3 ms·

Since the Wikipedia article is so bare, I'm concerned that this discussion will mainly be a vibes-based shouting match based on the title. In hopes of averting

Since the Wikipedia article is so bare, I'm concerned that this discussion will mainly be a vibes-based shouting match based on the title. In hopes of averting that, some meatier content: A piece from the book's author: https://time.com/4504004/men-without-work/ https://time.com/4504004/men-without-work/ Some reviews and discussions: https://www.nybooks.com/online/2016/09/15/americas-lost-workers-eberstadt-men-without-work/ https://www.nybooks.com/online/2016/09/15/americas-lost-work... https://www.vox.com/new-money/2016/10/11/13176948/labor-force-participation https://www.vox.com/new-money/2016/10/11/13176948/labor-forc... https://archive.ph/20170311160320/https://www.ft.com/content/eb0c4aa4-80b5-11e6-8e50-8ec15fb462f4 https://archive.ph/20170311160320/https://www.ft.com/content...

dang 4y ago
Great, I've changed from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men_Without_Work_(book) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men_Without_Work_(book) to that first article. Thanks! Wikipedia submissions are good when there isn't a substantive article out there, but not good when they're just a generic summary of what can be explored more specifically in other places. Past explanations about this: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20wikipedia%20submission&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...