. They were hunters, warriors, artisans, shamans. A fair number were slaves. Women may have predominated in agriculture (sometimes, not always) but even in very low tech societies there's a lot of non-farming work that needs to be done, and the heavier, more dangerous roles generally did go to men.

Thanks for pre-empting my having to ask!
"Male" culture - I'm not sure I've seen the words coupled like that, as though men could be observed in isolation, separated out, and the world carry on without them. Perhaps a new museum will be coming to the crowded National Mall.

As an employer, the answer is obvious. In any job that does not require physical strength and/or charisma, women generally make better employees. They are more conscientious, more honest, better at following instructions, better at social interactions, and pose less of a threat to their bosses. Technology is making men less competitive in a wide range of functional areas, especially accounting, legal, marketing and increasingly even in sales (where testosterone and competitiveness used to be an advantage).

What about gunslinger?

"Ya better git down off yer horse Sheriff, cause we're fixin to f*ck ya." - George Carlin

The downsides of women, for most safe jobs that don't require bravery (which women of course tend to be more cowardly and have less of as we all know), in my experience are largely: that they generally take more on childcare and wider responsibilities so will reliably work fewer hours, they are generally less willing to intensify hours or do unsociable patterns, and they are generally more sociable at work which can lower intensity and focus on tasks.

Women tend to be somewhat less prideful about doing a good job, so in some jobs that are loosely monitored, a sense of male pride, esprit de corps and honor is useful (all of which women don't have anything of), but this should be being resolved by monitoring at an executive level for most jobs.

Honesty is divisive - women at work tend to be more held in check by being scared of stuff, but also less honest when more scared of stuff.

The highest productivity workers, e.g., successful Silicon Valley founders, are going to be disproportionately male, as are the most disruptive potential employees: e.g., violent criminals.

Surely the highest productivity workers would be things like wikipedia article writers and Linux programmers who work for free followed perhaps by salaried researchers in fields with big positive spill overs. Gotta remember that money is just a proxy.

Highest productivity? What? Of course the average wikipedia editor is not generating anything anywhere close to what the average CEO is.

First you need to define productivity. Depending on how you count unit of input per unit of output it can be infinite for volunteer workers.

"...labor demand"

Yep. Let's not forget globalization and f*cked up trade "agreements". From Asian imports in the seventies turning Motown into notown all the way to support and customer service jobs being outsourced to India in the early 2000s.

But hey, they can learn to code online. If not, there is always oxycodone, alcohol, video games, and disability. No need to worry, those guys won't last long anyway.

Now let us all say a prayer to free trade and comparative advantage.


The egalitarian spirit formed after WW2 died around the 1970s. Stagflation was the perfect excuse during the 1980s to bring in more mercenary approach to American society by hobbling labor, deregulation, and cutting Wall Street loose. The American owning class wants higher profits. That means jobs get shipped overseas. Are you willing to take a cut in your retirement account to pay workers more?

Funnily enough the egalitarian spirit you speak of was undermined by both the left and right: the left by virtue of the New Left’s anti male, anti working class identity politics and the right with outsourcing, globalization and generalized “anti-localism”.

This, and the cynical notion that *only* a war could get all rowing in the same boat again. You don't want a war, do you?

(But of course, we did get a war; only, we made sure it was one we would never win, and we didn't make the mistake of involving the whole country. So we can have globalism, and identity politics, and male losers, and a female-centric workplace - at least, the indoor, air-conditioned segment of it - and cannily-milked guilt (Sailer's invade the world, invite the world formula) over that forever war, however little the average American may have signed on to it - we can have everything!)

"From Asian imports in the seventies"

God forbid that the American public be allowed to buy a car that doesn't fall apart in the first 50k miles. Detroit had it coming.

Have economists figured out yet how to account for education inflation in statistics? For example, some college-educated males that are participating in the labor force today would have been non-college educated 50 years ago. If included among the non-college educated today, they would raise the labor force participation rates of that group. This might seem especially important if college today selects for persistence, conformity, responsibility, and other positive traits associated with uncollapsed "American male culture".

I don’t think there is anything in the vein of consumption basket or PPP that is standard.

It seems like education should be ignored when comparing the success of generations.

Unless the point is just that it's a bad time to be "poorly educated"(*).

* - you know the quote!

Here is all of the BLS data on labor participation of blacks: While the labor force participation for black men has always lagged behind the labor force participation for all men, the trend line since 1972 is in the same direction: down.

In his column today, Douthat chides liberals for framing all questions of anti-liberalism as a function of white supremacy. As Cowen's blog post and the data in the BLS study indicate, it ain't so: at least when it comes to labor force participation, it's a male problem. Here's the link to Douthat's column:

There's more to life than money.

