[HN Gopher] Fewer young men are in the labor force, more are liv...
___________________________________________________________________
Fewer young men are in the labor force, more are living at home
Author : harambae
Score : 165 points
Date : 2021-06-11 13:42 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.bloomberg.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.bloomberg.com)
| MattGaiser wrote:
| I have a very multicultural background, but the dominant cultural
| view, at least when it comes to money, is Chinese.
|
| For us, living at home is not failure. Moving out without
| planning to start a family if you live in the same city as your
| parents is considered wasting money. You instead use it as an
| opportunity to save a pile of money and invest.
|
| How much of this is just cultural change? It isn't failure to
| launch. It is wanting to launch with a larger rocket with more
| fuel.
| xputer wrote:
| It's also much harder to buy your own place these days.
| supertrope wrote:
| I grew up in a school district with median household income
| >$100k. Several schools had blue ribbon awards from the federal
| department of education. There were still families where kids
| were given 30 days notice to move out upon turning 18. Some
| families were under so much financial pressure the parents
| wanted the kids to drop out of high school at 16 and work.
| UncleOxidant wrote:
| I've got two nephews aged 34 and 32 who still live at home and
| play video games all the time and rarely leave their rooms.
| Neither has ever had a job that lasted more than a month or so.
| Neither ever learned to drive even though they live in a town
| with little or no public transit. They haven't had any education
| beyond high school. They seem wholly unprepared to navigate life
| without their parents. It's a slow motion tragedy.
| Vadoff wrote:
| It's the parents fault for coddling them. If they kicked them
| out at 18, the nephews would definitely need to work and may
| realize the importance of having a better job/career.
| UncleOxidant wrote:
| I agree with this. I think it has something to do with my
| sister (their mom) being a single mom from the time they were
| 6, 8 years old till she remarried when they were teenagers
| and their stepfather not wanting to interfere too much in the
| parenting department.
| izend wrote:
| Doesn't always work, video games are probably the cheapest
| addicting entertainment out there. Doesn't take much income
| to just survive and play video games all day long.
| Vadoff wrote:
| But at least they would be working, probably know how to
| drive a car, and may consider furthering their
| education/career when they realize how little they make for
| their time.
| vmception wrote:
| or most likely meet other marginalized people from
| society who are their first endearing support system
|
| not so different than runaway teenagers, or ex-Mormons
| that escape Utah
| q-big wrote:
| ... or commit suicide.
| notJim wrote:
| This is maybe a ridiculous question, but why is that so
| much better? If someone is able to live cheaply, why is
| it better for them to work in some menial, low-wage job
| versus being supported by a relative? I think something
| you have to consider is that if you have low social
| standing and are poorly educated, your options in life
| are not necessarily super appealing.
| Vadoff wrote:
| Who's to say that they'd remain in low-wage job? They may
| be wildly wealthy in the future. It's hard to know, since
| their potential is being squandered by the parents
| enabling this behavior.
| nradov wrote:
| If you have time to play video games then you have time
| to improve your education and social standing. Wealthy
| relatives don't live forever.
| Cyph0n wrote:
| I _highly_ doubt that video games are solely to blame.
|
| I was quite addicted to video games until my early 20s, but
| I eventually understood that gaming falls down the priority
| list as you take on more responsibilities in life. My
| friends were the same.
| version_five wrote:
| Definitely a symptom and not a cause. Like people that
| drink heavily in university then don't later once they
| have obligations.
|
| My university roommate played video games nonstop. Then
| he graduated, got a job (as a video game developer) and
| has a wife and three kids. It's like any addiction, its
| filling a void, but the object of abuse is not what's to
| blame.
| bluescrn wrote:
| Gaming is just good escapism and a way to pass time.
| Before gaming, it'd be TV, or reading fiction.
| ldiracdelta wrote:
| James Dobson once said about a similar scenario, "your son
| doesn't have a problem, _you_ have problem." Meaning
| providing lodging and meals for someone who refuses to work
| is actually enabling on the part of the parents.
| rufus_foreman wrote:
| >> If they kicked them out at 18, the nephews would
| definitely need to work and may realize the importance of
| having a better job/career
|
| It worked for me when my parents kicked me out. Took around a
| decade though.
| Cyph0n wrote:
| As you noted, it is likely that something went seriously
| wrong with raising them (coddling, over-helping, etc.). But
| you don't need to be "kicked out" to start working on
| building your life and your career.
| Vadoff wrote:
| I meant being kicked out if the parents clearly see 0
| desire from the child to further their education or get a
| job. I don't think there's anything wrong with people
| living with their parents if they're going to school or
| working.
| jmcgough wrote:
| At the same time, I see people leave home in their teens or
| 20s and work a series of crappy minimum wage jobs and never
| get a decent one with benefits, because they're busy
| surviving or don't see a better option.
|
| An ideal situation requires pressure to succeed, while also
| providing resources and guidance to be successful.
| avs733 wrote:
| I deal with a lot of 18-19 year olds as my primary job is
| teaching first year engineering students.
|
| I will tell you it is a LOT more complicated than this. This
| type of single point simplification and pronouncement about
| 'coddling' is decidedly unhelpful.
|
| For starters, if you grow up in two working parent household,
| both parents can easily come home completely exhausted and
| unable to provide the extended engagement necessary to help a
| child develop. Add in the social pressures of school where
| EVERYONE has an iphone and games where it is socially
| isolating not to do these things - which carries its own set
| of risks. Add in a public education system that doesn't focus
| on development and instead focuses on learning material. Add
| in an economy designed to optimize extraction of capital from
| individuals through psychological programming and ads and
| more stuff to buy.
|
| None of this has to have a single source of blame, much of
| its realistically structural and cultural. It isn't one bad
| actor or one failed thing...it is a large number of
| individuals, groups, and organizations individually
| performing Goodhart's law and the result is some get cast
| aside.
| [deleted]
| lnwlebjel wrote:
| Fully agree with this for 18-19 year olds, but at some
| point (25? 30?) it really does seem like coddling, or
| enabling at least. At some point you have to move out and
| support yourself.
| Vadoff wrote:
| If the parents don't provide for them, what do you think
| would happen to the nephews? Do you think they would be
| homeless? I certainly don't.
|
| The fact that the parents are providing a roof over their
| head and paying for their
| food/water/electricity/internet/clothes/games/etc is why
| they haven't had a job nor any desire for one well into
| their 30s.
|
| Honestly, because the parents keep providing for them,
| there's no impetus for them to change, so they may as well
| do this into their 40s or 50s.
|
| Minimum wage is enough to survive, and almost anyone that's
| not severely mentally/physically disabled can do most
| minimum wage work. In this case, it's not a matter of lack
| of ability, but lack of willingness.
|
| That said, I have nothing against parents willing to
| provide housing/support if the child is working, still
| furthering their education, or need some help getting their
| feet back on the ground. But at this point, this is none of
| that, and just enabling their behavior.
| mechagodzilla wrote:
| The parents certainly can be enabling, but I think you're
| ignoring that there are plenty of people that _are_
| homeless, that _do_ wind up with dependencies on alcohol,
| drugs like meth, etc, and your implication that anyone
| (especially people in their 30s with no real work
| history) can get full-time, minimum wage work doesn 't
| seem realistic. Many of those jobs are both minimum wage
| and few enough hours per week (to avoid having to give
| you benefits, of course) that it would be extremely
| difficult to live independently, while still requiring a
| schedule that makes it nearly impossible to take on other
| jobs.
|
| I'm in my 30s and have now seen several high school
| classmates with similarly poor prospects eventually
| succumb to drug overdoses.
| jplr8922 wrote:
| I think the term 'coddling ' is not the best. I grew up
| during the 90's in a hyper-controled environment by a macho
| dad and a passive mom. I was told to not become an artist, to
| not travel when I am young (waste of time), to learn how to
| drive a car, to get a job, get a degree, all that jazz. The
| thing is, at 32, I still have no sense of purpose in life.
|
| When all the goals are chosen for you, it does not matter if
| you were over-protected or not. You cannot build true self
| esteem and confidence if you don't succeed and/or fail at a
| dream of your choice. There is no point learning to drive a
| car if you do not know where you want to go, to earn money if
| you don't know what you want to buy, and to get into a career
| if you have no sense of purpose.
|
| Videogames are addictive not only because they are fun, they
| provide you with a goal and 'achievements'. In my humble
| opinion, sex for the sake of sex (real or porn), promotions
| for the sake of promotions or else are all caused by the same
| emotional male problem ; the inability to feel emotions and
| learn from them what is truly important for yourself. The %
| of young men in the labour force is just a symptom of that.
| nradov wrote:
| Having a purpose in life is optional. Supporting yourself
| as a functional adult in society is mandatory.
| aminozuur wrote:
| Did they grow up with their biological father?
| UncleOxidant wrote:
| Not after they were around 6 and 8. Their mom remarried when
| they were in their teens. So yeah, probably that's part of
| the problem. But their biological father was also quite lazy
| and never had a job for very long (part of the reason she
| left him, that and he did a good bit of gaslighting) so it's
| not like he was a great example for them to follow (In fact,
| last I heard he was living with _his_ parents and he 's well
| into his 50s).
| aminozuur wrote:
| Thanks for sharing. I sympathize with your cousins, as I
| believe they are the product of their upbringing. Surely
| they didn't choose this life either.
| bektok2 wrote:
| Time for some tough love and kick them out. Not doing them any
| favors enabling their laziness.
| tetranomiga wrote:
| He said, in a time of record unemployment and low wages that
| are impossible to live off of. Almost like there are other
| factors at play here than just men being lazy. HN loves to
| forget that not everybody can be a FAANG employee or has the
| desire to sit in front of a computer writing code their whole
| lives.
| majormajor wrote:
| > not everybody [...] has the desire to sit in front of a
| computer writing code their whole lives
|
| Sure, I also have the "desire" to play video games and do
| nothing all day, I just realize that it's not going to end
| well for me...
| vkou wrote:
| Unemployment is actually at a ten-year average at the
| moment, and entry-level wages are growing.
| spoonjim wrote:
| The US is not in record unemployment. Not in either
| direction.
| Vadoff wrote:
| You can live off of minimum wage. Maybe not in some places
| like big cities, but certainly if you moved to cheaper cost
| of living locations.
| fock wrote:
| which might not have a job at all?
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| > Almost like there are other factors at play here than
| just men being lazy.
|
| The story as conveyed by OP is textbook people being lazy.
| nradov wrote:
| Bullshit. Oklahoma has a 4% unemployment rate and a very
| low cost of living. Some other states are similar. Anyone
| who's willing to show up and work hard can survive there.
| paulddraper wrote:
| In Tacoma, I lived nextdoor to a guy who "hurt his back" when
| he was 22.
|
| As far as I can tell, he'll sit on his couch collecting
| disability until 65, at which point he'll switch to retirement.
| sgt wrote:
| Sitting on a couch for the next 40 years is also not going to
| do wonders for his back.
| UncleOxidant wrote:
| Not going to get much of a retirement if he never paid into
| social security.
| paulddraper wrote:
| Yeah, IDK. I won't be there see it.
| spoonjim wrote:
| There's a movement towards curtailing disability fraud so he
| might have a problem in between.
| _delirium wrote:
| I obviously don't know this person at all, but from what I
| know of how Social Security disability works, 22 is a
| _really_ unlikely age to qualify. Are you sure it wasn 't
| slightly earlier or later?
|
| To be eligible in your own right, you have to have paid into
| Social Security for a total of 40 quarters before becoming
| disabled. Given child labor laws, it's rare that you could
| accumulate enough quarters before age 26 or so.
|
| The other way is to be eligible on a parent's social
| security, as a "disabled child", which is defined as someone
| who became disabled before age 22. If you suffered a
| permanent disability at age _21_ , and have a parent who paid
| enough into SS to be eligible, you can receive "child"
| benefits from their account even as an adult:
| https://www.ssa.gov/benefits/disability/qualify.html#anchor7
|
| This leaves an unfortunate gap for people who genuinely
| become permanently disabled due to an accident or medical
| condition that happens around age 22-25, because they can't
| qualify through either route.
| rufus_foreman wrote:
| >> To be eligible in your own right, you have to have paid
| into Social Security for a total of 40 quarters before
| becoming disabled
|
| Looks like there are different rules for disability for
| young workers:
|
| "To be eligible for disability benefits, you must meet a
| recent work test and a duration work test.
|
| The number of credits necessary to meet the recent work
| test depends on your age. The rules are as follows:
|
| Before age 24 - You may qualify if you have 6 credits
| earned in the 3-year period ending when your disability
| starts.
|
| Age 24 to 31 - In general, you may qualify if you have
| credit for working half the time between age 21 and the
| time you become disabled. As a general example, if you
| become disabled at age 27, you would need 3 years of work
| (12 credits) out of the past 6 years (between ages 21 and
| 27).
|
| Age 31 or older - In general, you must have at least 20
| credits in the 10-year period immediately before you become
| disabled."
|
| -- https://www.ssa.gov/benefits/retirement/planner/credits.
| html
| [deleted]
| yaacov wrote:
| I don't know this dude, and if you know he's just scamming
| the system I'll take your word for it, but when I've
| experienced serious physical pain I've found video games much
| more helpful than OTC painkillers.
| paulddraper wrote:
| I'm not his doctor, and I don't know either.
|
| But is that one thing going to stop him from ever
| working/living a productive life?
| t-writescode wrote:
| Yes, if the jobs he can get pay him less than the medical
| care and stipend he gets for free every month.
|
| If you lose disability by starting to work, suddenly life
| becomes a lot more expensive and you can't afford things.
|
| The Welfare Gap is real.
| avs733 wrote:
| I appreciate the frustration, and why this got shared, but
| realistically...this is the current observation and gives so
| little data about how we got here that I worry about the
| comments attributing blame to your post.
|
| Two distant family members of mine fit this description fairly
| well...One was raised in an unstable, low income household,
| with mentally ill parents, is on the autism spectrum, and both
| parents worked multiple jobs that included overnight shifts.
| There was no ability, energy, or understanding to seek
| assistance and intervention early enough to make a difference.
| The other family member comes from effectively the complete
| opposite end of each one of those variables.
| throwaway803453 wrote:
| My 45 year old sister is that way now and to a lesser extent my
| older brother was too. I lost _decades_ of sleep over their
| situation.
|
| Ultimately I didn't know anything when I left home at 18 and I
| figured it out. Other people can too. How long does it take to
| learn how to drive, open a checking account, cook, pay bill,
| etc. after all ? You can learn these things privately over the
| Internet so there's no longer a social stigma holding you back.
| To digress, I eventually taught my older brother
| responsibility, job skills (he worked at my business), how to
| file taxes, basic math, etc. He became even more bitter and
| resentful and then one day broke down and admitted how painful
| it is to know nothing useful and most of what he does know he
| had to learn from his little brother. But eventually he started
| just Googling instead of calling me when he had a question he
| should know the answer to.
|
| I truly feel sorry for these lost souls and if I hadn't been
| naturally good at math, I'd likely be one of them.
| angmarsbane wrote:
| I want to comment on your brother's reflection that he was in
| pain, bitter, and resentful that he did not have useful
| knowledge/skills and needed your help.
|
| There is an incredible amount of shame and self-directed
| anger and fear in men who have found themselves in this
| position.
|
| All of those feelings are heavy to carry, but they can be
| shoved aside and ignored by constant entertainment (video
| games, tv binges etc). Shoved aside they don't hurt as bad.
|
| But those feelings don't go away. They get bigger as each
| year goes on & they flare up when confronted with having to
| do something they aren't capable of doing (or think they
| aren't capable) like moving out, getting a job, getting a
| better job, having an adult relationship etc.
|
| Those feelings of inadequacy have to be taken on and grace &
| forgiveness has to be granted to oneself in order for them to
| spread their wings / leave the nest and not come back.
|
| For me, the question is how do you get someone so deep into a
| dark emotional morass to take on the emotional dragons
| they've been hiding from?
| balfirevic wrote:
| > How long does it take to learn how to drive
|
| You're not wrong generally, but this one costs about $1000
| where I live, which is close to average national monthly
| salary and approximately twice the minimum salary.
|
| Not pocket change from someone who has trouble finding work
| (and many jobs require driver's license).
| belorn wrote:
| What are the things that motivates them, and what do they
| themselves want to do in life?
|
| I ask this because much of the undertone in the article and in
| this thread is about the failure of meeting the gender role
| expectations that are put on young men. Do they have a job and
| a car? Have they studied hard so they can get a good job in
| order to support a wife and kid?
|
| Culture in the last several decades have hammered down on the
| negative aspects of stereotyping. A person who is 35 has gone
| through a life time of TV, movie and politics that on repeat
| has talked about the negative of gender roles for women, while
| the expectations on men has remained fairly unchanged. I do not
| find it strange at all if an increasing portion of men under
| this culture has rejected the role put on them.
|
| Which goes back to the original question I started with. What
| motivates them and what do they want to do with their life? If
| we want to avoid the slow motion tragedy, maybe the way forward
| is to help them answer those question in the absent of imposed
| gender roles.
| pcbro141 wrote:
| On a related note, on mainstream TV/articles about declining
| marriage/birthrates in the West, it's common to see
| criticisms about modern Western men. How women can't find
| life partners because men aren't masculine enough anymore,
| don't want to grow up, don't get educated etc.
|
| But very rarely do you see any criticism or even questioning
| about modern Western women and what men want in a woman. Only
| what women want. The journalists never seem interested in
| asking whether modern Western women are marriage material?
| Degrees don't make you marriage material. Are men still
| attracted to feminine women, and are there enough feminine
| women? Are there potential reasons why Western men find it
| risky to commit to Western women? Do Western women have
| realistic standards? Do Western women need to be less picky
| about superficial characteristics? Given that the vast
| majority breakups are initiated by women, could women in a
| lot of instances be ending relationships and wrecking their
| own homes over trivial matters?
|
| The mainstream coverage of this topic is usually very one
| sided/gynocentric. Women questioning the value of modern men
| is acceptable, while men questioning the value of modern
| women will often get you labeled a misogynist/woman hating
| incel.
|
| This imbalance/lack of discussing what men want in women/lack
| of criticism of some aspects of modern women really hurts
| marriage minded women as well, because a lot of women are
| growing up without hearing what men want in a woman to marry.
| majormajor wrote:
| What _is_ what you believe men want in a woman, that 's
| being unfulfilled for these men?
|
| The common male complaint I see isn't "all these women I
| date are simply not going to fulfill what I need," it's "no
| women will date me at all" which points at a breakdown in
| the process way before the point of "what are these men
| looking for." Hard to imagine these men even have any idea
| of what they're actually looking for in a relationship,
| with that lack of experience. You only find out one way...
|
| And for that situation, a woman complaining "so few of
| these men I see have their shit together" and a man
| complaining "so few of these women are willing to date me
| at all" are two sides of the same coin. I think at a
| societal level, though, you'd be hard pressed to push the
| view "everyone should simply give up on contributing to
| society in traditional ways" so the coverage is going to
| look negatively at the "freeloaders" in the same way it
| disapproved of someone like Paris Hilton. You see it
| through a lens of sexism, I see it through a lens of it
| being hard to sympathize with someone drifting through life
| chatting meaninglessly on the internet and playing games.
| BATNA comes into play, too - the person with no options at
| all seems to be the one with the incentive to make changes.
| (While for the women here, and the men they are currently
| dating while ignoring these stay-at-home-and-do-nothing
| men, there's other, plenty-well-trod advice about
| compromise being necessary, etc, that's been repeated to
| death in media of all sorts.)
