Sunday, May 09, 2010

Follow up: Family age men need jobs that aren't there.

As we discussed recently in two posts, the economy is ratcheting down to a more sustainable level of activity - particularly in regards to paid employment. The trend of past millennia has been one main breadwinner per household, usually the husband/father, with dependent children and dependent elderly relatives as part of the household. Wives would often have small side businesses at home, but their primary focus was the household off-the-books economy of doing for themselves or banding together into formal and informal cooperatives to provide services essentially for barter, not for pay. As living wage jobs become more scarce, every two income household means a no-income household somewhere else, as the level of employment continues to fall back to the level of earlier centuries but society refuses to adapt.

Particularly, the women's liberation movement that thought nothing about sacrificing their children, their parents, their extended family, their community, social and religious obligations on the altar of narcissistic "self-actualization" and status through paid employment are not going to give those things up without a fight. They don't CARE that there aren't enough living wage jobs for both men and women to work full time. To them, social and economic darwinism is perfectly fine - they have no interest and no connection to the needs of the wider community. The result will be a crash and burn of living standards for families whose husbands/fathers cannot find living wage work due to married/cohabitating women taking jobs away from heads of households (of either sex).

Yahoo Financial News
Meet the Unemployable Man
by David Wessel
Friday, May 7, 2010
provided by The Wall Street Journal

The betting is that the Labor Department's Friday snapshot of the job market will show that employers added workers in April, perhaps even that the unemployment rate fell.

That would be good news, but not good enough. It's hard to exaggerate how bad the job market is. Here's one arresting fact: One of every five men 25 to 54 isn't working.

Even more alarming, the jobs that many of these men, or those like them, once had in construction, factories and offices aren't coming back. "A good guess…is that when the economy recovers five years from now, one in six men who are 25 to 54 will not be working," Lawrence Summers, the president's economic adviser, said the other day.

This is not one of the many things that can be blamed on subprime lending, inept regulators or Goldman Sachs. "The Great Recession has reinforced prevailing labor market trends that were under way long before the recession," David Autor, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist, observed in a recent paper commissioned by two Democratic-leaning think tanks, the Center for American Progress and the Hamilton Project...

...For 50 years, the fraction of men with jobs in what once were prime earning years has been trending down. Over the same decades, the share of women who work has been rising...

...nothing in the textbooks says that the supply and demand for workers will intersect at a wage that is socially acceptable. At the high end, demand for skilled workers and those who rely on their brains will return when the economy does. At the other end, jobs in restaurants, nursing homes and health clubs -- the jobs that are hard to automate or outsource -- will come back, too.

In the middle, there will be some jobs for workers without much education, for the plumbers, electricians and software technicians. But not enough to go around...

As the teapartiers have amply demonstrated, the Boomers and their offspring no longer have any idea whatsoever of the "social contract" that kept society humming relatively smoothly before the "me first" Boomers became adults and remade society into their own self-centered image. Children, the elderly, and the poor are nuisances whose populations need to be reduced, not fellow human beings who need their support and assistance. Of course, the Boomers themselves, as they begin hitting old age, think nothing of bankrupting the country, their own children, and generations into the future to hold on to a historically ridiculous level of expectation and entitlement for old age. They have no intention of voluntarily living in extended family households like the generation before them.

They want "rights" and "freedoms" without any responsibilities or obligations, a trait they share with Feminists of all ages. Like Reform Judaism, they want all the benefits of covenant without any of the annoying duties and social structure that makes the covenant possible - until one of them gets pregnant out of wedlock and suddenly they're all for manufacturing a covenant of obligation out of the thin blue air, often against the man's will. Like the Boomers, they're all for their own freedoms and all for somebody else taking the responsibility - and presume it's their right to do so. Somehow, it's "fair" take chain men to an unwanted child and 18 years of garnished wages, but not "fair" for them to be so burdened if they choose not to be. Go figure.

But I digress. The issue here is that the number of jobs is adequate for the number of US Households, but only if mother's don't work outside the home. And since this genie likely can't be put back in the bottle, that means there aren't going to be enough jobs, period. Since the "99ers" (those who have exhausted all 99 weeks of unemployment checks and now have no recourse) and other unemployed or underemployed are not going to sit down as homeless vagabonds and starve quietly, the danger and violence which will inevitably follow will be far worse for society than the effects of making one-income households the presumed norm and hiring primarily on that basis. But modern feminist led society will not accept this fact.

So we will crash and burn, literally, because of a false sense of entitlement that women should be able to have kids and then foist their care and raising onto someone else because gosh, really, intelligent women have better things to do than raise the kids they brought into the world or take care of the parents who brought them into the world. It is because of a lack of sense of social contract, a sense of responsibility to their fellows, the past generations, or the future ones that our culture is hopelessly damaged both socially and economically. The "me" generation has all but destroyed the social contract.

And with it goes our communities and eventually, America - destroyed by selfishness and by contempt for the needs of the whole. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one." A very Jewish idea.

No comments: