2 ms·
I've only skimmed the article, but nowhere does it seem to compare men to the overall population. As it stands, these distressing trends could hold for everyone
by rocqua 7y ago
I've only skimmed the article, but nowhere does it seem to compare men to the overall population. As it stands, these distressing trends could hold for everyone, which makes the focus on men needless.
Did I miss something here? Does anyone know whether these trends are unique to men? Because if (and that is a big if) this is not unique to men, that would be some horrible cherry picking / manipulative statistics.
Regardless though, the data on unmarried non-immigrant men is really disturbing. If it extends to unmarried non-immigrant women, that would harm the narrative of the article, but still present a very big problem. In general I would expect that married people have lower labour participation, because there is a partner to pick up the slack. In general, living with two people should be cheaper per person than living alone.
- TristanDaCunha 7y agoI think the article takes as a given that men's labour participation is tanking, while women's isn't. For most of the audience, this will be common knowledge. Here is a graph about female participation: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.TLF.CACT.FE.NE.ZS?locations=US https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.TLF.CACT.FE.NE.ZS?lo...
- rocqua 7y agoBut do we see the same disparity between immigration and marital status for women? The issue raised here isn't (I think) that labour participation is shifting away from men. It's that _men_ have some specific issues. If those same issues are present in women, we need to have a different discussion.
- TristanDaCunha 7y agoOkay, thanks for the clarification. I do understand why the article hasn't touched upon this, since it's just an attempt to diagnose the pattern seen in the overall male subpopulation, which is not seen in the overall female subpopulation. But I agree it could be interesting to look there too.