|
| Maybe we should encourage these men to go become nannies
| for a few years, to both give them a job and boost their
| dating profile that way AND to prepare them for being a
| full-time homemaker if traditional employment simply isn't
| what they want! I certainly think that should be an option
| for both genders.
|
| > Given that the vast majority breakups are initiated by
| women
|
| Citation please? I would LOVE to know if your number here
| also includes stuff like "he slept with me and then ghosted
| me," too.
| Mediterraneo10 wrote:
| > Degrees don't make you marriage material.
|
| This gets said so much on "redpilled" male fora, but it
| makes no sense to me personally. As a bookish and arts-
| inclined person, so much of my worldview, the things that
| occupy my thoughts during the day, has been formed by the
| canon of literature, music, films. No woman would seem
| dating and marriage material to me if she weren't similarly
| erudite and we would have some common ground in that
| respect.
|
| Often the man claiming that men don't care about a woman's
| education, goes on to say that what matters is that the
| woman knows how to cook. That, too, has never made sense to
| me. I live in a country where for the childless, eating out
| good healthy food is not appreciably more expensive than
| cooking at home, and I'd be more attracted to a woman who
| often eats out and reads while doing so instead of spends
| evening after evening in the kitchen.
| username90 wrote:
| You studying social subjects that almost only women study
| is the exception, you can afford to be picky about this.
| Lots of guys would love to have a woman who shares their
| interest, but since so few women study technical topics
| they have to settle with women they have little in common
| with. And at that point whether they studied some social
| topic or no topic and did other stuff isn't high up on
| the list.
| Mediterraneo10 wrote:
| Thanks, that is some insight into why technically-
| inclined men would be unsatisfied with the dating market.
| However, I wouldn't claim that "almost only women" study
| the humanities subjects I mentioned above. Film criticism
| and scholarship on many branches of literature and music
| are still fields driven either predominantly by men, or
| with a pretty even gender balance.
| username90 wrote:
| If you take the subject and the adjacent subjects you get
| mostly women though, even if specific courses are more
| balanced. It is the same in technical courses, some of
| them like chemistry and biology have more even balance
| but overall there aren't a lot of women.
| majormajor wrote:
| You seem to have this assumption that the only expression
| and development of interests comes through taking
| courses. I have a degree in CS, yet care much more that
| my partner shares my non-technical interests than my
| technical ones, cause I can talk shop all day long at
| work already...
| username90 wrote:
| I responded to a guy who argued that he wouldn't date a
| girl without a similar degree to his own, I am arguing
| against that position not for it.
| whatshisface wrote:
| Haha, degrees don't make you erudite. "Mechanical
| engineering" is a degree too. English degrees don't make
| you erudite either but that's another story.
| whatshisface wrote:
| But everyone knows that a loser who stays at home and
| doesn't try to do anything is bad. You don't have to be a
| misandrist to believe that. If everyone was like that
| society wouldn't get anywhere and we'd all starve.
| irowe wrote:
| I think what you said is a very unforgiving and slightly
| misogynistic way of describing what has been spelled out
| many other places before: women are increasingly opting for
| more education or career advancement in lieu of becoming
| homemakers. They don't make those decisions for the benefit
| of men. _They don't have to._ This has little to do with
| observed femininity or the "attractiveness" of getting a
| degree.
| jeofken wrote:
| "Unforgiving" and "misogynistic" are words unrelated to
| whether something is true or false - just something to
| keep in mind
| irowe wrote:
| You're absolutely correct, which is why I chose to phrase
| my post to say that the parent was taking a truth (women
| are increasingly choosing career over kids) and
| expressing it in what I consider to be bad faith. I don't
| think that's acceptable.
|
| I also seriously doubt that the claims about women not
| living up to some standard of attractiveness or
| femininity are true, misogynistic or not.
| Mirioron wrote:
| > _They don't make those decisions for the benefit of
| men. They don't have to._
|
| But isn't that the parent poster's point? They don't make
| decisions that make them more attractive for marriage,
| therefore they're less likely to end up married.
|
| The same argument applies to men too. Men don't _have to_
| do things that make them more attractive to women, but
| they shouldn 't be all that surprised when they end up
| not being attractive to women.
| teawrecks wrote:
| When I was probably 18 I asked a friend/coworker who was
| going to community college what they wanted to do after
| college and they just didn't know. I couldn't wrap my head
| around that. As far back as I can remember, I always had an
| answer when an adult asked me "what I want to be when I grow
| up". It wasn't always a coherent answer, but I always knew
| what stuff I found interesting.
|
| I don't know why it's different for some people, but it is. I
| have to think it's something we just don't put emphasis on in
| our education system or by parents. So pop culture does it
| for us. When I was a kid everyone wanted to be someone
| famous; a singer, an athlete, an actor, etc. Today is no
| different, everyone wants to be an influencer, a streamer,
| etc.
|
| I think we need to make it a point for kids to understand
| from a young age that not everyone can be the famous person,
| neither should everyone want to be. There are so many other
| options, they only want fame because they don't know anything
| else.
| orky56 wrote:
| It's a natural phenomenon. Potential for anything turns
| into realization that hard work and passion need to also be
| coupled with capability. It's debilitating in some ways but
| a coming of age for others. Those who can cross this chasm
| succeed and pivot accordingly.
| yibg wrote:
| I think you might be the odd one out here. I don't have
| stats for it, but looking at myself and people around me,
| most didn't really know what they want to do for a career
| after school. School typically doesn't really prepare you
| well for figuring out what you want to do, especially
| secondary and prior.
| teawrecks wrote:
| Oh I totally agree, the US education system doesn't put
| any emphasis on helping kids figure out what they want to
| do after school. If a kid asks "when am I ever going to
| use this?", it's a sign you need to back up and lay some
| more groundwork. I don't know why it was different for
| me, but looking back I think it was important.
| gowld wrote:
| The vast majority of employed people are not doing "what
| they wanted to do when they grow up", and quite many are
| doing jobs they didn't even know existed.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| > What are the things that motivates them, and what do they
| themselves want to do in life?
|
| I suspect quite a few people are looking at the odds of
| achieving various goals, and simply changing the goals. Such
| as owning a home in desirable areas, or having kids if you
| cannot afford a food school district or a job that allows you
| to be home for dinner.
|
| Or if you have experienced income instability, and you do not
| feel comfortable bringing children into the world. I probably
| would not have if I did not find a spouse with income in the
| top two quintiles. Not that there's nothing wrong with the
| alternative, but different people have different risk
| tolerances and higher (perceived) volatility can be a cause
| for change in some population wide changed we are seeing.
| magicsmoke wrote:
| > Or if you have experienced income instability, and you do
| not feel comfortable bringing children into the world.
|
| Yet poorer developing nations have higher birth rates than
| developed nations. Is it because they have lower
| expectations for what their children need to live a "good"
| life, that they just have more hope that things will work
| out somehow, or that they somehow don't care about these
| concerns?
| akiselev wrote:
| They're largely subsistence farmers with high infant
| mortality and little to no automation which accounts for
| about 2 billion people. They need children to work the
| fields and it makes sense to have a lot of children when
| the labor turn around time is five years and up to a
| third of them will be dead by then.
|
| The adults pay the "fixed costs" to keep the farm running
| so each additional child produces more in labor than they
| consume in resources. They're too poor to hire other
| adults for labor because they have their own "fixed
| costs" that are much higher than a child in the family.
| edoceo wrote:
| No condoms
| magicsmoke wrote:
| We've got it ladies and gentlemen. The secret to halting
| population decline in the developed world is banning
| condoms.
| echelon wrote:
| The growth trajectory and differing priorities.
|
| US is on its way sideways or down for many of its
| citizens.
|
| The developing world is on its way up.
|
| Even for those with money, self-imposed targets are so
| high that having children seems like a distraction. Too
| much work, not enough time.
| 8note wrote:
| Costs for raising a child is almost certainly lower, and
| they can likely work towards their top pay range before
| the age 25
| username90 wrote:
| So the country getting richer made us poorer?
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| > Is it because they have lower expectations for what
| their children need to live a "good" life
|
| Yes, I think the minimally acceptable quality of life is
| certainly relative.
|
| > that they just have more hope that things will work out
| somehow
|
| Possibly, if everyone around you is on an upward
| trajectory, I can see that changing people's calculus.
|
| > or that they somehow don't care about these concerns?
|
| I think a big factor is how (financially) independent
| women are and what kind of access to birth control
| (especially IUDs) they have. I suspect many of the women
| who have or had 3+ children would not have if they had
| similar options to those in developed countries today.
| [deleted]
| d_burfoot wrote:
| > It's a slow motion tragedy.
|
| From an environmental perspective, this kind of minimalist
| lifestyle actually seems quite healthy. They don't drive, and I
| assume they don't fly or buy a lot of stuff, so their carbon
| and other resource footprint is small. They don't take up much
| extra space, so they reduce suburban sprawl and land required
| for housing. They probably won't have kids, which further
| reduces their environmental impact. Maybe we should encourage
| more people to live this way.
| sgt wrote:
| In the future, it may even be more efficient to hook them up
| to a large computer that is able to use them as a power
| source, too. We could offer them a virtual reality completely
| indistinguishable from reality.
| InvertedRhodium wrote:
| Where do I sign up?
| nicbou wrote:
| That would make a great movie. Perhaps not a great trilogy,
| but a great movie for sure.
| neither_color wrote:
| That's a good one. "I decided to become a NEET in order to
| protect the environment"
| https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=NEET
| dvt wrote:
| > Maybe we should encourage more people to live this way.
|
| Sounds like an episode of Black Mirror. Life is meant to be
| _lived_ ; the purpose of life is at _least_ eudaimonia, not
| slowly rotting away in front of a computer.
| spoonjim wrote:
| You can write books, compose music, build software, debate
| opinions all in front of a computer. It's not the sitting
| in front of the computer that's the problem.
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| Not everything would agree. Most of the life on the
| planet's only hope is to be around long enough to reproduce
| and then be consumed in one way or the other. Humanity puts
| a lot of pressure on itself to flourish.
| berniemadoff69 wrote:
| Would your tune be any different if they were 34, staying at
| home all day playing video games, but somehow earning half a
| million dollars a year doing some "gamer"
| Twitch/Patreon/YouTube/influencer streaming schtick? Or, better
| yet, playing video games all day, but magically manage to make
| obscene amounts of money "trading cryptocoins" . Would their
| lifestyles suddenly become acceptable to you, simply because
| they are "making money" off of their sedentary lifestyle ?
| Mediterraneo10 wrote:
| Being an influencer is an enormous amount of work. Sure, one
| could build a brand around games, but maintaining that brand
| is constant effort, even though the audience rarely sees it.
| l-lousy wrote:
| I think this would somewhat validate his "prepared for life"
| argument because if they have a lot of money they can provide
| for themselves (food and transport is pretty easy with the
| gig economy).
|
| (The previous comment used to include something about people
| wanting to quit their jobs and just play games all day) For
| your point about playing games all day -- there's definitely
| some aspect of "having a purpose" that makes some hold down a
| job even if they are already rich. So for some it's
| definitely their life dream to sit in their room all day, and
| for some having something that you can point to saying "I
| contributed this" is an invaluable part of their lives
| flycaliguy wrote:
| I think if they were working from home it would, obviously,
| be a different story. They could stash some cash away and be
| able to care for their aging parents in the future.
| void_mint wrote:
| (Off topic) Curious why you think it's on the kid to pay
| for the parent?
| hardwaregeek wrote:
| Video game addiction is a real problem. I spent my freshman
| year of college rooming with man-children who played video
| games non-stop. They didn't explore the city, they didn't meet
| new people, they just played video games in the dark, screaming
| into their headsets and eating their takeout at their desk.
| People can certainly have a healthy, fruitful relationship to
| video games but since then I haven't felt the need to touch a
| game.
| david-gpu wrote:
| Not a psychologist, but I would guess that playing games at
| all times is more a symptom than a cause. A symptom of
| depression? A coping mechanism for chronic anxiety? A happy
| well adjusted person does not try so hard to escape reality
| or responsibilities.
|
| Demeaning them by calling them man-children is not going to
| help them in the slightest.
| confidantlake wrote:
| As someone who has chronic anxiety and depression, for me
| it goes both ways. I do it as a coping mechanism, but doing
| it too much also worsens it. When I do things like go
| outside or make an effort to see people it goes down.
|
| Completely agree calling someone a man-child does not help.
| We would condemn that kind of language said about woman.
| depressedx wrote:
| Depression is often characterised by a struggle in finding
| the motivation / desire to do something you love: if they
| love video games and can play them 12 hours a day, it's
| very possible they simply... don't care about the outside
| world. A job, family, exploring the world, these are all
| things some people just don't like. They don't have to have
| mental illness in order to spend their lives doing one
| thing!
| devonkim wrote:
| Depression also manifests with addictions though through
| self medication like alcohol, drugs, and even video
| games. It gets trickier with comorbidities like ADHD
| where one has addictive tendencies resulting in what
| appears to be simple lack of motivation and laziness at a
| surface level.
| zabzonk wrote:
| > They don't have to have mental illness in order to
| spend their lives doing one thing!
|
| I'd argue that doing one thing for the rest of your life
| is a classic definition of mental illness.
| teawrecks wrote:
| Tell that to the vast majority of humans throughout
| history who not only did 1 thing their whole life, but
| did the same thing their parents did before them. In some
| cultures to this day, trying to do anything other than
| what your family has already established as the family
| business is viewed as disrespectful and an insult to your
| lineage.
| zabzonk wrote:
| They have not being doing "one thing" - they have been
| farming, having sing-songs, getting married, having kids,
| fighting wars, and so on.
| teawrecks wrote:
| And a virtual world can be every bit as varied. You see
| someone sitting at a computer playing the same video game
| all the time. They see farming, running dungeons with
| guild mates, forming relationships, crafting things,
| fighting wars and so on.
|
| Defining a metal illness is non trivial, but for
| starters, their mental state needs to cause them or
| someone else harm or discomfort. But it's also possible
| that the discomfort isn't caused by their mental state,
| but the society they are in who rejects them.
|
| In 1000 years no one will remember what that person in
| their virtual world did any more than you know what a
| random person 1000 years ago did, but if they feel every
| bit as accomplished and emotionally fulfilled, then
| what's the difference?
|
| Now if their involvement in their virtual world means
| they are unable to sustain themselves in the physical
| world (not showing up to work, health problems, etc) then
| we have a problem that needs addressing. But living in a
| virtual world, in and of itself, is perfectly valid.
| waynesonfire wrote:
| I disagree, it's an mental illness if it interferes in
| your desired pursuit. For example, there is nothing wrong
| with playing games ur whole life.. except if you decide
| you want to get a girlfriend and can't. Now you're
| dealing with a mental illness.
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| Also if it interferes with your health, and a few other
| things. If playing video games takes precedence over,
| say, taking regular showers, or even basic exercise? I'd
| call that a mental illness too.
|
| But I agree with the main point: "person wants to live in
| a way I don't like" is not mental illness.
| [deleted]
| Chris2048 wrote:
| What made them "man-children"?
| echelon wrote:
| I know people are different and I'm not wired the same way,
| but I have trouble understanding how people can play games
| for more than a few hours a week.
|
| Games like Pac Man and Tetris are algorithmic workloads. It's
| not much different than driving a semi or forklift, except
| you're not paid by a company for the work you do. It puts
| human brains closer to acting and performing as algorithmic
| worker bee agents.
|
| Modern AAA titles are the same thing, just with more degrees
| of freedom.
|
| I understand that there are dopamine triggers, but game
| engines subject players to the same repetitive thing over and
| over until the game ends. Kill this thing, collect 12 pelts,
| etc. There aren't very many variations on this theme, either.
| I can't grapple with how this squares with the limited time
| we have in life.
|
| I think the best argument from my perspective is that Animal
| Crossing has you literally working to pay off a fake mortgage
| to buy digital items you don't need. You shouldn't stress out
| over a game.
|
| I've enjoyed games for their mood, setting, music, and
| narrative, but gameplay itself is work. I'd rather just have
| a movie or narrative story. I already work too much.
| tenebrisalietum wrote:
| I think since most online games have chat rooms or other
| such social aspects, and also the game is there to provide
| an inherent icebreaker activity when speaking with others,
| online games tended replaced older hangout-style social
| activities for some people.
|
| The game being work, but not hard work, provides a number
| of things beneficial to easy social interaction: a reason
| to be there, typically an easy way to add value (within the
| game) and therefore have a reason to approach groups you
| aren't a member of and potentially join or meet, and an
| overall good background for chat/conversation without
| necessarily coming off as desperate or creepy.
| username90 wrote:
| Work and games are the same activities. The only difference
| is whether someone cares about the end result, and hence
| will complain if you don't do it properly, take your time
| or go explore different areas.
|
| Having a casual conversation is fun. Being forced to have
| casual conversations with people all that long is work. And
| so on etc.
| christkv wrote:
| Most games are power fantasies as well as narratives. You
| get to role play as a overpowered avatar.
| zabzonk wrote:
| > I'd rather just have a movie or narrative
|
| Open world games _are_ the equivalent of movies or
| narratives. think Skyrim, for example.
| leetcrew wrote:
| I think the point is you actually have to do stuff (often
| menial collect n of thing tasks) to advance the plot.
| once the suspension of disbelief is broken, you are no
| longer a valiant hero saving the kingdom. you are pushing
| buttons to complete arbitrary tasks that trigger the next
| cutscene. if you don't enjoy the core gameplay, why not
| just cut out the tedium and watch tv or a movie?
| zabzonk wrote:
| > why not just cut out the tedium and watch tv or a
| movie?
|
| Well, I would dispute it is tedium (particularly compared
| with watching a modern Hollywood production, and
| particularly watching TV) - I like exploring and finding
| new and strange areas of the world.
| heylook wrote:
| > I already work too much.
|
| That's your problem. Repetition, mindlessness, boredom,
| flow are different facets of the same phenomenon. When your
| ancestors needed to build a shelter, they spent hours and
| hours chopping, hewing, digging, etc etc. Birds have nests,
| bees have hives, beavers have dams; the list goes on and
| on. It's perfectly normal to find some amount of busywork
| soothing.
|
| You hit your cap at work; others don't. There are also
| those with real addictions where it inhibits their ability
| to accomplish other goals, but that's true of tons of
| habits that scratch the same itch.
| leetcrew wrote:
| I kinda agree with you. as I get older, more games feel
| like repetitive work than fun. I think I finish some games
| more because I want to feel like I got my money's worth
| than because I actually enjoyed them.
|
| still, some multiplayer games get me absolutely hooked for
| a while. a well-designed multiplayer game can be a never-
| ending stream of novel situations. open-ended puzzle games
| like factorio are always fun (for me) with a couple good
| friends. for some reason it never feels like work, even
| though it's fairly close to what I just did from 9-5.
| JoeAltmaier wrote:
| One young man in my boy's cohort got addicted. Sat and drank
| beer and played video games until exhausted; then slept on
| the couch and repeat the next day. Two years later, died of
| liver failure.
| InvertedRhodium wrote:
| Are you sure he didn't have an alcohol addiction? I'm not
| convinced inactivity and video games lead to liver failure.
| paulpauper wrote:
| I don't think it's a tragedy. The overly dramatic media and
| pundits get this all wrong in labeling it such.
|
| Young people are simply responding to incentives to live at
| home longer. Living expenses keep going up relative to
| inflation and wages, such as home prices, rent, insurance, etc.
| Living at home is a good way save money, even for the employed.
| Family formation is expensive and fraught with risks such as
| divorce and having to pay child support.
|
| In having to choose between playing video games at home, versus
| a low-paying job and commuting, video games may be the rational
| choice depending on one's individual preferences. So someone
| who values leisure over money, would stay at home. Someone who
| has a higher preference for money than leisure would go to work
| even if the pay sucks. I don't see anything wrong with people
| voluntarily choosing leisure over work, because there will
| always be some people who will choose work over leisure.
| Someone who makes a lot of money may be more inclined to work,
| not because they are less lazy than someone who plays games at
| home, but that earning $100+/hour and no video games is more
| enticing of proposition than $11/hour and not playing video
| games; if you give the $11/hour guy $100/hour, then playing
| video games at home becomes a less attractive proposition.
| nxc18 wrote:
| The problem comes in when their parents die and they have no
| path to supporting themselves. Not everyone has an
| inheritance to look forward to.
|
| Living at home and working isn't really a problem, but
| entering the labor force at 40+ is not going to go well.
| rayiner wrote:
| But who raises the next generation under that scenario?
| Immigrants, of course, but what does that say about what
| American society has become?
|
| This is not a "replacement" screed, by the way, but quite the
| opposite. If your culture requires constant immigration to
| survive, that means it's unsustainable in the steady state.
| Like, it would be bad if everyone adopted your culture. Your
| culture is the panda of cultures.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2021/05/24/will-
| birt... (Will births in the US rebound? Probably not.)
|
| People respond to incentives. Living and having children in
| the US is expensive, so the results are what you'd expect.
| heroHACK17 wrote:
| Did we just become best friends?
| 1-6 wrote:
| Let's not forget that the Social Security is not getting funded
| so it's probably going to dry out sooner.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| Let's not derail the thread. Social security is underfunded,
| but will continue to provide benefits at a reduced level
| (~76%) when the trust fund runs dry in 2034 (which is just
| accounting in the gov budget). A variety of small measures
| can be implemented to ensure ongoing solvency, and likely
| will take place, even if extreme measures like a contribution
| from the general fund is needed. The US does not default on
| its obligations, and as long as there is economic activity,
| there will be contributions to social security.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_Trust_Fund
| anoraca wrote:
| It's constantly funded with taxes... why would you want a
| bunch of money sitting around losing value to inflation?
| holoduke wrote:
| I had the same life till my 26th. I then stopped watching
| television, threw all games away and started studying computer
| science. I am so happy about that move. I am 40 now. Own
| multiple IT businesses and have a happy family. Game/TV
| addiction is really depressing. I do not consider it. normal
| leasure
| vinni2 wrote:
| Reminds me of this case https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-
| canada-44215648.amp
| Causality1 wrote:
| That's absolutely wild. As far as I knew the most you owe
| anyone staying in your house is 24 hours to remove their
| things after which you can call the sheriff to arrest them as
| a trespasser. I can't believe they had to go to court over
| that.
| lurquer wrote:
| Most states require all kinds of hoops to evict a resident.
| Even without a a lease. You can't just lock them out.
| Sometimes the penalties for a wrongful eviction can be
| severe. And, in some states, there are criminal penalties.
|
| (As a practical matter, it rarely comes to this as a couch-
| surfer will go find another couch instead of wasting money
| on attorneys and the like. But, typically, the owner of the
| property can't just unilaterally decide a resident is a
| trespasser and kick them out.)
| izend wrote:
| What will happen once their parents are gone?
| UncleOxidant wrote:
| I suppose they'll inherit the house if it's paid off by then
| and continue to live as they are for a time. They seem fond
| of instant ramen, so I guess maybe they're partially
| prepared. But then again, when the property tax comes due
| they'll likely not be able to pay it and eventually become
| homeless after the house proceeds run out. The future seems
| pretty bleak for them.
| vmception wrote:
| > They seem fond of instant ramen, so I guess maybe they're
| partially prepared.
|
| For an early death
|
| They're already in their early-mid 30s, what outcome do you
| think is going to happen to make them even less integrated
| into society?
| dominojab wrote:
| According to IMF you'll own nothing and be happy(tm)
| fossuser wrote:
| They can probably just get a roommate to cover the tax and
| ramen expense or door dash one day a week or something.
|
| Having no rent cost is pretty big.
| JPKab wrote:
| Do you think that video game addiction contributes to this kind
| of thing, or is the video game addiction a coping mechanism?
|
| I think video game addiction is an incredibly underreported and
| highly destructive phenomenon. I encounter (and had to fire a
| few days ago) lots of young men who don't appear to ever sleep,
| and are highly unproductive, unmotivated, and constantly
| distracted. The kid I had to fire (I call him kid, but he was
| 28 and incredibly immature) reminded me of a former colleague
| in the construction industry who relapsed on his crack/cocaine
| addiction. Distracted, listless, kind of just there for the
| ride.
|
| Edit: Apparently ASKING about video game addiction merits
| downvotes with zero responses explaining why.
| tuatoru wrote:
| I think "is it a cause or a symptom?" is a valid question and
| deserves serious thought. Upvoted.
|
| I worried about my own son playing video games incessantly
| through his teens and twenties, but now at 28 he has been
| holding down a stable job for a year and I have got good
| reports from his employer. He's still a loner IRL though.
|
| Would I worry so much if he were a gym rat or
| ultramarathoner-- an "exercise addict"? Good question.
| nradov wrote:
| You should worry about anyone with a sedentary lifestyle,
| regardless of whether they play video games or not. This
| has serious health consequences later in life.
|
| But competing in a lot of ultramarathons isn't necessarily
| healthy for the long term either. In extreme cases athletes
| end up with heart muscle scarring and calcification.
| Somewhat shorter distances might be better. Everything in
| moderation.
| Vadoff wrote:
| I don't think video games have anything to do with it. Humans
| are naturally lazy, and if all your needs are being taken
| care of for you, then you'll naturally seek entertainment for
| your boredom.
|
| They could do all sorts of things in their spare time, from
| watching tv shows, movies, youtube, anime, browsing
| reddit/twitter/instagram/tiktok, etc.
| meowkit wrote:
| Video game addiction (overuse) is a coping mechanism in the
| face of increased anxiety in the modern world.
|
| I don't think it directly causes issues as much as it enables
| or locks in certain behaviorally patterns such as being a
| NEET or similar. It's really more of a symptom of a lack of
| support system in a person's life, the same way social media
| overuse or drug abuse comes about.
|
| Real addictions have severe physical consequences like
| chemical withdrawals that can lead to death.
|
| I find that Self-Determination Theory is a good model to look
| at this with. Modern school and work life provide little
| autonomy, little relatedness, and little
| (desirable/appreciated) skill for the vast majority of people
| whereas video games do the opposite by providing essentially
| an ideal playground.
| claytongulick wrote:
| > Video game addiction (overuse) is a coping mechanism in
| the face of increased anxiety in the modern world.
|
| You are stating this in absolute terms, which indicates to
| me that you have a solid source, or are an expert in the
| field. If so, can you please detail?
|
| From my background working in psychiatry (in-patient) for
| six years, it is certainly not that clear.
|
| > Real addictions have severe physical consequences like
| chemical withdrawals that can lead to death.
|
| So the sex addicts I treated didn't have a "real"
| addiction?
|
| The gambling addicts I treated didn't either?
|
| Or the extreme adrenaline addicts?
|
| Also, many experts in the field seem to disagree with you.
| See the proposed internet gaming disorder [1].
|
| https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/internet-
| gaming
| vecter wrote:
| I think video game addiction definitely contributes. I used
| to spend a fair amount of time playing first person shooters
| in my childhood 15-20 years ago. I haven't played much
| nowadays but these games provide a sense of "progress" and
| "accomplishment", which people would probably normally seek
| outside. Even in the past 5 years, I've caught myself having
| a reflex to open a game like Apex Legends or Valorant
| whenever I had a free moment instead of going for a run
| outside, playing piano, or cooking dinner. The problem is
| they're really fun also, which exacerbates the problem since
| it's easy to follow the "greedy optimization" algorithm in
| life and do things that are fun and rewarding as opposed to
| doing challenging but longer-term actually rewarding things.
|
| This is not to say that you should never play video games.
| I've found that they've been great for staying in touch with
| friends I would've otherwise lost touch with. A few hours a
| week isn't bad at all. It's just that it can snowball very
| quickly if you're not mindful about how you spend your time.
|
| I luckily never really became addicted to any video games,
| but I'm concerned for my future children who will undoubtedly
| encounter video games in the future some day.
| WalterBright wrote:
| I worked as a video game tester briefly while working my
| way through college (Mattel Intellivision).
|
| It permanently destroyed my interest in video games, along
| with the fake rewards it offers.
| UncleOxidant wrote:
| Looks like you're being downvoted for suggesting video game
| addiction, but I think it's a huge part of it. I refer to it
| as 'digital drugs'. They're definitely addicted. Even on rare
| occasions when they show up to family gatherings they've got
| their face glued to their portable games and rarely speak.
|
| Of course, the parents played a part in enabling this. Their
| mom (my sis) will often suggest I buy them video games for
| their birthday/Christmas but I refuse to do that. What they
| need is a kick in the ass to get them outside.
| bluescrn wrote:
| Social media is the real digital crack.
|
| That's what most people are getting their hit of when
| they're staring at a screen during a family gathering.
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| > Even on rare occasions when they show up to family
| gatherings they've got their face glued to their portable
| games and rarely speak.
|
| That's not video games though, that's the general digital
| addiction going on. And honestly, as a teenager I used to
| avoid everyone with books and I doubt anyone would have
| described me as addicted to a paper drug.
| SMAAART wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NEET
| void_mint wrote:
| It's interesting how few (I haven't actually seen any) of the
| comment replies are addressing the parents. I'd probably put
| equal onus on the parents to have better parented their
| children into adulthood.
| usrusr wrote:
| I know someone who used to fit that description quite well and
| then apparently made it out at some point between 35 and 40.
| Seems like there is always room for a surprise improvement
| left.
| emerged wrote:
| It's like drug or alcohol addiction. People can become
| somewhat "born again" usually after some kind of catastrophe
| and/or "rock bottom" moment. Parents allowing this from their
| adult children are akin to addict enablers.
| UncleOxidant wrote:
| Yeah, well, maybe. But currently they don't seem to have any
| motivation which is a prerequisite to improvement. I think
| their parents should provide that motivation by being a good
| bit tougher on them. They sometimes try this, but then go
| soft on them again after not very long.
| ihsw wrote:
| This is the destiny of all men in a world dominated by
| radical feminist ideology.
|
| Both they (your nephews) and the radical feminists in
| charge (eg: Biden/Harris Administration) look at this
| situation without blinking and both come to the same
| conclusion, "if they're employed then they're taking a job
| away from a woman" and "not a bug, working as intended,
| won't-fix."
| [deleted]
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| If I may be so bold, I would encourage you to have a frank
| discussion around estate planning with their parents to
| best insulate them from pain in the future. I would
| recommend the home be put into a trust, a trustee appointed
| for the trust after parents' deaths, and enough investments
| set aside to cover property taxes and maintenance on the
| property with investment income until death of the
| children. What happens to the estate after that is a family
| discussion.
|
| I have seen the results of not doing this. Don't pass the
| pain down. You want your children to succeed, but you also
| don't want them to suffer needlessly. Being homeless is an
| incredibly difficult gravity well to escape, more so
| without appreciable skills.
|
| (not an attorney or financial planner, not your attorney or
| financial planner, please consult one of each, educational
| purposes only)
| troupe wrote:
| Was there a change in circumstances that prompted the shift
| you describe?
| newaccount2021 wrote:
| There's no need to over-analyze this - we're talking about a
| generation of useless oafs. Days spent playing video games or
| other couch-bound non-activities, eating trash food, shitposting
| on the internet. I wish there was some way we could exile them to
| an island.
| aminozuur wrote:
| I know some guys like that, and all of them grew up without their
| biological father in the household. Anyone else notice this
| pattern?
|
| Could modern families (with step fathers, or without any father)
| contributed to men failing to become independant?
| symlinkk wrote:
| I don't blame them.
|
| All of the necessities are less and less attainable day by day.
|
| House prices are rising out of control.
|
| College education is extremely expensive, and jobs require more
| and more degrees and credentials.
|
| Dating apps are heavily biased towards women.
|
| But entertainment at home is more attainable than ever! Cheap
| high speed internet, a plethora of fun games to play, tons of
| people online to socialize with.
| Romulus968 wrote:
| I'm in the labor force, but live at home. I can absolutely afford
| to purchase a home.
|
| Why don't I?
|
| Because I'm not spending $250,000+ on 1400sq ft. These types of
| articles make it seem like some huge mystery as to why society is
| the way it is today. It's no mystery. Houses cost to much and
| employers don't pay enough.
| Vadoff wrote:
| Dang, only $250k for 1400 sqft? That would easily be $1.25M+
| here.
| partiallypro wrote:
| The pay is probably higher where you are, and in smaller
| markets (OP) people that are from your market are moving in
| driving up prices so that natives can't afford anything. That
| is my current situation as well, in the Nashville market.
| Homes that were only $300K a few years ago have shot up to
| $600-700K in just 3 years. A 2 bedroom condo 10 years ago
| that was $200K is now closer to a million.
| sadfasf122 wrote:
| Not sure where you live, but 800 sqft condos are going for like
| $800K here in Toronto.
|
| SFH under 2000 sqft are going for well $1.5M.
|
| Inventory is near all time lows.
| BitwiseFool wrote:
| I also can't compete with Blackrock and other professionally
| managed funds buying up swaths of homes tens of thousands of
| dollars over asking price because they want to rent them out
| later.
| mynameisash wrote:
| When my wife and I bought our house (Seattle area) six years
| ago, I was uneasy about spending $300k, and my family in the
| Midwest was aghast that we paid asking price.
|
| Anyone in this area would now laugh at my previous situation; I
| certainly do. We briefly considered buying a slightly larger
| house in the area, but everything is going for about $800k now.
|
| If I were just entering the job and housing market today here
| in the PNW, I would absolutely stay with my parents if I could.
| And I rather expect that my kids won't move out at 18.
| bozzcl wrote:
| I've been wanting to buy a house around Seattle for a while,
| but the asking prices are so ridiculous for what you get...
| it's just not worth it. Personally, I'm gonna continue
| renting for a while to see if the remote work situation opens
| new opportunities or brings prices down.
|
| That being said, I learned recently that for the same prices
| you would pay here you can get a castle in Europe... so I
| made that my retirement goal.
| rufus_foreman wrote:
| It's hard enough to get contractors to work on my house as
| it is lately, I would hate to try to find someone to put a
| new roof on a castle.
| TuringNYC wrote:
| >> These types of articles make it seem like some huge mystery
| as to why society is the way it is today. It's no mystery.
| Houses cost to much and employers don't pay enough.
|
| This is so true. I'd take it further -- for many (not for most
| of us developers/engineers) but for many others, the choice to
| move out is a very risky one because you're constantly on a
| thin line between paying student loans, mortgage/rent, and
| other _costs_ of employment and wages may not grow while costs
| continue to grow. I 've seen people just give up and enjoy what
| they have -- a parent's home at the cost of employment.
| Remember that it _costs money to earn money_ if you need to
| move to a metro area and that cost can exceed the actual
| income, especially if it is a job without wage growth.
|
| I think semi-permanent WFH changes the equation quite a bit --
| one can now live with parents, earn, and save up money to
| hopefully cross the chasm into the world of sustainable
| ownership.
| vidanay wrote:
| I really wish this stigma against living "at home" would go away.
| Multigenerational homes has been the standard for thousands of
| years, and still is in large portions of the world.
| troupe wrote:
| The title of the article says that they aren't pursuing
| employment. The fact they are living at home is explaining how
| they do that. At least in the article I read it as being stigma
| against people just staying at their parents homes and playing
| video games--not against multigenerational homes where young
| men were working.
| ravenstine wrote:
| I both agree and don't at the same time.
|
| On one hand, there shouldn't be anything shameful about living
| "at home", especially if it's purposeful. (looking back, it
| probably would have made sense to stay with my folks even
| longer than I did in order to save more money)
|
| Yet living at home and not building anything into late
| adulthood tends not to be a good way to generate
| intergenerational wealth. Until the international economic
| paradigm changes, I can't see how it's a good thing for people
| to have nothing to pass on to their children.
| Gunax wrote:
| People use 'living at home' as a stand-in for a set of
| properties: unemployed or lowly employed, low ambition, single,
| excess time on entertainment, etc.
|
| Of course they aren't always true individually (I know some of
| my facebook colleagues lived at home) but from a rough
| demographic perspective, it's true.
|
| We do this a lot: consider that teen pregnancy is understood to
| be unwanted, thwarting educational opportunities, etc. but in
| some religious communities a 17 year-old might be married and
| ready to bear children. It's just that's a very small
| proportion, and doesn't diminish that teen pregnancy is
| generally considered a problem.
| MattGaiser wrote:
| Indeed.
|
| I have a very multicultural background, but the dominant
| cultural view, at least when it comes to money, is Chinese.
|
| For us, living at home is not failure. Moving out without
| planning to start a family if you live in the same city as your
| parents is considered wasting money.
| dijit wrote:
| If the goal is gender equality: what's wrong with this?
|
| The idea that every able bodied person has to work is not
| _supposed_ to be the way our society functions; at least not in
| the last 100,000 years.
| LatteLazy wrote:
| Unless you were born into the ranks of a few kings or priests,
| this is the first time men have been allowed to opt out.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| It's also the first time women have been allowed to opt out.
| Working most of the day is the historical norm for all able-
| bodied people and most not-wholly-able-bodied people.
| LatteLazy wrote:
| I think women's experience has been a lot more complex. U
| til the 1950s they were needed to work in the home most of
| the time. And it's only really the last 20 years women
| haven't been REQUIRED to opt out of working once they got
| married or had kids...
| watwut wrote:
| If you look at women employment stats in the past, a lot
| more of them were employed then people generally assume.
| Women with small kids would work the least, but younger
| and older more likely to work.
|
| There is middle class white ideal and then there is
| reality of people needing to eat. They did not had
| careers, but they needed money and only other option is
| stealing.
|
| Men were emplyed more and home required a lot more work
| then now. But still, lower class women needed jobs.
| jokethrowaway wrote:
| These men are not being supported by their wives, they just
| don't go and form a new family.
|
| Women in that age range are generally more educated than their
| male counterparts and they earn more, so this statistic makes
| sense. They also have trouble finding a male partner,
| especially because one of their requirements is that they
| should earn more than them.
|
| This sounds like an impending demographics / societal disaster.
|
| I guess if this trends continue we'll get to a point where
| basic necessities will all raise in price because they can't
| find workers until some of these men go back to work.
| YinglingLight wrote:
| The way to correct this impending demographic disaster is not
| going to be a popular one. Ironically among women who are
| complaining about the lack of 'marriageable' men.
| usrusr wrote:
| > They also have trouble finding a male partner, especially
| because one of their requirements is that they should earn
| more than them.
|
| It's not just the women's requirements: boys, at least those
| coming from a still somewhat traditional provider/homemaker
| household (and many effectively are even if she also has a
| well paying job) tend to be not really prepared for a role
| other than provider. But unless they are super conservative
| outliers they also don't expect to end up with a homemaker
| partner, at least not unless some freak accident makes them
| end up in trophy wife territory. They believe that women
| should be modern and all that, but they lack a clear idea of
| how they themselves would fit into the picture. Many find a
| way nonetheless, but others are bound for greybeard boyhood.
| usrusr wrote:
| It sounds like a disaster for running pampered middle class
| retirements on what is effectively a pyramid scheme, but also
| like the closest thing we have to a chance for sustaining
| humanity.
| jokethrowaway wrote:
| If one country doesn't grow demographically, another one
| will
| pcbro141 wrote:
| Why would that be true forever?
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| cheph wrote:
| > The idea that every able bodied person has to work is not
| supposed to be the way our society functions; at least not in
| the last 100,000 years.
|
| So the fruit of who's labour exactly are they entitled to then?
| And can I also get in on that action? I would like to get
| something other people made without working any more. I don't
| see why I as a productive member of society should get less
| than someone who festers in their own bodily fluids.
| tonyedgecombe wrote:
| We have never paid people based on the amount of effort they
| put in.
| cheph wrote:
| Not sure who you represent (i.e. who "we" refers to in your
| message) but what you all do with your money is your
| choice, and I don't have any objections to whatever basis
| you all decide who you give your money to. But thanks for
| letting me know.
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| > I don't see why I as a productive member of society should
| get less than someone who festers in their own bodily fluids.
|
| Do you get less? Because if you're working and you're making
| less than someone on welfare you have to realize that the
| solution to that should be lifting you up, not dragging them
| down, right? As far as I'm aware, welfare isn't exactly
| comfortable.
| protonimitate wrote:
| FTA: > Make no mistake, though, for a young man who's not
| working the couch isn't a bed of roses. "About half of prime
| age men who are not in the labor force may have a serious
| health condition that is a barrier to working," the late
| Princeton economist Alan Krueger wrote in the Brookings
| Papers on Economic Activity in 2017.
|
| Does it really sound that appealing to be "entitled" to pain,
| high medication costs, and/or a potentially crippling drug
| abuse problem?
|
| Go ahead and fester away, bud.
| BeFlatXIII wrote:
| One of my close friends is a NEET because he uses a
| wheelchair and living in a rural town with his parents
| provides a floor for higher quality of life than moving to
| the city and trying to make it on his own (and navigate the
| various disability services). From what he's told me, the
| kinds of jobs suggested by the unemployment and disability
| empowerment agencies are either hilariously irrelevant or
| make no logistical sense (long commutes that would require
| one of his parents to be a de-facto full-time chauffeur).
|
| I haven't spoken to him in ages. Hopefully the pandemic
| remote working boom has pushed things in his favor.
| cheph wrote:
| > "About half of prime age men who are not in the labor
| force may have a serious health condition that is a barrier
| to working,"
|
| Not sure why what Alan Krueger thinks may or may not be the
| case it is relevant to this discussion. I may be sure I may
| be able to find many economist that may think many
| different things may be the case. But unfortunately for
| Alan Krueger here, opinions about what the data may or may
| not be is not the same as the actual data about what is,
| regardless of who's opinion it is. I would have hoped
| someone taught them that in highschool or university but I
| guess they must have not had time in their busy schedule of
| critical race theory.
|
| > pain, high medication costs
|
| Check and check, every moment I sit at a chair is just
| slightly less pain than every moment of standing, still
| manage to put in a day's work somehow.
|
| > potentially crippling drug abuse problem?
|
| Had it, kicked it.
| version_five wrote:
| Idle hands are the devil's plaything... Agreed that the post-
| war version of work is dated and that maybe we don't all need
| to get a job. But people need something meaningful to do, at
| the risk of mental health and other problems. So if the people
| in the article are all becoming artists or volunteers then
| great, but if they're sitting around bored it could lead to
| societal problems.
| ameister14 wrote:
| >The idea that every able bodied person has to work is not
| supposed to be the way our society functions; at least not in
| the last 100,000 years.
|
| What? I was under the impression that particularly in agrarian
| societies, everyone who was able to work, worked. Are you
| saying that surpluses allowed for a large class of people to
| just not work at all?
| falcolas wrote:
| > Are you saying that surpluses allowed for a large class of
| people to just not work at all?
|
| Apparently this is the case today, since it's happening.
|
| Historically, agrarian societies did require everyone to work
| - twice a year. During harvesting and planting, as much
| manpower as possible was needed. The rest of the time didn't
| require 40h of work 50 weeks out of the year. It left time
| for leisure, building, crafting, etc.
|
| We're also not really in a traditional agrarian society
| today; most of the work required to create food is done by a
| vast minority of society using force-multiplying tools.
| watwut wrote:
| > During harvesting and planting, as much manpower as
| possible was needed. The rest of the time didn't require
| 40h of work 50 weeks out of the year. It left time for
| leisure, building, crafting, etc.
|
| Because fabric for cloth magically appears from nothing and
| they sew themselves. Same for bedheets and such, they fill
| themselves.. And candles are gift from Santa, animals dont
| need care and houses fix themselves. Wood is just there,
| without preparing and cutting it.
|
| Yo and food also creates itself from grains, just like
| that. And small kids changed their own diapers and washed
| them.
|
| Speaking of which, did you tried washing without washing
| machine and modern chemistry? It used to be huge physically
| demanding work.
| ameister14 wrote:
| Most of the time that building and crafting was actually
| work. There is always something to do, even between
| planting and harvesting. Chop wood, split wood, stack wood.
| Fix things, knit a sweater, expand the farm, make a chair,
| whatever. It's all work. It's secondary to the primary and
| mandated work of farming, which is why a nobleman could
| call in the levies and go to war outside of planting or
| harvest season - they didn't care as much about the
| secondary parts - but for the average person that was also
| work.
|
| Yes, we're not a traditional agrarian society, or a hunter
| gatherer society - that's why "the last 100,000" years was
| a surprise. Essentially the op was saying every able bodied
| person has never been required to work. That ran counter to
| my understanding of history.
| AngryData wrote:
| Agrarian societies had cyclic work. Some societies could be
| especially arduous, but the most successful and populated
| areas weren't. For large chunks at a time throughout the year
| the farming population didn't have more than daily chores and
| personal projects. But of course during planting and
| harvesting they would work their asses off. A lot of the rest
| of the time was personal preference. You could make your
| house bigger, or you could make beer to drink, you could make
| crafts for fun and sell a couple, or you could just dick
| around.
|
| You can see the large amount of extra time available in old
| religious and cultural holidays which were both numerous and
| often spanned many days or a week or more at a time. Huge
| chunks of time of the year that many modern workers wouldn't
| be allowed leave from work nor afford if they could.
|
| You can also see Egyptian pyramid construction which is now
| thought to have been mostly (but certainly not exclusively)
| volunteer farm workers in the off season in exchange for
| booze and "luxury" services like studied dentistry services
| that otherwise didn't exist in most of the rest of the world
| yet. If they wanted they could just live off their own share
| of crops and dick around most of the year though. Working on
| the pyramids was a bonus, not a requirement, and their scale
| proves how many free man hours they had to "waste" on stuff
| like building giant stone mounds and carvings and art and
| other religious practices. Their success is marked by how
| many excess man hours people had to dick around with.
| rightbyte wrote:
| I guess most of these men are not living in houses made for
| multigeneration living, i.e. with wings, separate entrence or
| separate houses or similar.
| nodejs_rulez_1 wrote:
| We failed to bring up a generation of girls willing to be
| providers to a stay-at-home husband.
| cashewchoo wrote:
| I know this is bait, but I want to provide my experience as
| counter-example.
|
| I went to a STEM college where anyone who graduates could quite
| reasonably expect to be able to build themselves a middle-class
| career, live comfortably, and perhaps even have some economic
| mobility (moving from middle-class to upper-middle, mainly...).
|
| There weren't a lot of women there, and you would expect that
| what women were there would be disproportionately the kind of
| woman who would be interested in having a life-long career.
|
| Just anecdotally, looking at peers who graduated with me, that
| is not the case. Many are married, and many have chosen to end
| their careers (where finances allow) to stay at home.
|
| If anything, I would argue the main failing we've committed
| upon the young generation (regardless of gender) is to provide
| them an economic framework wherein more than a single-digit
| percent of wage earners can hope to raise a family on a single
| income.
|
| In my experience, there are a growing number of men who wish
| they could be stay-at-home dads if finances permitted.
|
| But instead, most households are dual-income out of necessity.
|
| And beyond that, we've also demonized living with your parents
| pretty thoroughly, so people are hesitant to save money and get
| free childcare by living with their extended family.
|
| Something else I want to mention is how poorly we've tailored
| the current world to making raising a family easier. Letting
| your kids go further than your lawn unsupervised is tantamount
| to child abuse now. Childcare is absurdly expensive, low-
| quality, low-availability (enrollment is headcount-capacity-
| limited in most places) and low-flexibility (many places either
| want your full-time enrollment or not at all. You can't just
| pick some days).
|
| And we've also demonstrated that we're, as a system, willing to
| totally f** over parents when disasters strike. Covid has been
| a total disaster for dual-income families with children. I've
| heard it was not uncommon for it to be "lucky" a partner was
| laid off because otherwise they would've had to quit, without
| unemployment benefits, to care for kids full-time.
|
| Anyway, my point is, we've made it really fucking inconvenient
| to have kids and now there's all this overly-simplistic sexist
| whinging from a certain segment of the population about how
| it's somehow all the fault of young women. It's disgusting both
| from a moral standpoint and in how intellectually lazy it is.
| commandlinefan wrote:
| > as counter-example ... the kind of woman who would be
| interested in having a life-long career ... that is not the
| case ... men who wish they could be stay-at-home dads
|
| You seem to be saying the same thing OP is saying: there are
| few women who are comfortable being the primary (or sole)
| breadwinners.
| cashewchoo wrote:
| I'm not, your ellipses abbreviate too much. I'm seeing,
| among a group of people who would theoretically be
| predisposed to not want to stay at home, people still
| electing to stay at home. This contradicts the OP's glib
| remark that less women nowadays want to stay at home.
| jokethrowaway wrote:
| The op's remark was that women don't want to maintain
| stay at home dads
| jokethrowaway wrote:
| I think you and the parent don't disagree too much, but
| parent was trying to be funny.
|
| I loved that feminism gave a choice and legitimised working
| women - but it also broke down the family structure
| (+divorces and unstable families - which statistically raise
| less successful people) and having twice the workforce
| heavily depressed wages' purchasing power so that now
| families need two working parents to survive.
|
| I think the result for the next generation will be a
| demographics crash and hopefully what comes next is not
| reminiscent of the Handmaid's Tale.
| watwut wrote:
| I would point out that non trivial amount of those dicorces
| were genuinly abusive relationships - physically and
| mentally. Or partnership where one of them despised and
| looked really down on each other.
|
| It is absurd that divorce is seen as that big familly
| failure, but staying in violent or abusive relationship is
| treated as "succesfull familly".
| hahahasure wrote:
| I wish everyone could try stay at home parenting. It made me
| hate it.
|
| I like my kid significantly more now that I see him evenings
| and weekends.
| jeffrallen wrote:
| Here's a more nuanced view: both partners in a marriage
| should try both full time work and full time parenting.
| Then both partners will better understand the choices they
| make and have empathy for the other's situation.
|
| This is lived experience.
| comeonseriously wrote:
| Citations?
| CydeWeys wrote:
| Part of this problem is our societal failure to build enough
| housing to keep up with the increasing number of people, with a
| resulting increase in housing costs that has significantly
| outpaced the median wage. If you can't afford to live on your
| own, and can't afford housing where the jobs are located, then
| you're more likely to live with your parents and be unemployed.
| atweiden wrote:
| > Part of this problem is our societal failure to build enough
| housing to keep up with the increasing number of people.
|
| The issue is human overpopulation, not our society's "failure"
| to destroy the fabric of closely knit communities.
|
| Humans are by far the least efficient life form on this planet,
| and what little enjoyment most humans get out of life mostly
| comes down to the integrity of their local communities: their
| safety, their health, their prosperity. Yet we've become so
| hyperfocused on economic growth that we've turned our larger
| society into a malignant tumor unto Earth, while ironically an
| increasingly high proportion of humans lead unhappy,
| unfulfilled lives.
|
| Why do so many people just accept the answer is more growth?
| Until we can master interstellar travel, we have to contend
| with finite physical resources.
| supertrope wrote:
| Without economic growth we'd still be hunter gatherers.
| Growing crops allowed people to have excess food and support
| classes of people whose occupation was non-food related. The
| industrial revolution not only allowed for mass production
| but the Haber process by which fossil fuels are turned into
| fertilizer. Without it we would only be able to feed half the
| world.
| atweiden wrote:
| Technological advancement and human overpopulation are
| orthogonal concepts. It's perfectly reasonable to believe
| the planet is heavily overpopulated with humans and also
| that technological advancement is desireable.
|
| There is very much not a direct relationship between
| absolute number of humans, and technological advancement.
| This is increasingly true as we inch closer to AGI.
| BitwiseFool wrote:
| Adding to this, we've also abandoned the idea of building out
| in the middle of nowhere and linking it to a city center with a
| rail line. I'd gladly buy a cheap home in the boonies if I
| could take a train into work instead of driving.
| lazypenguin wrote:
| That's an interesting observation. I've always heard the
| argument that we need "more density" but I like this option
| as well.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| There is no way the tax base of the boonies can support the
| initial and operating costs of a rail line. Therefore it is
| not an option, and why you do not see it anywhere.
|
| Even suburbs cannot afford all of their ongoing
| infrastructure obligations, and why you see many
| dilapidated areas.
|
| This is all becoming apparent now because birthrates have
| plummeted hence what used to be masked by economic growth
| due to sheer population growth no longer has the ability to
| be papered over with increased tax collections due to
| increased population.
| danans wrote:
| We do need density at the end of that rail line - dense
| towns connected to a dense metropolitan hub via a fast rail
| line. For example Ann Arbor to Detroit, Davis to Sacramento
| (neither of which have fast rail lines to connect them).
|
| What we've built instead for more than half a century is
| continuous radiating sprawl.
| ccheney wrote:
| Minneapolis has the Northstar Line[1] which essentially
| matches what you're describing here.
|
| Unfortunately, there's talk of shutting it down[2] due to low
| ridership stemming from the pandemic.
|
| [1] https://www.metrotransit.org/northstar
|
| [2] https://outline.com/smYCML (startribune.com paywall)
| Chris2048 wrote:
| Or planned cities without private land ownership? The city
| can sell short term leases, but allow the leases to expire
| when it's time to re-zone.
| CapmCrackaWaka wrote:
| I personally believe this will be more common in the future,
| but I'm less convinced of a rail connection. I think with the
| increasing popularity of working from home, availability of
| utilities (satellite internet, solar power) in more rural
| places and the relative cost of rural land, people will start
| settling a few hours outside larger cities without having to
| sacrifice much in terms of quality of life.
| ArkanExplorer wrote:
| Its going to be significantly more realistic to retrofit
| existing roads and highways with machine-readable signage and
| traffic lights (for example, why do cars have to read traffic
| lights with cameras, why can't the lights broadcast the
| status locally?)
|
| Then we can run autonomous vehicles (private and corporate)
| over the same infrastructure.
| fnord77 wrote:
| what do these young men have to look forward to in life? home
| ownership and having a family probably seem so financially out of
| reach that kids are not even trying.
| thepasswordis wrote:
| Is anybody advocating for them or encouraging them in any way?
|
| I can't think of a single group which aims to highlight men,
| uplift men, and encourage masculine behavior.
|
| These guys grew up in a school system of almost entirely women
| teachers, and popular media tells them that if they are
| successful in any way, it is due to oppression.
|
| It's no wonder why they're not succeeding. We spent the last 15
| years telling them that their success is evil. Who are their role
| models supposed to be exactly?
| cjohnson318 wrote:
| Oh please. There's nothing wrong with the way female teachers
| teach.
| thepasswordis wrote:
| Is that what I said? I said that these young men don't have
| strong positive male role models.
| voldacar wrote:
| I don't think you get it. Young men today grow up almost
| entirely in female-dominated spaces. That is not _normal_
| historically. In fact it would be strange if it didn 't lead
| to any pathologies.
| 88840-8855 wrote:
| I have a good friend who is working in HR. She used to be in
| hiring, now she is in the talent and development stream. We are
| not in the same company.
|
| A few weeks ago I was speaking about my impression that my
| company is forcing women into promotions and positions just for
| the sake of reaching targets. I said that it felt unfair
| towards male colleagues.
|
| Her reply was something like this: Men had the advantage for
| thousands of years, now it is OK if they suffer and that women
| receive the advantage. This will balance it out.
|
| I disagreed because the peers that those girls are competing
| against were not part of the "bad white old man" system. She
| disagreed and said that some "eye for eye is necassary".
| [deleted]
| MeinBlutIstBlau wrote:
| >The parental home can be a refuge, but also a trap that keeps
| young men from launching their careers.
|
| This took me a while to realize in my own experience, but
| certainly opened my eyes to how my own parents enabled me in this
| trap. "Stay at home to save money!" was constantly said to me,
| only for me to eventually realize, it is in fact stunting me. My
| dad would occasionally say "go out and do something," but
| meanwhile, I'd be interrogated for doing said thing so they can
| know every detail about it. It's why I tended toward videogames
| and the computers in general. They were things I could do by
| myself without an inquisition into my own life seeing as I barely
| was able to do anything privately.
|
| While I personally was only a NEET for a few months at a time for
| about a year, I never was fully committed to the lifestyle.
| Ultimately for myself I had massive reality check in how the
| world worked and I could at least have a modicum of success in
| it. Partly also to blame is heavy religion not coinciding with
| the culture as well as not teaching a kid how to adapt to society
| so I always felt like an outcast. Eventually I became atheist and
| eventually determining what it would take for me to give up, I
| finally broke free. It was very much like in Office Space where
| you just don't care anymore. You don't care if you make a faux
| pas, don't care if you couldn't meet that deadline, don't care if
| you disappointed someone.
|
| It snapped me out of it, but also made me into a very bitter on
| the inside. Knowing my parents didn't exactly want me staying at
| their house led to further feelings of being resented for
| existing. So I ended up being pretty sociopathic knowing I can't
| tell people my true intentions for doing things. I realize it's
| messed up and wrong, but much like the story of the scorpion and
| the frog, it's in my nature. I at least am cognizant that it's
| wrong, but I refuse to change because I've been able to find
| success in it.
| jedimastert wrote:
| The phrase "living at home" made me think of stay-at-home
| partners as opposed to living with parents, which led me
| expecting a very different vibe of the article
| grogenaut wrote:
| I'm trying to get my son and his girlfriend to live at home for a
| few years post graduation. He wants to move out into a place in
| seattle. She's a bit more about saving money. The math is that
| they'd have all loans paid off and a 200k down payment about 4
| years out of college if they live with us, and they'd have loans
| paid off if in 4 years and < 15k savings if they moved to a
| smaller condo.
|
| Important side note: they're both major home bodies so they
| wouldn't take advantage of living in a cool neighborhood.
|
| To me it makes such massive sense to just bum it in their
| seperate upstairs 800sqft apartment and cheap food/rent/etc to
| bootstrap their lives instead of moving out. But it's a fight.
|
| Luckily so far she's moved him from being very much in the NEET
| camp to actually looking for a job. But covid completely nerfed
| my ability to push him to have a job last summer (his pre-junior
| summer).
