This is all fairly sound, and captures an emerging consensus on both right and left regarding the diagnosis of mens' contemporary struggles (economic issues -> relationship recession -> declining fertility and further male failure). But the prescription for change is highly selective. The article points out that stable hours and benefits are huge factor, and then proposes that modest increases in manufacturing employment will magically fix this, rather than suggesting (1) any kind of regulatory intervention (restrictions on clopening, just in time scheduling, micro shifts, or different rules for benefits entitlement, etc.) to improve the quality of service sector jobs; or (2) any support for private sector unions, which were of course central to the stability and high wages of manufacturing employment in the past. A simple look at history and developing countries (and even different regions in the US) shows very well that manufacturing employment without robust regulation and organized labor is no guarantee of high wages, stable hours, or good benefits. Don't let ideological blinkers get in the way of critical policy interventions to support American men and families.
Restriction on immigration is also a fine policy, but will not magically lead to better jobs. Farms, meatpackers and non-union builders will need to pay a bit more to attract native workers, but schedules and benefits won't improve much without organization and agitation, which is unions. Moreover, since these are already low margin industries, increased wages will be passed as a cost to consumers, which leads to a relative decline in income due to reduced purchasing power. So by all means restrict immigration, but don't expect a panacea.
As to more investment and vocational training, yes, 100% - and incentivize private capital and companies to get involved too.
This is all fairly sound, and captures an emerging consensus on both right and left regarding the diagnosis of mens' contemporary struggles (economic issues -> relationship recession -> declining fertility and further male failure). But the prescription for change is highly selective. The article points out that stable hours and benefits are huge factor, and then proposes that modest increases in manufacturing employment will magically fix this, rather than suggesting (1) any kind of regulatory intervention (restrictions on clopening, just in time scheduling, micro shifts, or different rules for benefits entitlement, etc.) to improve the quality of service sector jobs; or (2) any support for private sector unions, which were of course central to the stability and high wages of manufacturing employment in the past. A simple look at history and developing countries (and even different regions in the US) shows very well that manufacturing employment without robust regulation and organized labor is no guarantee of high wages, stable hours, or good benefits. Don't let ideological blinkers get in the way of critical policy interventions to support American men and families.
Restriction on immigration is also a fine policy, but will not magically lead to better jobs. Farms, meatpackers and non-union builders will need to pay a bit more to attract native workers, but schedules and benefits won't improve much without organization and agitation, which is unions. Moreover, since these are already low margin industries, increased wages will be passed as a cost to consumers, which leads to a relative decline in income due to reduced purchasing power. So by all means restrict immigration, but don't expect a panacea.
As to more investment and vocational training, yes, 100% - and incentivize private capital and companies to get involved too.