If you have enough money, that's quite true.

The US spent billions of dollars to prevent the Soviets from not only invading and destroying the country but also changing American society from a capitalist to a collectivist one. At the same time, US male legislators and men in general hoisted females from their previous inferior position to one of growing superiority. Part of this was buying votes, part of it was economics.

From the standpoint of the male sex, this has been a case of treason. The geography and sovereignty of the male and female worlds are not the same. Turncoat men allowed the female invasion of their prerogatives, to the obvious detriment of normal, disinterested men who have followed the dictates of biology for millennia. This will not end well.

The more toxic progressive feminist cohort has been working for a couple of generations to convince society that men should not stand for the Birkenhead drill. To the detriment of all, they have largely succeeded.

I knew women were the enemy. Even when it was the Soviets, I knew it was women.

Women are not the enemy, and they reap as much or more downside from this culture shift as men.

"From the standpoint of the male sex, this has been a case of treason. The geography and sovereignty of the male and female worlds are not the same. Turncoat men allowed the female invasion of their prerogatives, to the obvious detriment of normal, disinterested men who have followed the dictates of biology for millennia. "

Let's not pretend the far-right doesn't think what it thinks.

The simple minded like to frame every question in a binary political cast. The destruction of the American male and masculinity is political in only a tangential sense. This is instead a zero sum culture war. The gains of the feminine armies come at the expense of males.

This situation is observed from afar by other males, Latin Americans, for instance, who regard US males as hopeless wimps that have given up their time immemorial rights. They see this in US divorce settlements, custody battle outcomes, bogus rape cases, prostitutes characterized as victims of sex trafficking and so on. US men are the focus of international humor, not respect.

I knew we should copy Latin America. Or Saudi Arabia? Do you want a safe space?

Contrarian take: Maybe Latin American cultural norms with developed world IQs would be better at least than where the US is heading?

How so?

And what if we allow mass immigration of Latin American young women?

It's more of a playful suggestion that I don't know how to test formally. But at the very minimum adjust for influences of interrelated 'Deep Roots', IQ and per capita income factors on life satisfaction and life expectancy, to try and isolate a residual cultural attitudes factor, and I bet Latin America would score among the best.

If Latin America had Denmark levels of crime, life there would already be pretty sweet. There is poverty, but less extreme poverty than you might think, outside of Venezuela which is being starved by its butcher, I meant leader. (Venezuela was the 4th richest country in the world in 1920.) So I agree, but I don't think IQ is the controlling variable; I think it's culture, mostly male culture (although most of the stupid things men do are to impress women).

Ah, see, I don't think that can be due to Latin machismo or anything like that. Consider in 1980, for homicide, Brazil had about the same rate as the US, and Mexico only twice the rate of the US (they would go on to diverge). Males in those countries didn't become more determined to impress girls or each other I don't think.

The problems in most of Latin America seem to me to be are due to their large array of IQ diversity, unchecked by huge redistribution by the government, lead to a vast level of income diversity, and then the incentives to crime when you have real serious poverty (not comfy first world poverty) in the same country as almost first world wealth. The incentive to steal is high. As well, you have the huge returns to maintaining criminal organizations, through the drug trade, which in a high IQ country I tend to doubt would exist; they'd probably just legalize and regulate cocaine production.

Their younger demographics also have an effect; more crime if more young men about, even if they don't behave any differently.

Not too long ago, in the US and the rest of the world, wives were responsible for the raising of children and management of the home. Husbands were expected to earn what was necessary for a normal life in the surroundings. Technological advancements, electricity and the appliances that go with it, washing machines, dryers, dish washers, science ovens, blenders, mixers, etc. have freed women from the supposed drudgery of everyday life. While husbands still work hard on the job, their wives are now free to enter the work force. Also, men are expected to take an active part in sharing the household duties as Mom toils, generally in the white collar arena. This is all very new, basically a trend that began after the ignition of the atomic bomb. We've yet to see a definitive picture of the future this will bring. But certainly, based on history, it can't be good. A high divorce rate, single parent families (encouraged by government policy) , children spending 10 hrs/day in daycare are negatives. Nonetheless, that's seems to be the course of the future. Meanwhile, climate alarmists worry about the world that will be left to their children.

A modern economy has its sacrifices. It is perfectly fine to emigrate for a more sane pace of life and family friendliness. Of course that all requires better immigration policies that are harder to come by these days.

"They have neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for strategic thought. I can no longer sit back and allow feminist infiltration, feminist indoctrination, feminist subversion and the international feminist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids."

You go, Jack D. Ripper!

They all hate us anyhow, so let's drop the big one now.