| yaacov wrote:
| They should be able to find a nice 1br in Seattle for
| 20-25k/yr. Even in the most expensive neighborhoods it
| shouldn't be more than 30k. Your numbers are higher than I'd
| expect
| MattGaiser wrote:
| Living with them is probably more than just rent.
| plif wrote:
| Something about the savings math doesn't check out, especially
| given the NEET aspect. 200k savings in 4 years out of school is
| a lot.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| $185k/48 = $3.85k in monthly costs saved by not living
| independently. I can see it as being possible in Seattle, but
| on the high end. I would assume comparable abodes to sharing
| your parents house would be cheaper.
|
| I also would not have wanted to stay with my parents in my
| 20s though, at least not with my specific parents.
| fossuser wrote:
| Yeah - I think it's highly dependent on what your parents
| are like.
|
| I've known people who lived at home for a year or two to
| save money, but I wouldn't have been able to have any
| independence.
| majormajor wrote:
| Sounds like it was only the man who wasn't inclined to work,
| and that the woman has been changing that tendency, as well
| as presumably having a decent income of her own that's being
| considered here. So something north of 50K after tax per year
| for a two-income couple isn't too ridiculous by any means.
|
| 185K delta between the two scenarios feels wrong, though -
| that's almost 4k a month, an astonishing high rent bill for a
| couple just out of college. The "find an apartment on their
| own for 1-2K, maybe even with roommates, but ideally just in
| a cheaper area" option should be seriously considered
| compared to living at home. Get a bunch more savings AND some
| very valuable life experience!
| gnicholas wrote:
| Yeah $200k of savings in 4 years is maybe $40k/yr of savings,
| plus optimistic investment returns for the first 3 years. But
| GP also mentioned all loans paid off, so that adds another
| $10-20k/yr, depending on what their loans look like.
|
| It's not impossible to save that much money straight out of
| school, but if you're making that much then you could still
| save a decent chunk even if you're paying $2k/mo for an
| apartment (which comes to $100k over 4 years).
| MattGaiser wrote:
| The assumption is probably that their salary essentially goes
| to savings.
| vmception wrote:
| false dilemma.
|
| many parents contribute to their children's first downpayment,
| if you can't or aren't interested then just leave the
| discussion.
|
| they don't have consensus on wanting to live with you while you
| believe they have the skillsets to save $200,000 in 4 years.
| who gives af if there is a theoretical savings optimization
| possible, that's not your problem stop acting like it is.
|
| you are going to have an empty nest, you'd be better off
| admitting thats what you are avoiding instead of acting like
| your concern is their savings potential, which is just
| coincidence. sure, I could be way off, but the constant is that
| you already gave them the support system to integrate into
| society, this seems largely successful so don't worry about
| those choices.
|
| let the homebody go have the option of trying IPAs at all the
| microbreweries in walking distance. not your problem.
| MattGaiser wrote:
| > who gives af if there is a theoretical savings optimization
| possible, that's not your problem stop acting like it is.
|
| In some families, caring and advising continues past the 18th
| birthday. Northern European culture is the anomaly in this
| regard.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| codemac wrote:
| PERSONAL RANT YOU DON'T NEED TO READ, BUT I NEED TO WRITE:
|
| I will add something to your son's point: being independent
| from my family was more important to me than saving money,
| especially if their loans are only 4 years away from being paid
| off. In fact, it bootstrapped all kinds of good behaviors
| around how to socialize with others, make friends, find a job,
| fix my own toilet, do laundry, pay taxes, find a new hair
| stylist, shop for clothes, etc etc etc.
|
| It gave me the independence to move even further, and find work
| paid literally 10x more in a few years. No amount of saving
| would make up for that.
|
| I can't imagine how much more stagnate my life would be if I
| had done the "smart thing" and put my life on pause instead of
| doing what I wanted from the get go. Death is much less
| stressful to think about when you're living aligned with your
| goals and values.
| sergiomattei wrote:
| As someone in a similar situation as OP's son (although
| undergrad) and looking to move out...
|
| Independence and personal space MATTER, please consider how
| your son may feel about living close to you. It may hurt, but
| it's important to understand the mindset behind the decision.
| leetcrew wrote:
| agreed. I moved out as soon as I could support myself. it
| wasn't because I hated my parents; they're pretty good as
| far as parents go. I feel like it's hard to actually be an
| adult when you live with your parents.
|
| as an example, my dad used to always ask when he could
| expect me home when I went out. not being nosy, he just had
| a certain "night lock up" routine for the house. it wasn't
| an unreasonable question to get from a man who was paying
| for my housing and food, but it was a question I no longer
| wanted to answer at that point in my life.
| spoonjim wrote:
| Be careful. Sometimes the ease of living at home can be
| addictive and then they turn into wastrels. Don't underestimate
| this risk.
| courtf wrote:
| We ran out of frontier, and are rapidly running out of the sort
| of high-risk, high-reward opportunities that get young men
| excited. We need a new gold rush.
|
| No one wants to sit in a cubicle for 35 years, grinding out
| pennies while having all your value extracted by a cadre of semi-
| literate, power-tripping middle managers who punish anyone that
| displays talent. Not only have a series of crashes in 2008 and
| 2020 firmly demonstrated just how rigged the game is, but
| everyone can see what everyone else is doing on social media.
| There's little opportunity to trick these men into believing they
| should work hard when they can clearly see so many people skating
| through life without any effort, and watch laborers have their
| livelihoods stripped from them during crashes while billionaire
| fortunes double. Bloomberg has lost the plot completely, they
| don't yet realize that the jig is up.
|
| Want to get people excited about work? Bring back drinking and
| loud music at the office. Let people be themselves without having
| to put on a deliriously upbeat, false persona while sitting
| through endless, pointless meetings about nothing. Stop asking
| them to constantly fellate the worthless middle management caste.
| thepasswordis wrote:
| So many comments here seem to miss the point here.
|
| These aren't men who are working, but saving money living at
| home. They're not participating in the labor force _at all_.
| partiallypro wrote:
| It doesn't say where the cross over it, we can assume that
| -some- are living and home and don't participate at all, but
| that's not how the stats are calculated. They are calculated
| separately, but the article is saying there is a connection
| (duh) but it's not the only factor for people living at home.
| tristor wrote:
| This thread is full of people talking about cultural, societal,
| and economic factors that may influence this outcome. I've yet to
| see anyone mention the factor that I wish we more thoroughly
| investigated: health.
|
| This has been discussed in some articles at length, but we still
| haven't identified primary causes, but testosterone levels are
| falling in men (at a given age) at a pretty steady pace year over
| year. This is likely associated to the prevalence of endocrine
| disrupting chemicals in our food and water supply, such as BPA in
| plastics and PCBs in common food-oriented coatings (Teflon).
| Adding on to that, there are also phytoestrogens from soy
| lecithin in many food products, and we also had periods where
| growth hormones were commonplace in dairy products. There is a
| growing body of evidence, not yet fully interconnected causally,
| that seems to indicate that the introduction of these sorts of
| hormones and endocrine disruptors into our food and water supply
| has had marked effects on health, everything from the increasing
| epidemic of obesity and obesity-related illnesses like diabetes,
| to earlier ages of menarche in young girls, and increasing
| prevalence of gynecomastia in young boys.
|
| I, for various reasons, know numerous people who fall soundly
| into the NEET stereotype here in the US, still living at home (or
| in extreme poverty) playing video games and doing menial labor
| well into their 40s, despite having marketable and useful
| skillsets that would provide them gainful employment. Without
| exception, every person I know like this suffers from mental
| health issues, predominantly anxiety, all are obese, and all
| consume and have consumed throughout their life heavy amounts of
| processed food and take-out fast-food, which both increase
| exposure to chemicals like Teflon (often used to line take-out
| containers). Their generally unhealthy diet and lifestyle
| throughout childhood and into adulthood is likely a key factor in
| the outcome of their life, clearly affects their general health
| as adults, and is likely a contributor to their mental health
| issues and defeatist attitudes.
|
| The absence of any serious public health movement to improve the
| food and water supply of all Americans makes it unsurprising to
| me that we now find ourselves in the position we are in.
| Compounding this with the absence of universal mental healthcare
| and the comorbidity between depression, anxiety, and obesity,
| makes it unsurprising as well.
| nradov wrote:
| Phthalate chemicals used as plastic softeners are also
| suspected to reduce testosterone levels.
| mywittyname wrote:
| Could be. But lack of exercise would also lead to low T, and
| I'm quite confident that middle aged man without a job who
| lives with parents aren't exactly staying fit.
| [deleted]
| cjohnson318 wrote:
| We moved to a suburb built around 1992, and our street had most
| of the original first residents. Out of say ten houses of
| original residents, three houses had sons in their 30's that
| still lived at home. (One guy was a welder and has since moved
| out, so I believe he was just saving money for a downpayment
| somewhere.)
|
| Snide comments about "kids these days" aside, housing is much
| more expensive than it used to be, compared to median household
| earnings.
|
| [Edit] I'm totally guilty of snide comments about "kids these
| days"; I wasn't directing that at anyone.
| zitterbewegung wrote:
| What is strange is this has been going on since the 1950s and it
| is even invariant in relation to economic cycles.
|
| https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300001
|
| I am also an exception to this rule (I am employed but I live at
| home). Currently I'm saving for a down payment to a Condo /
| House.
| Lammy wrote:
| The people guiding our economy won't risk the "wrong sorts" of
| people getting too many rights, having an income, and thinking
| they deserve to be able to own a home, start a family, and
| build any generational wealth. Now all the rest of us are
| feeling the fallout from it too.
| https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300006
| chromaton wrote:
| The population is getting older.
| https://www.statista.com/statistics/241494/median-age-of-the...
| _Microft wrote:
| Maybe is has to do with women entering the labor force?
|
| Here I plotted the labor force participation rate of women and
| men plus the sum of both. While the rate for men declines, the
| one for women increases.
|
| Update: here is a new graph without the assumption that there
| are equally many men and women (participation rates for each
| are now multiplied by the population size of each and
| normalized to total population). The interesting part is that
| the total labor participation rate is moving very little, just
| between ~59-67%.
|
| https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=EFG8
|
| // OLD: The sum of both moves between 120 and 135% (assumption
| here is that there are roughly as many men as there are women
| which should be approximately correct):
| https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=EFEs
| blakesterz wrote:
| That's quite an interesting graph. I wonder if it is also
| influenced by things to do with average age or age of
| retirement, time spent in school, or something like that. Just
| looking at it makes me wonder about demographics/education/etc.
| That's about a 20% drop over the years, I would assume caused
| by a number of factors.
| BeFlatXIII wrote:
| My speculation is that it's like the argument that minimum
| wages increase the skill floor for employment. However, it's
| that a combination of automation and cost optimization
| eliminated all the marginal jobs, rather than the wage floor.
| Automation allows a salary employee to pick up what
| previously would have been a full-time minimum wage position
| under "other duties as assigned" without overworking them.
| Cost optimization meant that companies realized that they do
| not need their floors to be _that_ sparkling clean, further
| reducing the number of low-wage /low-skill positions.
| tootie wrote:
| I'd suspect this has a lot of to with women being in the
| workforce meaning men are less required to work relentlessly.
| More recently, it's the aging population. The chart for just
| prime age males is less dramatic:
|
| https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LREM25MAUSM156S
|
| Also, a topic that has been surprisingly quiet is that
| employment-population rate absolutely cratered to a near
| 50-year low during the pandemic. We had a positive report in
| the UNRATE last week, but participation is still digging out of
| an historic hole.
| watwut wrote:
| > I'd suspect this has a lot of to with women being in the
| workforce meaning men are less required to work relentlessly.
|
| Afaik, career men working hours went up after women went to
| work. The culture of overwork went up.
| [deleted]
| neonate wrote:
| https://archive.is/gTqpD
| digglet90 wrote:
| Staying at home and playing video games/yield farm is the most
| incentivised activity right now. This liberal-moral capitalism
| breaks my heart sometimes lol. Reap what you sow!
| SMAAART wrote:
| This was a thing (and still is) in Europe. US ridiculed them, and
| now it's here.
|
| Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NEET
| stagger87 wrote:
| > US ridiculed them
|
| What do you mean by this? Some people on some online forums
| made some jokes?
| dougmwne wrote:
| This seems like a kind rational economic choice. If there are not
| enough good jobs that can support independent living, providing
| for a spouse, buying a home or raising a family, then staying
| home with the easy accomplishment of video games makes sense.
| Most people never live outside their home states and can't afford
| to leave the support network of their family and close friends.
| If you grew up in a medium or high cost of living area, then
| you're sort of stuck. I work in tech and still, owning a home
| seems pretty distant, so I can't imagine how it must be for
| someone without job skills.
| AndrewUnmuted wrote:
| Until this year, I lived in the same place I grew up, one of
| the highest cost-of-living places on the planet: NYC. Until the
| pandemic, the goal of owning a home did seem totally out of
| reach for me, even with my remote SV tech job salary.
|
| Then I moved to an unincorporated community in TN, because
| NYC's lockdowns, mask mandates, and general cultural decay was
| too much for me to bear - financially, emotionally, and even
| ethically.
|
| I now own 15 acres of land with two houses on it. The median
| income in this part is <40k/yr and yet it's safer, friendlier,
| healthier, and best of all, much freer. High cost of living is
| a true killer of communities and the more expensive your area
| is, it's quite likely it's also a lot less free.
|
| If you can leave the major cities in the US, it's possible for
| life to become a whole lot nicer.
| silicon2401 wrote:
| You gotta keep hyping up the big cities: talk about the usual
| cliches like the food, the movie scenes, the 'culture'. Keep
| cities popular so everybody stays there and leaves land in
| the countryside for the rest of us.
| jdhn wrote:
| Has there been any culture shock for you? As someone who grew
| up in NJ, I'm always interested in hearing how other tri-
| state area people deal with moving from an urban to a rural
| environment.
| olivierestsage wrote:
| Unsure why you're getting downvoted for this -- it makes good
| sense, and many could benefit from this kind of thing. I have
| a friend who moved from NYC to Ohio recently. He was
| bellyaching about it a lot (the move was for work), since he
| thought he would be so sad to leave the cultural
| opportunities of NYC, etc. Instead he has found that a) Ohio
| wasn't so bad after all, b) his stress-related conditions
| have evaporated, and c) he has more time to pursue what he
| loves doing in that environment.
| 1-6 wrote:
| Also, there may be blue-state vs red-state rivalry going
| on. OP basically moved from blue to red and is liking it.
| ryandrake wrote:
| > Unsure why you're getting downvoted for this
|
| Any hint that dense urban living is not the optimal
| lifestyle for everyone gets downvoted here. For example,
| here's my super-controversial anecdote from yesterday, that
| people took time out of their day to try to bury:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27450896
| AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote:
| Well there's also the angle of people moving from the big
| city into a small rural community and gentrifying it. A
| good friend of mine had to deal with this trend in
| Bozeman and was ultimately pretty much forced out by it.
| ghaff wrote:
| There's definitely a tension between bringing money and
| people into communities that need them and bringing a
| _lot_ of money and people and different preferences into
| communities in a way that makes them less good for the
| people already there.
| dougmwne wrote:
| A historical example: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man
| sa_Musa#Islam_and_pilgrim...
| eplanit wrote:
| Be proud, you made a very wise and healthy decision.
| BitwiseFool wrote:
| I'm just now middle aged and even when I was a twenty-something
| I never felt as ambitious or as risk embracing as I was
| _supposed_ to be. My father and grandfather got into way more
| trouble than I ever did, with just about every facet of their
| life. My stories are absolutely tame in comparison.
|
| It turns out the steady dopamine faucet is a stronger motivator
| than going out and trying to flirt, date, make friends,
| network, or hustle. Just spending time on the PC isn't even
| particularly fun, but as soon as someone proposes plans I
| suddenly feel like backing out and retreating back into my own
| world. I definitely sense this isn't "normal" for men and it's
| probably a consequence of modernity.
| listless wrote:
| This is a troubling trend that I see in my sons and that I
| battle in myself.
|
| Why go out and compete for money, success and sex when those
| things are at your fingertips. I really think it's as simple
| as "turn off the TV". The problem is that the world is a hard
| place, and games/porn offer a "good enough" alternative that
| offsets the trouble of putting yourself out there.
|
| Sorry for making this thread weird by bringing porn in.
| BitwiseFool wrote:
| No, it's absolutely part of the equation. The internet has
| been an absolute game changer for how the human libido is
| satisfied. Pornography went from something rarely seen and
| socially awkward to acquire to something that is now
| ubiquitous, instant access, and even individualized. In
| fact, you have to go out of your way to _avoid_ seeing
| sexual content on the internet.
| bobthechef wrote:
| "If there are not enough good jobs that can support independent
| living, providing for a spouse, buying a home or raising a
| family,"
|
| This seems to be an issue across the board, at least in
| degrees, but that's because we live in an extractive oligarchy.
| This can't last forever. I just hope it doesn't lead to either
| revolution or socialism. We need to rethink our economic
| principles. Capitalism as state-sponsored usury or as
| consumerist decadence is not viable, just, or good.
|
| Recall that in the 1950s, the single income of a working father
| sufficed to support a wife and their many children (since birth
| rates were much higher then). You can't do that anymore. That
| seems like a massive regression. We may have more flavors of
| ice cream, but who cares if that comes at the price of the
| important stuff. I say this without idealizing those decades.
| Those are the decades, after all, that led us to where we are
| today.
|
| "then staying home with the easy accomplishment of video games
| makes sense."
|
| Well, it doesn't make sense from the perspective of human
| flourishing. There are other things that a person in that
| position can be doing rather than pissing his life away in
| masturbatory activities like video games. This speaks to a
| deeper demoralization in our society, and in this case, that of
| men, and not just those who are unemployed or living at home.
| Our culture sucks.
| tonyedgecombe wrote:
| The 1950's were an anomaly. Europe was in the doldrums, Asia
| was yet to develop. America had little competition for the
| resources it needed. I doubt those days are coming back any
| time soon. If anything its going to get worse as the rest of
| the world catches up and the dwindling resources people need
| are stretched between ever more people.
| wolfretcrap wrote:
| It's less about not having good jobs more about:
|
| 1. Most want to start business and become rich, not work for
| someone else. Starting business is difficult, needs lots of
| work, even if you are smart and hardworking, have capital to
| start, still you need social skills which present generation
| didn't develop, so getting along with others and leading others
| is still difficult which limits the success.
|
| 2. Anything you'll come up, there are guys who are already
| doing it better.
|
| 3. Work hard for what!? Beyond basic needs, even in dating
| women demand millionaires, average Joes are treated like
| disposable good for nothing who women say are creeps because
| they don't have money to build their IG brand and devour women
| with lavish gifts.
|
| At the end of day, most people simply will not be motivated to
| take part in such system now that internet makes it possible
| for you to remotely live any life you dream of living even if
| it's only through some YouTube. A lot of things now seem less
| enticing.
|
| Even guys who society might say are successful can't afford
| real estate at today's price, only way to afford considerable
| land is to move away from cities but moving away from cities
| also takes away your income source.
|
| All these reasons are why I don't hustle hard anymore. I just
| try to make enough to coast in life and explore my hobbies, not
| working hard to get rich or any such goal. Because I don't
| really see how more money will change my life.
| The5thElephant wrote:
| This is a very pessimistic and distorted take on things.
|
| 1. From what I have seen most people want a job that pays for
| their lifestyle and isn't soul destroying. Sure people
| fantasize about becoming a successful entrepreneur, but
| certainly not most and not enough to give up on work in
| general.
