I started my career in the late 80s, working in construction. I have watched entire trades become captured by illegal immigrants, who now work for what was prevailing wage 10 years ago. Every landscaper, drywaller, and roofer in America is now an illegal alien, making the same wage as Americans did in that field 10 years ago, while living 10 to an apartment and sending half their wage home to another country.
And people wonder why blue collar wages stagnated!
14 million illegal immigrants estimated to be living in the US. I am a democrat, and certainly don't think the current deportation process is as compassionate or considered as it could be. But I wholly reject the idea that we must somehow stop and tolerate the status quo b/c of the "economic benefits" that widespread low-wage labor presents.
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.
What affect do public welfare transfers have on the labor participation rate? I see from time to time graphs showing the aggregate federal-state-local public benefits available. Some states like Minnesota and Hawaii, IIRC, are so generous—totals reaching into the $60k-70k range if housing subsidies are included—they must discourage entry.
If you subsidized something, you get more of it, if you tax it you get less. That certainly applies to leisure and labor.
This is a thoughtful article that grapples with a crisis that is roaring through the anglosphere with scarcely a comment. Income predictability and housing affordability have been shunned by the traditional spokespeople from the left who now spend their energies on boosting migration and other billionaire hobby issues.
Stephen, this was such a solid essay. Really well done. It deserves far more attention than the likes and comments would suggest it's getting (not that those things are great indicators, but you know 🤷♂️
Couple reactions to share —
1/ I don't think you sufficiently discussed the changes in social norms around marriage, dating, and sex that seem (at least partially) independent of changes in income levels. We might have more control over that cultural stuff than over the economic policy stuff.
2/ the changes in labor force participation rates need to be shouted from the rooftops and repeated over and over. so many folks i talk to about inflation, immigration, and tariffs believe that the output gap is incredibly low already. i don't know how that can be seriously maintained when ~20M of your countrymen aren't in the labor force.
3/ I do not understand the stat cited from IFS about the 4-5 births for married women. After clicking over to the article, I still don't understand it. Can you help a thick-headed brother out?
I am amazed there was no mention of the disillusion of men with toxic women and the supporting culture that for the last 2 decades and purposeful discredited men overall driving then away from public discourse.
I started my career in the late 80s, working in construction. I have watched entire trades become captured by illegal immigrants, who now work for what was prevailing wage 10 years ago. Every landscaper, drywaller, and roofer in America is now an illegal alien, making the same wage as Americans did in that field 10 years ago, while living 10 to an apartment and sending half their wage home to another country.
And people wonder why blue collar wages stagnated!
14 million illegal immigrants estimated to be living in the US. I am a democrat, and certainly don't think the current deportation process is as compassionate or considered as it could be. But I wholly reject the idea that we must somehow stop and tolerate the status quo b/c of the "economic benefits" that widespread low-wage labor presents.
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.
Family dissolution and divorce rate issues remain.
What affect do public welfare transfers have on the labor participation rate? I see from time to time graphs showing the aggregate federal-state-local public benefits available. Some states like Minnesota and Hawaii, IIRC, are so generous—totals reaching into the $60k-70k range if housing subsidies are included—they must discourage entry.
If you subsidized something, you get more of it, if you tax it you get less. That certainly applies to leisure and labor.
This is a thoughtful article that grapples with a crisis that is roaring through the anglosphere with scarcely a comment. Income predictability and housing affordability have been shunned by the traditional spokespeople from the left who now spend their energies on boosting migration and other billionaire hobby issues.
Stephen, this was such a solid essay. Really well done. It deserves far more attention than the likes and comments would suggest it's getting (not that those things are great indicators, but you know 🤷♂️
Couple reactions to share —
1/ I don't think you sufficiently discussed the changes in social norms around marriage, dating, and sex that seem (at least partially) independent of changes in income levels. We might have more control over that cultural stuff than over the economic policy stuff.
2/ the changes in labor force participation rates need to be shouted from the rooftops and repeated over and over. so many folks i talk to about inflation, immigration, and tariffs believe that the output gap is incredibly low already. i don't know how that can be seriously maintained when ~20M of your countrymen aren't in the labor force.
3/ I do not understand the stat cited from IFS about the 4-5 births for married women. After clicking over to the article, I still don't understand it. Can you help a thick-headed brother out?
I am amazed there was no mention of the disillusion of men with toxic women and the supporting culture that for the last 2 decades and purposeful discredited men overall driving then away from public discourse.