Waitaminute, are you seriously suggesting that the problem with contemporary America is not enough individualism???

Lemme guess, the problem with violence in America is not enough guns, and our economic stagnation is caused by not enough inequality.

I this real or trolling...I can't even...

Is this really a decline in culture or a rational response to the very rapid growth in good things to do in one’s leisure time? I have a conventionally successful life and still look forward to the day when I will have saved enough money not to work just because there are so many better things I could be filling my free time with.

Oh its without a doubt a rational response. I just don't think you understand what it's a rational response to. Its a rational response to a change in the mating market in which for a significant fraction of men, simply holding down a job no longer confers any status or promise of future benefits.

I think it is true they believe that, but they are mistaken.

Stoicism, honor, and dignity are good in themselves, but also pay off eventually.

Perhaps, but thats a pretty tough sell to young men with bad mating options. You know what is a pretty good sell? Some combination of video games, drugs, and casual sex if they can find it.

I made a short story about multiculturalism in america stuart. It is called the United States of Disparate Impact:

I tried to pay my employees in gold but that was prohibited.

I wanted to get a loan but the government said they didnt have any money because they had already given out too many bad loans to historically disadvantaged groups.

I made more than the median income but I was not able to keep all that much because I live in the same house with the woman I sleep with and live as a family with our children together.

I was going to help a woman and train her at my business because I thought she needed help but the AAUW said I have to pay her equal pay for equal work. I knew she wouldnt be able to pay her what the AAUW thought was equal right away at least until she was proficient but the AAUW and I couldnt agree on the definition of equal work so I didnt hire her.

I was too costly to give my employees health insurance because of government mandates so I didnt do it.

I ended up losing my business to my competitors because the government bailed them out and not me.
My wife left me and I lost my life savings paying child support despite the fact that she cheated on me. I had to move back in with my parents.

I met a young women on public transportation. I like dating her despite the fact that she had 3 kids by 3 different men before the age of 21. I think I am going to stay with her until she gets her 9k earned income credit check in February. I dont know if our relationship will last much longer than that, but her mom might be able to get me a job in the Obama Administration investigating companies that use IQ tests improperly. If they are caught they are subject to fines that go towards subsidizing bad loans for historically disadvantaged groups.

Bill Maher: "If men could get laid in one, they would live in a cardboard box."

Roissy and commenters here have discussed Baumeister and Vohs (2004):

"Nowadays young men can skip the wearying detour of getting education and career prospects to qualify for sex. Nor does he have to get married and accept all those costs, including promising to share his lifetime earnings and forego other women forever. Female sex partners are available without all that."

Male labor-force participation exceeds women's. Yet male slacking is considered a crisis, while female "homemaking" is a cultural tradition.

The "Black Pill" perspective is that proliferating bastards cause cultural collapse.
It had been an old dream of Zionist socialists and Bolsheviks (among others) to absorb the family into society with everyone living communally, restaurants and daycare centers replacing family arrangements, and women working each day alongside the men. Here this dream was reborn, no longer as an aspect of utopia, but as the final achievement of justice against an oppressive world.

Something like 20% of 25-35 year old men are living with their parents.

Do a survey of all the men you know or run into. Ask them when they left home and under what circumstances. A certain percentage will say they couldn't wait to leave. I'd guess about half had to be encouraged. You will hear funny stories about how the mom found them an apartment and moved their stuff. College is about leaving home. Our their mom refused to do their laundry and cooking anymore. Some process of act akin to an adult osprey flying over the nest with a fish in its claws and landing on a nearby tree to eat. Time to leave and make your way.

The men who needed encouragement will be successful decent men with families and burdens of responsibilities.

College is a structured way to leave. Like any parenting some expectation and process to have it happen is necessary.

"For even when we were with you, we commanded you this: If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat"

It seems that the same situation asked in apostolic times.

I don't know why parents tolerate their sons not launching. A audit of empathy?

The great stagnation in comment editing continues. A surfeit of empathy?

if our studies don't reproduce & our
unaffordsble policies don't work so good mebbe we can start a cult
based on buzzwords like empathy

college may be a structured way to live but the current financing of college is unsustainable. why is it so much easier to get a student loan than a home mortgage?

I would suggest some factors leading to more living at parents' home for adults are more space in the home; with more divorce and fewer children, larger houses and more second home ownership by Boomers. When Boomers and even X got kicked out, it was from their parents' smaller and worse quality homes (, which tended to have both mom and dad living together, and sibling too, perhaps grandparents.

These combine with higher rental incomes and prices outside the home, and a bunch of other factors where cost of nightlife and restaurants (quality yes, perhaps, but also cost) also expands relative to home entertainment (videogames, internet porn, etc) and delivery food.