|
| 3. This is frankly ridiculous and such a blatantly false view
| of what women want that it borders on incel philosophy. It
| appears entirely based on the extremely exaggerated and
| polarized views seen on social media rather than the far more
| moderate and balanced views the average person you come
| across will have. Most women do not demand millionaires. This
| is readily apparent if you talk to real women instead of only
| watching TikTok and Instagram models.
| _fat_santa wrote:
| I agree with your first two points. Starting a business is
| hard, you'll probably fail (statistically) and there is
| likely someone else doing it better than you already. But
| part of starting a business is looking at that adversity and
| doing it anyways.
|
| Your third point about dating, I couldn't disagree more. If
| you go on social media you will see arguments very similar to
| the one you made, basically if you aren't an
| athlete/millionaire/etc, don't even bother. I think these
| arguments come from a bitter place and as a result generalize
| women in general. I'm an average looking dude, certainly not
| a millionaire, but I go on dates pretty much every week with
| different women. I found that it's all about just putting
| yourself out there.
| bradlys wrote:
| Where do you live? This has not been my experience on the
| west coast.
|
| You might be underselling yourself. In any major city,
| being average isn't sufficient. You're just swiped over for
| the next guy who is above average. (They always exist on
| the apps, nearly infinite amount)
| _fat_santa wrote:
| I live over on the East Coast. I'd say that I look
| average, but its also about the profile and how you sell
| yourself.
|
| (This is pure speculation based on my experiences) Out
| here I've noticed that Tinder and Bumble are just
| terrible to use, Hinge though seems to be the sweet spot.
| The problem I see with Tinder and Hinge is with the
| swiping, it turns it into a game of sorts where you're
| playing whose post attractive based on the number of
| points (matches) you get. With how Hinge is setup, I get
| fewer matches, but of those matches, I end up going on
| first dates much more often.
|
| I also found that it's about playing the algorithm a bit
| and making sure your profile is setup right, think of it
| in terms conversion rate (from being in the "This person
| liked you" section to matching with someone). Before I
| started having success I went through probably 10+
| iterations and tweaks to my profile to see what worked
| and what didn't. I also found that sometimes the
| algorithm just said F you and pushed me down to the
| bottom of the stack. In that case delete your profile and
| recreate it, I've had to do this once.
| The5thElephant wrote:
| Somehow there are an endless number of men who are above
| average? Isn't that a self defeating point and
| mathematically impossible?
|
| You realize many women feel this exact same way about
| being ignored because men just want models out of their
| league?
| bradlys wrote:
| On dating apps, there are to most people an endless
| amount. You can just keep swiping. Very few people will
| swipe through the 200k+ dating profiles available in
| their area. Thus, endless...
|
| Regardless of how women feel men are acting towards them,
| the stats don't lie, women receive far more swipes than
| men. Something like 36x more.
| chewz wrote:
| There is big difference between going on dates every week
| and finding a woman that will treat you as a potential life
| partner and father for her children...
| dougmwne wrote:
| I think this is a huge distinction. Stable career
| prospects are a huge factor in choosing a partner. And
| the HN poster you are replying to probably has better
| career prospects than most. The millionaire talking point
| seems like a distraction. The point is that many men have
| zero career prospects, and probably have a pretty
| terrible dating pool as a result. This all hangs
| together, no job, no partner, no kids, no home.
| MyHypatia wrote:
| >> Even in dating women demand millionaires, average Joes are
| treated like disposable good for nothing who women say are
| creeps because they don't have money to build their IG brand
| and devour women with lavish gifts.
|
| This is a ridiculous caricature of women. Most women aren't
| spending their time building IG brands, counting lavish
| gifts, and petulantly demanding millionaires. This sounds
| like a cartoon villain or something from a reality TV show.
|
| Most women are trying to find their place in the world,
| figure out their goals, establish a career with reasonable
| prospects, work on hobbies, create a support network of
| friends, and hopefully find a partner to start a family.
|
| If your attitude towards women is that they are money-hungry,
| delusionally entitled, and over-demanding then I'm not
| surprised they don't waste their time trying to convince you
| otherwise. They are busy spending time with people and
| looking for partners who don't treat them like delusional,
| spoiled children.
| imjustsaying wrote:
| >This is a ridiculous caricature of women. Most women
| aren't spending their time building IG brands, counting
| lavish gifts, and petulantly demanding millionaires. This
| sounds like a cartoon villain or something from a reality
| TV show.
|
| yes but this accurate in describing what the last couple
| women I was with were like. they were both women who
| approached me first, whatever that might tell you.
| andrewmcwatters wrote:
| I see this on the fringes of those within my circle of friends. I
| know one man in this age cohort who doesn't seem to have a job,
| just plays video games all the time, and I don't get it. But one
| thing I think about is what he has been exposed to: this is what
| he knows. I don't think this individual I'm speaking of was
| raised with anything differently.
|
| In this same light, as I believe the two concepts are directly
| related: another friend of mine basically refuses to date anymore
| because he thinks the sort of culture of Tinder dating is a waste
| of time that favors women disproportionately.
|
| I suspect all of this is primarily cultural first, and not
| related specifically to work, the economy, pricing of good or
| services like buying a home and starting a family, which would
| come second.
|
| That being said, if we were just talking about young single men,
| well, of course they're staying at home. It makes no economic
| sense to move out and get an apartment. The cost of living in
| major metros makes renting nearly equivalent to paying a
| mortgage. Except no one is building affordable homes.
| wayoutthere wrote:
| > another friend of mine basically refuses to date anymore
| because he thinks the sort of culture of Tinder dating is a
| waste of time that favors women disproportionately.
|
| Tinder is a waste of time for women too; if you're at all
| attractive you get dozens of messages a day and half of them
| are scams. The best I've ever gotten out of Tinder has been
| mediocre, meaningless sex; it's far too much work if you're
| looking for anything more.
|
| You have to go do things you enjoy and be a more interesting
| person. If that's just your daily life, you'll meet people who
| enjoy the same things you do and you can potentially date them
| (or their friends).
|
| But yeah, I agree with you. Just because Tinder sucks doesn't
| mean you shouldn't date; just that you shouldn't look to an app
| to find a partner.
| samlevine wrote:
| Dating isn't fun. At least it isn't for me as a middle aged
| divorce.
|
| I get matches, I meet interesting people and go on dates and
| the process is just emotionally exhausting.
|
| I would rather put in time into my job, or my friends, or my
| hobbies. If I can meet someone who wants to be part of my life,
| fantastic. If not, I will live until I don't.
| mnouquet wrote:
| > I would rather put in time into my job, or my friends, or
| my hobbies.
|
| one acronym: MGTOW.
| MeinBlutIstBlau wrote:
| As a 26 year old finishing up a Comp Sci degree, I'm in a
| similar camp. I mean I'd rate myself as a 5-6 straight up
| average. I get matches and have gone on several dates. What
| I've noticed is most men don't do profiles right at all. They
| show themselves off in what they do, not what's attractive.
| Also nobody every acknowledges that selfies are bad. I mean
| these are just little tips I've learned honing a profile over
| the course of a couple years.
|
| But, thinking of dating like a resume, as well as making
| dates feel like interviews has made relationships nothing but
| a chore nowadays. It feels wholly like a business
| relationship without any contractual guarantees between the
| parties.
| at_a_remove wrote:
| Well, I cannot speak for Tinder, but you have probably seen the
| stats from the now-deleted OKCupid blogs. I worked in a dating
| service pre-Intarwebs and the dynamics are almost exactly the
| same, just lacking only the "instant" factor of the Internet,
| plus the rather expanded pool. As someone who entered people's
| "preferences" versus their "must-haves," certain trends
| emerged. To be politic about it, those trends did not favor
| men.
| mkmk2 wrote:
| As someone who's been exposed to the stats more than most of
| us (I assume, pre-web dating service), do you have any
| particular insights? Have you thought about what one could do
| to address this mismatch since? I was fortunate to find my
| s.o. on a language exchange site, but if I felt my best
| options were something from the Match Group... it looks grim
| at_a_remove wrote:
| No solutions, I am afraid, that do not involve large-scale
| genetic engineering.
|
| In the parlance of our times, dudes are generally
| "thirstier." On top of it, you can call it genetics or you
| can call it culture, but ... men make the approach,
| typically. (Okay, I am done with generally and typically
| and trends for now) This leads to guys spamming some
| entirely-too-fussy gals and the usual dynamics emerging.
|
| You've read the grim confessions of women who remorselessly
| admit to "dating for dinner." You've seen the baiting
| performed using the photo of a male model who can say
| simply the most awful and outrageous things. The Heightism
| user might have been banned on Twitter but others have
| emerged like the heads of hydras, reposting the casually
| cruel dismissal of men under six foot.
|
| It's only the basic thirstiness that drives men to even
| continue, and I suspect that a lot of young men opt out,
| because that's just _step one_. They 're looking at their
| often-divorced parents and remembering who got the house,
| then wondering if the game is worth the candle. I suspect
| the men at the intersection of easily disheartened and
| generally aware have been most put off, leaving the field
| to the exuberant and the blessed.
|
| And remember, we are currently in a culture that doesn't
| seem to like men very much. Just for a giggle, go to
| Google, type "men are" and see what the autocomplete
| suggests, then do "women are." That has to add to more of
| the disenchantment.
| Raptor22 wrote:
| You weren't kidding about Google, damn...
| BeFlatXIII wrote:
| To be fair, your friend has the right idea about online dating:
| the juice isn't worth the squeeze. It's like playing the
| lottery: life-changing good if you win but a negative
| expectation value.
| troupe wrote:
| > It makes no economic sense to move out and get an apartment.
| The cost of living in major metros makes renting nearly
| equivalent to paying a mortgage.
|
| That might account for them living at home, but not for not
| pursuing a job.
| fossuser wrote:
| Videogames provide fake achievement and an easy thing to do to
| occupy you - I think some people are more vulnerable to this
| kind of thing than others. For me, the fake achievement feels
| fake and I don't get much satisfaction out of it - but for
| others I think it mimics real achievement enough that they can
| pour hours into it.
|
| Online dating sucks for most men - if you're not in the top 2%
| of attractiveness for men it _is_ a waste of your time
| (especially in skewed markets like the bay area), you 're
| better off going places to meet people in person and working on
| your social skills that way (I think your friend is right).
| WalterBright wrote:
| > fake achievement
|
| Nothing exposes that more than writing video games yourself,
| as well as having a job testing them. 10
| print "Walter is Great!" 20 goto 10
|
| There ya go. That's all video games are.
|
| The fake courtesy of software irks me, too.
| wearywanderer wrote:
| I think some kinds of video games provide this more than
| others, at least for some definitions of achievement. If
| somebody spends their free time painting happy trees but
| never sells any paintings, I personally would not say
| achievements are fake. The painter sets their own objective
| and judge success by their own personal standards, but that
| doesn't make their achievements _fake_ , right? And if they
| decide to depict things using lego instead of paint, is that
| fundamentally different? It's a different form of craft, but
| I don't consider building sculptures out of lego to be faker
| than doing the same from clay.
|
| Some video games are essentially the same as that. For
| instance, creative-mode minecraft seems to be arts and crafts
| as much as it is a game.
| lumost wrote:
| This has a lot of parallels to "opt-out" syndrome in Japan.
| Given the concurrent rise of VanLife and FIRE cultural
| phenomena it's worth considering why many individuals in
| developed economies ideal life is to not work.
|
| I'd hypothesize that the rising costs both economic, and mental
| associated with what many consider a basic standard of living
| independently probably has alot to do with it.
|
| Why work when 60 hours per week leaves you just barely scraping
| by and exhausted? Why not be just barely scraping by and not
| exhausted.
| mkmk2 wrote:
| What are the FIRE cultural phenomena?
| arnado wrote:
| Financial Independence, Retire Early
|
| https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/financial-
| independence-...
| beckman466 wrote:
| > I suspect all of this is primarily cultural first, and not
| related specifically to work, the economy, pricing of good or
| services like buying a home and starting a family, which would
| come second.
|
| Hmmm I think you're wrong. It sounds like you've got
| survivorship bias, big time.
|
| Most people want to contribute, but the economic system fucks
| them and makes them dependent. Examples include: the
| intellectual property regime and monopolistic parasitism of the
| knowledge commons [1], neoliberal philanthrocapitalism [2] and
| the completely disgusting and neocolonial division of labour
| under global capitalism [3].
|
| Can you really look at the Blackrock disaster [4] (Wall Street
| slumlordism), or the IRS papers or the Panama Papers and tell
| me that the system doesn't harm people?
|
| [1] https://tribunemag.co.uk/2019/01/abolish-silicon-valley
|
| [2] https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-
| professionals... and https://anthempress.com/kicking-away-the-
| ladder-pb
|
| [3] https://anti-imperialism.org/2012/09/18/understanding-and-
| ch...
|
| [4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27448175
| tjs8rj wrote:
| Curious: what effect do you think culture has? The economic
| plays a big role, but there's a tendency nowadays to call the
| root problem for everything economic and act like cultural
| effects are just "holidays and religion" or other marginal
| effects.
|
| The culture has changed dramatically since the 50s when these
| trends started. For the men, their role has gone from default
| "protector, provider, head of the home, in charge, theist,
| conservative, married young" to "equal bread winner, often
| oppressive, too often toxic, without innate greater purpose
| or role, etc".
|
| Obviously these are broad generalizations, but we would
| probably agree that men get a worse wrap now than then (even
| if that came at the expense of others). Does that large
| cultural shift have a large effect? Are men lacking purpose
| now and how much of the current problem men face is because
| of that cultural shift? The economic is important, but the
| cultural factors are huge too
| StandardFuture wrote:
| > The economic plays a big role, but there's a tendency
| nowadays to call the root problem for everything economic
|
| As with everything on the internet (it sadly seems), there
| is a necessity for _nuanced position_. Perhaps, economic
| _and_ cultural factors are playing a self-reinforcing and
| thus compounding effect on our society?
|
| There are also the non-cultural and non-economic factors
| such as declining testosterone levels. This could have
| profound emergent economic and cultural implications that
| we have not even begun to calculate.
| WalterBright wrote:
| Nobody is holding you back from writing a book, painting a
| picture, or contributing to Open Source.
| roenxi wrote:
| > Can you really look at the Blackrock disaster [4] (Wall
| Street slumlordism) and tell me the system doesn't harm
| people?
|
| Yeah, someone could do that for any system. "A horrible thing
| happened somewhere" or even "this part of the market is
| totally screwed up" are facts about every plausible
| alternative. So though they may be facts about the current
| system, they don't tell us how to improve the situation.
|
| You can make an argument that the problem is systemic, but
| having one example of a problem doesn't do anything except
| score rhetorical points in a game where evidence and argument
| don't really matter.
| andrewmcwatters wrote:
| Perhaps I am. Surely if good paying work was easier to find
| and homes were approachable more as a commodity then I'm sure
| this would sort itself out.
|
| I've spoken about what REITs do for years on HN. I've worked
| for them a couple of times as well, so I've seen what goes on
| first hand.
| adolph wrote:
| > the economic system [. . .] makes them dependent
|
| The emotion of dependency seems less likely to be developed
| by an economic system than of culture. One might claim that
| it is difficult to separate one from the other. Taking a
| cultural or an economic point of view I can see how a
| hierarchical culture would see participation as zero-sum but
| not an economic system. An economic system by itself,
| capitalist pig, pinko commie, feudal manorialism, whatever,
| is enhanced by participation and a sense of interdependency.
| troupe wrote:
| > Most people want to contribute, but the economic system
| [...] makes them dependent.
|
| The people being discussed here are people without jobs who
| have a place to live rent free. There is not an economic
| system holding them back from being able to find a way to
| contribute because their expenses are very close to $0. For
| all practical purposes, they have the equivalent of universal
| basic income. If they would like to write poetry instead of
| playing video games they could. If they would prefer to paint
| or write code, they could.
| _fat_santa wrote:
| > Most people want to contribute, but the economic system
| fucks them and makes them dependent. Examples include: the
| intellectual property regime and monopolistic parasitism of
| the knowledge commons [1], neoliberal philanthrocapitalism
| [2] and the completely disgusting and neocolonial division of
| labour under global capitalism [3].
|
| This line of thinking in my opinion is the problem. Before I
| start, I will admit I have survivorship bias.
|
| The points you mentioned are problems, but in my opinion
| that's not an excuse. One of your points you mentioned that
| it's now harder than ever to buy a home because Blackrock is
| scooping all of them up. While I agree that it certainly
| makes getting a home harder. I think if anyone truly wants a
| home and is willing to do whatever they need to in order to
| get it, they can get it. Same goes for just about everything
| else, if you want something, and you're willing to do
| whatever it takes to get it, you can do it.
|
| All the problems you mentioned are roadblocks, not
| showstoppers. I think these days it's easier to just make the
| excuse that there are all these things standing in our way
| thus making it impossible for us to do the things our parents
| did.
| prirun wrote:
| > I think if anyone truly wants a home and is willing to do
| whatever they need to in order to get it, they can get it.
| Same goes for just about everything else, if you want
| something, and you're willing to do whatever it takes to
| get it, you can do it.
|
| You may be right, but people come in a normal distribution,
| with most being just average. To "do whatever it takes"
| implies a person on the extreme right of the distribution,
| and most people aren't there. So while it may be _possible_
| to buy a home, if it takes extreme effort to do it, most
| people won 't.
|
| Whereas, when I grew up in the 60's, my dad worked as a bag
| boy at Kroger, then a meatcutter. We had a small 3br house,
| 2 kids, a car, a motorcycle, a boat, insurance on all this
| stuff, and mom worked out of the house doing babysitting
| and ironing. They were still in their early 20's and got
| married right out of high school. We eventually had 2 cars
| while still in this house, around '65. Nothing even
| remotely like this would be possible today.
| atweiden wrote:
| See: 1971 Cost of Living [1]. New
| House: $25,200.00 Average
| Income: $10,622.00 per year New
| Car: $3,560.00 Average
| Rent: $150.00 per month Tuition
| to Harvard University: $2,600.00 per year Movie
| Ticket: $1.50 each Gasoline:
| 40C/ per gallon United States Postage Stamp:
| 8C/ each
|
| Whether due to currency debasement, globalization, or
| overpopulation, the disparity in cost of living between
| the two eras is staggering.
|
| [1]: https://wtfhappenedin1971.com
| vmception wrote:
| > know one man in this age cohort who doesn't seem to have a
| job, just plays video games all the time, and I don't get it.
|
| this provides some context for why some women immediately balk
| when they see my playstation controller and vr headset on the
| west elm media cabinet
|
| "[oh god] are you ... a _gamer_ ?? "
|
| I feel like a lot of people can't differentiate between
| potential partners that own a console versus whatever gamer
| addict they're afraid of. thinking about it, that's a decent
| heuristic given how many gamers bring toxic ideas with them,
| even if they aren't neglecting other responsibilities for games
| krastanov wrote:
| This anecdote definitely confuses me and I can not imagine
| such a first reaction happening in my social circle (yes,
| this is also just an anecdote ;)
| vmception wrote:
| yeah, I wish that first reaction didn't happen at all
| repeatedly
|
| nice that you don't experience or do that
| runawaybottle wrote:
| It's sort of like when women entered the work force and built
| careers. They started to get married later and having kids
| later.
|
| Men are now reverting to the mean a little bit. This could be a
| natural normalization of a situation where men were exalted as
| industrious, and women were literally left at home. Both
| extremes are bad.
|
| One day we'll just have two 30 year old stay-at-homes get
| married and not think twice about it. No expectations or
| judgement on ones job and aspirations, or gender specific
| duties. Just two genuine deadbeats.
|
| What's so distasteful about it? Truly nothing, but yet, why
| doesn't it feel right?
| Taylor_OD wrote:
| I've got a buddy in a similar situation. We all came from
| somewhat similar backgrounds and all majored in the same,
| useless, thing. We lived together and while we all played a lot
| of video games one of the three never really moved on from
| that. He's still working at a low wage job behind a counter and
| playing video games a lot.
|
| I think it's less that he doesnt know different but more that
| he never got a break in the right direction. I stumbled into a
| career. Our other buddy stumbled into a career. He didn't. I'm
| not saying he never will but I can look back and point to a few
| key moments that led me to where I am today. Without those I'd
| probably be living in my parents house playing video games too.
| UnpossibleJim wrote:
| Risk aversion and a lack of opportunity (luck) seem to have a
| large impact on this phenomenon, if you will.I know everyone
| is quick to jump on "helicopter parenting"from the 90's (?)
| on, but I think (from the limited speakers I've seen on the
| topic - which are few) really have made a generation of risk
| averse peoples. Add to that an economic downturn, where a
| lack of opportunity makes for less situations where luck
| might happen where you can take those risks... and here you
| are. Young men in basements getting a dopamine fix in a
| plasticine bubble with a virtual body.
| runawaybottle wrote:
| It's also a form of perfectionism. I deal with exactly what
| you are describing with a family member of mine. A part of
| his problem is that, I shit you not, I sincerely believe he
| thinks he is too good for a labor/service job, or community
| college, or coursera, or the gym, dating someone not perfect,
| etc. It didn't go his way for so long, but the ego is still
| there. And what is the ego exactly if not an intense defense
| mechanism. They have lost all ability to slowly chip away at
| a problem.
|
| No, you probably won't get an office job in the next 5 years.
| Maybe in the next 10. No, you won't have enough money to move
| out the next 5 years, but maybe in 10. Nope, you aren't get
| laid anytime soon. Few people can accept the timeline and the
| sheer effort it will take, and the sheer time. That's the
| crux of the problem, that they are truly behind and cannot
| deal with the time investment required.
|
| Enough with the lies, and start from zero. The effort it
| takes to be just mediocre in this world is understated.
| [deleted]
| Taylor_OD wrote:
| For sure. I have met a few people who have these weird
| expectations around who they are and what they expect from
| life. As far as I'm concerned I'm playing with house money.
| I got lucky.
| tonyedgecombe wrote:
| _I stumbled into a career. Our other buddy stumbled into a
| career._
|
| Talking to various people this seems to be very common. I
| know it was the case for me.
| nunez wrote:
| I wonder what kind of situation your friend had going on in
| their house or their lives. Maybe y'all aren't as similar as
| you think?
| Taylor_OD wrote:
| Sure. Maybe. His parents were both doctors and he had four
| siblings and an adopted sibling that all see to have done
| fine. But There certainly could be something I'm missing.
| watwut wrote:
| That parents did not had time and energy to notice and
| fix the problem. With 6 kids, it is quite difficult even
| in best conditions.
| kogepathic wrote:
| _> another friend of mine basically refuses to date anymore
| because he thinks the sort of culture of Tinder dating is a
| waste of time that favors women disproportionately._
|
| My female friends (I'm male) with online dating profiles have
| shown me their matches and conversations, and it's bleak. They
| all mostly have an average profile and still receive thousands
| of likes/hearts/swipes and messages, but the mean amount of
| effort from men messaging them is zero to none.
|
| Maybe your friend considers the situation of having fewer women
| on dating apps as somehow "favoring" their gender, but from
| what I've seen and heard, sorting through an inbox of
| unsolicited genital photos and copy pasta pickup artist lines
| is not something most women would say they enjoy spending their
| time doing.
|
| If instead he's referring to apps like Bumble where the woman
| has to make the first move, see above for why some apps choose
| to operate with that model.
| cjohnson318 wrote:
| Ditto. I met my wife on OkCupid. She said I was the only guy
| that messaged her with multiple, complete sentences.
| tomp wrote:
| This complaint should be taken about as seriously as a rich
| person complaining how hard it is to be rich.
|
| Every woman can put herself in a man's position of no matches
| - just delete Tinder. Every rich person can become poor -
| just give away all their money.
|
| Yet they don't. It's called _revealed preferences_. Because
| having options, no matter how bad, is better than _not_
| having options.
| fossuser wrote:
| There's also an obvious selection bias - the matches may be
| sending low quality messages, but if women are largely
| selecting only the top 2% of good looking men they're
| skewing these results themselves. The 'better' men never
| get to the messaging stage at all.
|
| I'm happy to be out of the game, but online dating is bleak
| for 98% of men.
|
| Okcupid used to have great data on this before they sold
| out, a lot of it ended up in this
| book:https://www.amazon.com/Dataclysm-Identity-What-Online-
| Offlin...
|
| The data in that book corroborates a lot of this. We're not
| that different from gorillas - sexual selection is tough
| and most of the discussion around it ranges from wrong to
| dishonest.
| nunez wrote:
| It's always been that way with online dating. Men, on
| average, putting zero effort on the profile (including
| photos). Women put slightly more than zero effort into their
| profiles but get inundated with messages from mostly-terrible
| choices anyway because men like women.
|
| Men spray low-effort messages at lots of women hoping for a
| bite. Women don't message because they have options.
|
| Quality men trying to find any sort of extra have to work
| extra hard on selling themselves. Women looking for quality
| men have to work extra hard on creating a profile that deters
| the poor options they get (hard) _and_ deal with more subpar
| dates.
| bena wrote:
| Bumble has its own issues. It turns out "making the first
| move" is anxiety inducing in everyone. What women have done
| on Bumble is to basically treat the "first move" as an
| "invitation to treat", a second shot at selecting a guy. Most
| of those "first moves" are exactly what they say they don't
| want from guys: simple "Hey"s and "Hello"s. And then they say
| in their profile that once they say "Hey", you're supposed to
| respond back with something substantial and entertaining.
|
| I don't think dating apps/sites favor either sex more so than
| dating in general does. Women, in general, don't really have
| to try to get solicitations. Their issue is in trying to weed
| through all of the solicitations to find those worth
| responding to. It's basically the hiring problem. But there's
| no Hackerrank for compatibility.
|
| And then there's the issue that even those that feel the
| system is tilted against them in general don't understand
| that it's just them. They're not successful because they
| aren't as kind, nice, or desirable as they think they are. Or
| they keep making the same bad choices in romantic pursuits
| and wonder why they keep getting the same outcome.
|
| The problem with all of these apps and gimmicks and what not
| and certain segments of tech in general is that it assumes
| that deep down, people are making rational choices. We
| aren't.
| anthonygd wrote:
| I think you're right about dating apps not really favoring
| either gender. Hiring is the first thing I think of when
| reading about dating apps. There's just a very strong
| natural imbalance.
|
| Dating apps are especially good at making people not have
| to face their shortcomings, i.e. I don't have to fix my
| shortcomings, because with a large enough pool there's
| going to be someone broken in the right way to accommodate
| me. Maybe that's rational, or maybe it's not, it really
| depends on expectations.
|
| Counter intuitively, accepting that we're just stupid
| hairless apes makes me believe we're rational. We're not
| failing to find anything meaningful; we're not interested
| or looking.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| > Hiring is the first thing I think of when reading about
| dating apps
|
| I agree for a different reason. The circus show about
| hiring is mostly bullshit. You could probably randomly
| select qualified candidates and turn out just fine.
|
| Likewise with dating, ordering up another human like a
| sandwich creates a weird dynamic designed to keep you
| shopping -- you stop paying when you meet someone.
|
| If you paired 10 pairs of average people at random and
| had them doing some task that took them a couple of
| weeks, half would be "together" at some level by the end.
| bena wrote:
| We have our moments. But relying on rationality is an
| assumption that will bite you in the ass every time. Just
| look at markets, even when there's a clearly superior
| option, there's been plenty of times the inferior product
| wins.
|
| Often because that inferior product manages to exploit
| our irrational selves either intentionally or
| unintentionally.
| jfengel wrote:
| I did appreciate on Bumble that women got to realize that
| writing that first message wasn't easy. I always carefully
| crafted my first message on any site, and it is
| disheartening to get no reply to that.
|
| (Some of it, I think, is Tinder et al showing me profiles
| that it knew perfectly well were defunct. They're hoping to
| attract the person back, but it's a very dark pattern.)
|
| I did find that the vast majority of women on Bumble wrote
| tolerable first messages. Some were better than "hi" but
| nonetheless didn't say much, which I interpreted as "OK,
| you can go ahead and write the first message." That rarely
| turned out well, but at least I knew the account wasn't
| dead and not a bot (at least, probably not).
|
| I met a lot of great women on both Bumble and Tinder,
| leading to relationships everywhere from one-night stands
| to decade-long romances. I don't think it's easy for either
| men or women, albeit in different ways. It's very easy to
| make the mistake that thinking that if X is hard for me
| then X must be the only important thing, and that leads to
| a lot of ill will.
| machello13 wrote:
| It's certainly believable that women don't enjoy dating apps,
| but I think it's difficult to make the case that it's equally
| hard for them (in terms of successfully getting a date) when
| they have thousands of matches and many men I know have none.
| k-mcgrady wrote:
| Thousands of matches isn't a good thing. If you ever have
| the opportunity ask a female friend to show you the kind of
| messages they get on dating apps. They're pretty appalling.
| It genuinely worries me that there are so many creeps out
| there. The men you know may not be getting many matches but
| at least the ones they get are more than likely from
| relatively normal people. If I had to sort through the
| garbage women do on dating apps I wouldn't be on them.
| guskel wrote:
| If thousands of matches are not a good thing, why keep
| swiping? They could choose instead to talk to the matches
| they already have. The matches they have are already the
| ones they've screened for.
| machello13 wrote:
| But surely you can see how hopeless dating feels for many
| men when they swipe right on hundreds of women and get 0
| matches? I'm not saying they aren't getting many --
| they're getting none (I know you just have my word on
| this, but trust me when I say they are not ugly or fat or
| anything, just nonwhite and without high paying jobs, but
| otherwise average-looking guys who have dated
| successfully in the past).
|
| The situation isn't great on either side, but plenty of
| statistics show it's mostly women having sex off these
| apps, so clearly there is an actual imbalance.
|
| And you can't write off the sheer hopelessness and
| isolation that the thought "there's not a single woman
| out there who would date me" induces in young men. I'm
| sure it's not fun for women but it is absolutely
| __brutal__ for many men.
| commandlinefan wrote:
| > nonwhite
|
| Uh, trust me, white men can easily accumulate zero
| matches too.
| lelanthran wrote:
| > Thousands of matches isn't a good thing.
|
| He didn't say it was, he said it was preferable to having
| no matches.
|
| I recall seeing the OkCupid stats once (okstats?). The
| numbers pretty much said that although women were getting
| most of the messages, they were all only responding to
| the same 10% of males, while most men were sending
| messages to almost all the women.
|
| You've pretty much got 80% of the women competing for the
| top 10% of the males.
| treespace88 wrote:
| Women are paying a high price in the online dating world.
| It's preying on their weakness the same way porn does for
| men.
|
| Most women don't want to sleep around and have a large
| number of partners. But tinder leads them to believe that
| they can find an unrealistic partner. And they get hurt by
| the small percentage of men that play the online dating
| game well.
|
| Women need a lot more data and time to evaluate a potential
| partner before initiating contact.
| guskel wrote:
| I think a solution would be to limit the number of
| matches one could have at a time. This forces the user to
| sacrifice something (the opportunity cost of matching
| with someone else) to remain in contact with their match.
| watwut wrote:
| Maybe women are paying the price, bit it is men on HN who
| complain and bitch constantly. Most women are not on
| tinder anyway.
| symlinkk wrote:
| That's incorrect, online dating is the number one way
| couples meet
| watwut wrote:
| Which is not the same as "most women are on tinder".
| symlinkk wrote:
| Most women who are looking to date are on Tinder. No,
| your grandma isn't on there. I'm not sure what point
| you're trying to make.
| commandlinefan wrote:
| > sorting through an inbox of ... copy pasta pickup artist
| lines
|
| So as a computer programmer with a LinkedIn profile, I can at
| least empathize a bit: I get an average of 3 job offers a
| week, even though I haven't really expressed any interest in
| changing jobs. A lot of these offers would be a major step
| down for me, and that's pretty clear from my profile. I still
| feel obligated to take the time to politely decline because I
| do have some sympathy for the recruiters who are just doing
| their best, but it's also clear they're just blasting out
| offers to anybody who meets a basic set of requirements.
|
| That said - I'm much happier being in the position I'm in of
| too much interest than at the other end of the spectrum.
| city41 wrote:
| Getting off topic here, but not sure why you feel obligated
| to reply to the recruiters. You're just an input into their
| automation system 99% of the time. I find it amusing when
| they send an email at like 8pm on a Saturday.
| cecilpl2 wrote:
| I respond to these canned messages with a canned reply:
|
| 1) Do you offer permanent remote work?
|
| 2) What's the salary range for this position?
|
| Twice now I have been very pleasantly surprised by the
| answer, and one of those resulted in me making an unplanned
| job move for a 50% increase in TC.
|
| I've also had some success just throwing out a huge number
| as my expectation for comp. There is pretty much no
| downside to doing this.
| monksy wrote:
| > If instead he's referring to apps like Bumble where the
| woman has to make the first move, see above for why some apps
| choose to operate with that model.
|
| Under that model.. it's common for the first message to be
| "hi" or ".". Not much has changed.
| MeinBlutIstBlau wrote:
| What a lot of ignorant men don't realize is that's the
| woman saying "you start the convo." Not everything is meant
| to be interpreted literally in dating and relationships. If
| you believe that, you're doing it wrong.
| andrewmcwatters wrote:
| What does effort mean in this context? I recall friends of
| mine, young women, who were having the hardest time finding a
| significant other were just demanding things of men that
| would have them selecting from a socioeconomic pool of the
| top 20% of the population, when they themselves were in the
| bottom 20%.
|
| It was my experience that young women in general were asking
| for too much when I was in my early 20s. They wanted someone
| who had it "all together," and that's just not where most
| people are in their early 20s. There doesn't seem to be any
| appreciation anymore for the fact that young couples grow up
| together. Instead, people seem to think that you grow up
| first and establish who you are independently, then find
| someone else to bring into your life. But realistically, you
| don't finish growing before dating, and in life who you
| become is based on the interactions not just with your
| significant other, but your friends and family, too.
|
| Lastly, all of my dating experiences online lead me to women
| who wanted to be "entertained." And not in the sort of "wined
| and dined" sense which seems obvious to me, but rather most
| women I came across didn't want to get to know men, they just
| wanted entertainment value out of the experience of dating.
| This was a sharp contrast from interactions with young women
| in real life. The dating world for both young men and women
| online seems to create some strange scenarios that don't play
| out well for anyone involved. I see this manifest the most in
| online dating where most men are naturally led to play pickup
| artist lines. I personally find it extremely off-putting. I'm
| not a jester.
| michaelt wrote:
| _> What does effort mean in this context?_
|
| One school of thought says there are men on dating websites
| who copy-paste a message saying "hey how you doing?" to
| every woman they see; and that women are beset by hundreds
| of copy-pasted messages from men who haven't even read
| their profile.
|
| This school of thought says, in order to stand out, men
| should carefully compose a different clever, charming
| message for each woman they contact, based on things the
| recipient mentions in their profile and suchlike.
|
| Of course, a man sending 100 copy-pasted messages and a man
| sending 5 high-quality messages might be expending the same
| amount of effort _in total_ but the latter is demonstrating
| greater effort _per woman_
|
| In this context, kogepathic means more men should adopt the
| strategy of carefully composing messages.
| majormajor wrote:
| Putting _too_ much effort into those messages is a trap I
| fell into in the past when looking for relationships on
| dating apps. You 've seen a few pics and read a couple
| sentences of text they typed - you shouldn't read too
| much into it for your own sake, and you also don't want
| to look like you're too eager to jump into something way
| too fast.
|
| (Looking for hookups on apps is, I imagine, an entirely
| different ballgame, and I have no idea what works or
| doesn't work there.)
| nunez wrote:
| Bespoke messages based on the profile you're reading is
| always a winning strategy. My response rate went way up
| when I started doing this. The trick is to make a message
| that's curated enough to tell the person that you've read
| their profile while being short enough to not require a
| lot of effort to read (because their inbox is flooded)
| nunez wrote:
| Another thing I did that helped was hide the photos of
| people I was looking at while browsing.
|
| Towards the end of my time on OkCupid (where I met my
| wife!), I wanted to only compose five messages per day. I
| did this to reduce my time on the platform. (Online
| dating services are masters of dark patterns and
| addicting behaviors.) However, even though those messages
| were short, since they were bespoke to the profiles I was
| looking at, those messages took time to write.
|
| I found myself in this predicament where I burned too
| much time looking at profiles of attractive women with
| bland (to me) profiles. So, I thought "what if I hid the
| photos and focused on profiles I thought were
| interesting?"
|
| Three things happened when I did that:
|
| 1. Writing short, but targeted, messages became a LOT
| easier because I was focusing on connecting with people I
| probably wanted to spend more time with,
|
| 2. Since I never "saw" who I was messaging when I wrote
| those messages, me never getting a response from them
| hurt way less (since I never met them to begin with!),
| and
|
| 3. When I un-hid the photos of the women who responded to
| me, _they were still attractive!_ As it happens, I
| learned that I'm attracted to smart, pretty women with
| personalities.
|
| I suppose this won't work for people who want to do the
| nasty with as many hot people as they can find. There
| were, like men, smart, attractive women who didn't know
| how to craft an online dating profile and got filtered
| out from this approach.
|
| What I do know is that my response and date rate went WAY
| up after hiding photos and responding to interesting
| profiles, and my mental health towards online dating
| improved significantly.
| ms1 wrote:
| This strategy won't work anymore, because old OKCupid
| style "long form" profiles are gone. Modern dating
| profiles have the equivalent of a twitter bio worth of
| stuff on them now.
| bittercynic wrote:
| I'd wager a big part of the reason for the increased
| success was that you were messaging people who you were
| genuinely interested in, and the interest came across in
| your messages.
| BitwiseFool wrote:
| You also have the problem of writing dozens and dozens of
| seemingly engaging and individualized messages only to
| get no response back. So eventually, you start putting
| less and less effort into each message and even start to
| repeat old ones. It's a sad fact of life.
| twalla wrote:
| When I was dating I was fortunate to have a large enough
| match pool to experiment with this. The result: a stupid
| copy-pasted throwaway line or emoji had roughly the same
| results as a message I put some thought into. The second
| category got a few more responses but in terms of
| conversion to an actual date there wasn't an appreciable
| difference.
|
| The takeaway for me is profile pictures, physical
| appearance and class/status signifiers (vacations,
| hobbies, nice things in/around the picture) were all that
| mattered and if someone was sold on that all you really
| had to do was not get in your own way by saying something
| stupid.
| kogepathic wrote:
| _> You also have the problem of writing dozens and dozens
| of seemingly engaging and individualized messages only to
| get no response back._
|
| To use a property analogy: if I am not the highest offer
| on a house, I probably won't get it. Doesn't matter if I
| have a trust fund or work for minimum wage (effort put
| into the offer) my offer wasn't accepted.