If mom's living in a half empty mansion, doesn't care about you bringing girls back, and you mostly enjoy playing Playstation in your spare time or Netflix and chill with your girl, what incentive is there to rent a noisy, poorly soundproofed shoebox for the cost of half of your monthly income, with bills and transport costs on top?

Not just sons I would note, also true for daughters though, and I would not surprised if more so, adjusting for emerging young female education and employment advantages.

And parents and children often like each other these days. This is a new development. My grandparents saw my father as a source of labor to be exploited and my father saw me as a burden since he couldn't use me to earn money. Families were more like little mafias in the past. Or maybe bargain basement Game of Thrones.

Hardly that new
There have always been, and are still today, dysfunctional families where the family members hate each other, often with good reason. But there were good and strong families in the past too. And it was once not unusual for unmarried young people to live at home until marriage beckoned. Both my parents did so, in my mother's case that meant until she was 28 (in the 1950s)

Young women seem to tolerate living with parents less well, and living on a shoestring better, than young men today. (This does not say anything good about young men. Male culture collapse.)

Housing prices in urban areas where the jobs are are bifurcated between very expensive homes that are unaffordable to young men, and cheap homes that are in dangerous ghettos hostile to outsiders.

'In the late 1960s, nearly all 25–54 year-old men with only a high school degree participated in the labor force; by 2015, such men participated at a rate of 85.3 percent.' - from the introduction to the paper cited.

Hmmm....lets compare that 85.3 participation rate with other groups:

In 2016, the overall male LFPR for those 25 to 34 is 88.8, 35-44 is 90.6, and 45 - 54 is 86.3. The highest LFPR for women is for those 25 to 44 at 75.4. But no problem with that because....women. So is 85.3 so really that far out of line to warrant designation as the collapse of male culture?

But nice pitch for student loan servitude.

So males without high school degrees have a higher labor force participation rate of

Looks like American males have consistently undervalued education for at least the last 50 years. That explains a lot, actually.

Believe it or not, there are a significant number of intelligent men that prefer working with their hands over pecking at a keyboard. They don't mind difficult, dangerous work in inclement weather. They get a sense of satisfaction from completing a visible project and moving on to the next one.

Today most schools, universities, corporations, scientific organizations, governments, and many other institutions have explicit policies to protect and promote women. It is standard practice to hire or promote a woman ahead of an equally qualified man. Most large organizations have policies and watchdogs that safeguard women’s interests and ensure that women gain preferential treatment over men. Parallel policies or structures to protect men’s interests are largely nonexistent and in many cases are explicitly prohibited. Legal scholars, for example, point out that any major new law is carefully scrutinized by feminist legal scholars who quickly criticize any aspect that could be problematic or disadvantageous to women, and so all new laws are women-friendly. Nobody looks out for men, and so the structural changes favoring women and disadvantaging men have accelerated (Baumeister and Vohs 2004). [...]

Even today, the women’s movement has been a story of women demanding places and preferential treatment in the organizational and institutional structures that men create, rather than women creating organizations and institutions themselves. Almost certainly, this reflects one of the basic motivational differences between men and women, which is that female sociality is focused heavily on one-to-one relationships, whereas male sociality extends to larger groups networks of shallower relationships (e.g., Baumeister and Sommer 1997; Baumeister 2010). Crudely put, women hardly ever create large organizations or social systems. That fact can explain most of the history of gender relations, in which the gender near-equality of prehistorical societies was gradually replaced by progressive inequality—not because men banded together to oppress women, but because cultural progress arose from the men’s sphere with its large networks of shallow relationships, while the women’s sphere remained stagnant because its social structure emphasized intense one-to-one relationships to the near exclusion of all else (see Baumeister 2010). All over the world and throughout history (and prehistory), the contribution of large groups of women to cultural progress has been vanishingly small. [ed: what do you think will happen to a nation's cultural progress when it goes out of its way to give preferential treatment to its women who, as a sex, prefer tawdry one-to-one relationships to men's preference for the growth potential in large shallow relationships? that's right, the economy and the culture come more and more to reflect women's preferences. result: progress that is the hallmark of rising empires grinds to a halt.]

"Collapse" is an alarmist description of a 50-year trend.

Prime age make LFPR has been ticking up smartly for the past five years, hand in hand with lower unemployment and higher wages.

If male wages have stagnated but teacher pay has risen during the same time period (, does that mean that teachers really are overpaid? Or does it mean that women are overpaid?

Women are crazy and evil. I don't one any of them. You other guys can have 'em. I'm quite happy being wealthy and free of women's attempts at male persecution. Feck 'em.

Comments for this post are closed