|
| Similarly if I'm the seller, I can decide "No, actually I
| don't want to sell my house to BlackRock, I'd rather sell
| it to this young family" and that's entirely my choice.
| This choice might leave money on the table, but at least
| I get the warm fuzzy feels inside for doing what I think
| is best.
|
| What you describe sounds like you want some kind of
| "thank you for putting in some effort" but you decide the
| amount of effort to invest, the other party owes you
| nothing.
| BitwiseFool wrote:
| You're right, the ideal solution is to keep putting in
| the effort to be sincere and engaging. I certainly don't
| believe I am entitled to a response. I'm just trying to
| convey how demoralizing it can be to put your best foot
| forward so many times only for nothing to come from it. I
| think it's human nature to be tempted to slack when your
| big efforts have had so little payoff.
| jfengel wrote:
| I assure you, women feel the same way. It's incredibly
| demoralizing to receive hundreds of swipes, of which the
| vast majority produce only a copypaste first message. Or
| worse, "DTF?", of which they'll see plenty.
|
| It's hard to say which is worse: the messages that say
| that they haven't put any thought into you at all, or the
| messages that say they have exactly one thought about you
| -- and everybody else.
|
| Everybody gets poor payoff percentages. You play if you
| think the game is worth the candle.
| ALittleLight wrote:
| I think you're being a bit unfair. The parent comment
| describes a hardship, investing time, effort, and some
| sense of self-worth and seeing it vanish into nothing,
| and your response makes the parent seem entitled. "Like
| you want some kind of 'thank you for putting in some
| effort.'
|
| If someone told you they were having a hard time buying a
| house and all their offers were silently rejected
| replying "The sellers owe you nothing" might be true, but
| it is beside the point.
| rowanG077 wrote:
| I doubt this is true. I almost always have send out
| personalised messages if possible (E.g. comment on
| something in their profile, something noteworthy in their
| fotos or something else). They just almost never
| respond(I would say <<5% even respond), and if they
| respond it's not much beyond an: "haha thank you" or
| something empty like that, with no follow up of any kind.
| It was impossible to keep any kind of conversation going
| no matter what I tried.
|
| Now? I just gave up. I have better things to do then
| spend hundreds of hours without a single conversation
| going anywhere. Online dating is a useless black hole.
| lumost wrote:
| This is why tinder was created, having both parties
| express _some_ level of interest eliminates the need and
| most of the benefits of mass spamming. Granted one party
| could spam likes, but ranking algorithms probably take
| into account this behavior.
| lozaning wrote:
| Tinder uses an ELO ranking system.
| majormajor wrote:
| This is talking about two different things, I think.
|
| The "I want the total package" unrealistic-expectations
| person is prominent in both genders, even if "no fat
| chicks" t-shirts aren't as popular as they once were. The
| slob-with-hot-wife TV trope probably hasn't helped men's
| expectations here.
|
| The "I'm gonna send a thousand dick pics and see who is
| down for a hookup" behavior, on the other hand, seems
| predominantly male-dominated. Even the women looking for
| hookups don't operate like that (you could debate chicken-
| and-egg here, around how they _don 't ever have to_ with
| all the dudes throwing themselves at them, but I'm not too
| interested in that). Those men result in a worse experience
| for BOTH women and men, but in a more acute fashion for the
| women on the receiving end of the creepiness than for the
| men who just have to try harder to manage to stand out
| above the background bullshit level.
| willcipriano wrote:
| "Take me on an adventure" was always a instant no for me.
| In the modern world a spouse is supposed to be a equal
| partner, I'm glad I found my wife who feels the same way. I
| don't want someone I have to drag somewhere like a
| suitcase.
| andrewmcwatters wrote:
| I think this also gets to the heart of it. My general
| feeling was that women wanted equality but didn't want to
| put in any effort whatsoever, and so a lot of women I
| came across just seemed like bums.
|
| I'm not saying that is what you're saying. It just made
| me recall my experiences.
| motogpjimbo wrote:
| It's a terrible thing to say, but many young women today,
| if judged by the same standards as men, would be
| considered losers. They have nothing going on in their
| own lives, yet have sky-high expectations of what men are
| supposed to provide them. And for the most part, modern
| dating culture lets them get away with it.
| epx wrote:
| "Men are losers, women are misguided."
| majormajor wrote:
| > It's a terrible thing to say, but many young women
| today, if judged by the same standards as men, would be
| considered losers. They have nothing going on in their
| own lives, yet have sky-high expectations of what men are
| supposed to provide them. And for the most part, modern
| dating culture lets them get away with it.
|
| "Today" is an interesting word choice. This seems like a
| lingering problem originating in the past, when women
| were entirely expected to depend on a man to provide, and
| were NOT expected to have stuff going on in their own
| life beyond being fertile and useful around the house and
| of good family background...?
|
| What's the line? "Feminism is for men too"?
|
| Men who just want hookups can keep such women's calendar
| filled for a while but aren't going to be really doing
| that providing in the long run.
|
| But in general, the obsession with not being a loser is
| dangerous for everyone: not everyone will be in the top
| 10%, and not everyone will attract someone in the top
| 10%, by simple math, and yet people of both gender's are
| convinced that it's _the other group_ that has the
| unreasonable standards...
| danmaz74 wrote:
| You can be very specific here: exactly 90% isn't in the
| top 10%.
| willcipriano wrote:
| Young men reading this, don't let it get you down or make
| you hate women, that path leads to ruin. In my experience
| once you become the sort of man who chooses not to
| participate when someone expects more from you then they
| are willing to give, the sort of women who is willing to
| be a equal partner comes out of the woodwork. They don't
| want to be with a loser either.
| clpm4j wrote:
| If a young main in his 20s is dissatisfied with the
| dating culture and prospects, it makes some sense to just
| forget about dating until early 30s and instead use all
| of that time and freedom to focus on establishing
| yourself. If you can focus and put in the work to become
| the type of person you want to be, then you'll pick your
| head up at the age of 32-35 and (seemingly) suddenly a
| lot of those women in their 20s will want to date you.
| Speaking from personal experience and assuming you aren't
| the type who wants to start a family in your 20s.
| commandlinefan wrote:
| > forget about dating until early 30s
|
| I don't know... I'm not sure most women would be
| comfortable dating a man in his early 30's who'd never
| had a relationship of any kind...
| AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote:
| Another caveat: they still might not want to date you.
| Making real human connections is just significantly more
| difficult for some people than it is for others, but on
| the plus side you are much more the person you want to
| be, so you can feel good about that anyway.
| molsongolden wrote:
| Nothing is perfect 100% of the time and it can take a few
| tries to sort out what you need or want in a
| relationship, along with what you are or aren't willing
| to tolerate.
| nick__m wrote:
| If a young man is dissatisfied with the dating culture
| and prospects he should pickup and learn an instrument,
| find some other musicians and invites peoples to watch
| them practice/jam.
|
| P.s. I've learn just enough bass to meet my wife !
| majormajor wrote:
| > If a young main in his 20s is dissatisfied with the
| dating culture and prospects, it makes some sense to just
| forget about dating until early 30s and instead use all
| of that time and freedom to focus on establishing
| yourself.
|
| This needs to be hugely caveated. If you skip dating for
| five to ten years, you're gonna jump back in fresh and
| probably fuck things up terribly the first few times. Too
| eager, too indifferent, too clingy, too distant, etc...
| you're gonna be terribly out of practice at it all.
|
| It's a skill, like anything else it takes practice.
| There's altogether too much BS out there about people
| being "meant to be" versus people putting in the work on
| both sides to create something real.
| clpm4j wrote:
| "Too eager, too indifferent, too clingy, too distant,
| etc... you're gonna be terribly out of practice at it
| all."
|
| These are generally personality traits of someone who is
| not well adjusted. If you are the type of person who can
| become professionally and personally (think friendships
| and any other non-sexual relationship) successful, then
| you'll probably be fine jumping back into the dating pool
| even if you've only dabbled casually for a pretty long
| period of time.
| majormajor wrote:
| How you're perceived isn't always going to be the same as
| how you are, and people make judgements quickly. Actions
| only come naturally through repeated practice, barring a
| naturally lucky few, and dating requires a whole
| different set of actions than in other relationships.
|
| You might also quite reasonably be confident in your
| professional and personal-friend lives, but be lacking
| some of that confidence in dating, since you haven't done
| it for years. These aren't transferable domains for a lot
| of people.
|
| I was on dating sites and apps for several years before I
| started having any luck finding much, much less something
| serious, and every moment of it was valuable practice in
| an area that didn't come naturally to me at all. My
| career situation also improved throughout those years,
| sometimes faster than my dating skills, and I quickly
| learned that having a nicer car did me 0 favors while I
| was still uncomfortable on a date in the first place.
| None of that professional practice applied - was I going
| to talk about load balancers and HA strategies on the
| date?
| clpm4j wrote:
| I don't disagree and I think I should have clarified that
| if you're the type of young man who has trouble dating
| (in the sense that you find yourself to be awkward, or
| have mostly bad dates), and can't seem to connect with
| women, then do NOT do what I have suggested here. Get out
| there and take a lot of swings.
| andrewmcwatters wrote:
| As a happily married man in his late 20s, I really stress
| not doing this. You skip an entire small lifetime of not
| finding someone and growing up through your young
| adulthood, waiting for things to improve for you as a man
| (read: for women to finally come around because of
| divorce, settling, or their biological clock ticking) and
| I'd argue things at that point would be more difficult.
|
| Because you then have established so much of who you are
| independent of the interactions between yourself and a
| who-would-be spouse, there's a greater chance that you'll
| have even more to disagree over.
|
| You're only creating more difficulties for yourself.
| Beyond the intricacies of a crystallized person, there's
| a smaller dating pool, it's more difficult to get
| pregnant, you have a greater difficulty acquiring assets
| not having another person you're working together through
| life with.
|
| Yes, those women in their 20s will want to date you, but
| if you're in your 30s, you're effectively dating a kid.
| They absolutely do not have the same experiences you will
| have at that point in time unless you did no personal
| growth for a decade.
| epicureanideal wrote:
| > you have a greater difficulty acquiring assets not
| having another person you're working together through
| life with.
|
| Temporarily. Then you divorce and lose all of those
| assets. It's not a gamble I would recommend based on
| expected financial gains for sure.
| clpm4j wrote:
| I agree with you that this route probably isn't best for
| _most_ men, which is why I said that it makes "some"
| sense, but I should have clarified that it's not broadly
| advisable (even by someone like myself who took this
| route). If you aren't very comfortable with who you are
| by yourself, and happy with yourself, and also very
| focused and determined to do something quite ambitious
| professionally, then yes I think finding a partner to
| grow with and lean on is the best route.
|
| And also as I mentioned below but just to make sure it's
| clear: if you aren't comfortable dating, then you should
| date as often as you can because it can be genuinely fun
| and fulfilling and lead to very positive outcomes. If you
| _are_ comfortable dating and do well with the opposite
| sex of your preference, but just aren't satisfied with
| what's out there or it feels forced and unenjoyable, then
| you _might_ benefit from focusing more on developing
| yourself rather than focusing on the partner search. It's
| a cliche but once you're truly in a good place with
| yourself, you tend to attract to the right people into
| your life.
| BitwiseFool wrote:
| I _might_ get flack for saying this, but a large number
| of women 's dating profiles just consist of "dog mom",
| "loves watching The Office", and something about "Jesus".
| It's shockingly consistent and bland, with very little to
| engage in conversation about.
|
| Now I will say it's not really anyone's fault. Women
| looking for men probably don't see what the other women
| on the site's profiles look like. Likewise my profile
| might be a trope as well. But men do have to go out of
| their way to stand out to get a decent chance at a
| connection.
| hycaria wrote:
| It's true but men profiles aren't better. Most people are
| averagely boring.
| jjeaff wrote:
| I would put forward that there is probably an interesting
| person behind most of those dog mom, office watcher
| profiles. Most people just aren't good at marketing
| themselves and mass media culture has made people scared
| or less capable of sharing how they are different from
| the herd (i.e. interesting).
| [deleted]
| Spooky23 wrote:
| It's a viscous cycle for women. You don't want to put too
| much of yourself out there, because crazy people, but not
| doing so ends up selling your body, which tends to attract
| a wider variety of men that don't line up with your vision.
|
| So the two extremes are basically having sex with rando
| internet people and getting ultra-picky.
| ameister14 wrote:
| I'm sorry, but your comment cracked me up - viscous means
| a thick, sticky consistency, so a viscous cycle for
| women, well; you meant vicious circle, I assume
| gnicholas wrote:
| There may be some aspects of online dating that are
| properly described as "viscous", but I think the cycle
| you're referring to is vicious :)
| AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote:
| I have an idea I've been toying with for a dating tool (I
| refuse to call it an app) based on the premise that all
| dating "apps" and "sites" are horrible because their
| incentives are aligned toward wanting people to actually use
| them. You pretty much have ad-driven and subscription models
| and both have perverse incentives. Further, the whole "wink",
| "like" and "swipe" nonsense increases the "meat market"
| commoditization and dehumanization of the whole thing.
|
| So my idea is to put all the incentives the other way. The
| tool is designed to operate on a budget of ~$0. I would
| accept donations, but otherwise have no monetization and
| therefore no desire to increase "engagement" of any kind. My
| incentive is such that I actually don't want you to interact
| with the tool, because that will cost me bandwidth and
| processing time. I will allow you to have a profile of text
| and one single image of restricted size, because I don't want
| to have to host anything else. You will fill out a multiple
| choice questionnaire with as few questions as I feel I can
| get away with to ensure at least some level of basic
| compatibility, and then you do nothing.
|
| Periodically, a cron job will run and see if anyone matches,
| then it will send you both each others profiles (through good
| old-fashion email) and ask if you'd like to go on a date. If
| you've both agreed, there will be a sequence of messages from
| the system proposing date ideas, locations, and times until
| consensus is reached. Then it's all up to you. This is
| designed to ensure that you make a real human connection to
| the person in a real life interaction before any contact
| information is ever exchanged.
|
| It probably sounds as though this sort of thing would have a
| hard time attracting users. I consider that a feature,
| because it means it'll cost less to run and it will avoid
| attracting ego-inflation seekers, low effort numbers gamers,
| and other ungenuine people.
|
| As envisioned, I would expect this sort of thing could cover
| a moderately sized state on a raspberry pi.
| CameronNemo wrote:
| I've thought about ways to improve dating networks, and I
| think the best solution is to throw them out and just get
| young people to go out in groups and do activities
| together. Romance would be a secondary output (as would
| friendships, professional networking, and plain old
| perspective broadening).
|
| Rationale is that a lot of women, and to a lesser degree
| men, do not feel comfortable going out 1x1 with a stranger
| (and potential predator/rapist/catfish). Not to mention the
| pressure of finding common interests and cultivating a date
| experience. The group dynamic offers safety, and the hobby-
| focused nature of the activity offers entertainment without
| pressure.
| extrapickles wrote:
| That would also fix the incentive problem dating sites
| have to make sure you only find low quality matches so
| you will stay on the platform.
| lliamander wrote:
| I think this is probably the best solution. But what
| activities do you recommend? Compared to a couple
| generations ago it seems like it's harder to find good
| casual activities that appeal to both sexes as a default
| meeting ground.
| mustafa_pasi wrote:
| For what it's worth, I came to the same conclusion. You
| cannot fix online dating, but the real problem is that
| the younger generations used to have a lot of face to
| face hangout time due to how the world worked pre-
| internet, and all that is gone now. Now you have to plan
| every hangout and it happens once a week instead of once
| a day.
| bena wrote:
| And I will make X profiles from X emails, filling out the
| questionnaire in several ways to maximize the number of
| hits I get. The profile will be some good ol PT Barnum
| style pablum that appeals to just about all of us. I will
| also add pictures that are either extremely flattering of
| me, or of someone else. It doesn't really matter.
|
| Then I just agree to every date that gets sent to my email.
| Ideally this could be automated so that I could run it on a
| raspberry pi.
|
| But please, go on.
| sweetheart wrote:
| This is an excellent way to have a LOT of just bad, bad
| dates. Good luck! I hope you change, for your sake, and
| for the sake of the people you'll drag through dates.
| lliamander wrote:
| I think a lot of companies hiring programmers take an
| analogous approach, and tend to get a lot of mediocre
| candidates as a result.
| r00fus wrote:
| If we're not aiming for mass market, this service could
| use mobile device WebAuth as it's only authentication
| vehicle limiting it to one per device.
|
| How do you spam/exploit that?
| AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote:
| Then you... what? Don't show up to dates? Do show up but
| get no contact information anyway because you aren't who
| you said you were? That's a lot of effort to put in for
| essentially nothing.
| bena wrote:
| I could still go on the dates. I'm pointing out that
| you've solved no problems and instead opened the door to
| several other ones.
|
| You've just made a bad/even more exploitable
| OkCupid/Tinder/PlentyOfFish clone.
| AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote:
| You could, but I don't really see the incentive in it. At
| least, I don't really see how it is any easier than doing
| basically the same thing on any other dating platform,
| except those platforms put you in contact with the person
| before you actually have to meet them.
| bena wrote:
| The more dates I go on, the more likely I am to find a
| compatible partner. That's an incentive.
| AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote:
| ...by completely avoiding all basic compatibility factors
| (wanting kids, sexual orientation, religiosity, etc) and
| misrepresenting yourself?
| MyHypatia wrote:
| I see this too. One thing that has struck me lately, is the
| similarity between the addictive nature of gambling and video
| games. Going to a casino once in a while or playing some video
| games with friends is fine. But the amount of time some people
| spend on video games really mimics a gambling addiction, except
| it's less frowned upon because they're mostly losing time
| instead of money. But if you consider the opportunity cost,
| they're losing a lot of money too.
| supertrope wrote:
| In American culture money and materialism is dominant. Labor,
| quality of life, and time are devalued. People complain that
| a plumber "didn't do anything" and then billed $170. Or an ER
| physician didn't do anything yet they still got a $$$$ bill.
| Expertise, attention, and simply showing up to get the job
| done doesn't seem to have fundamental value in common
| culture. But if they received a prescription, or an MRI was
| used, or some parts were installed there's more appreciation.
| hindsightbias wrote:
| Have been going to conferences in Vegas for 30+ years. For a
| long time it was just incredibly depressing walking through
| the floors and seeing all the elder generation playing slots
| at all hours. Quite the motivator to never stop working, IMO.
|
| Now that Vegas is more young-focused, it's all age groups on
| the slots. Then I think, multiply those giant floors by 1000X
| and that's the gaming population.
| kypro wrote:
| We seem to live in an age of such abundance and freedom that
| it's now possible to live in all manner of ways which seems to
| exacerbate these extremes.
|
| In the past if you were a man and wanted to eat and have a home
| you had to work. We also relied far more on children to look
| after us in our old age than we do today.
|
| Today welfare and the affordability of essentials like food
| make it possible for people not to work and not worry about the
| implications of growing old without family.
|
| I agree it's cultural, but it's a cultural trend being fuelled
| by the abundance of modern day living. Whether that's good or
| bad, I don't know. I guess it's nice people can choose to play
| video games all day and not worry about working or having a
| family, but I worry about the impact this will have on our
| mental health. I also wonder what this means for economic
| inequality and the stability of society in general. I'm a big
| believer that people only care to preserve societies they have
| a stake in and if a large enough percentage of the population
| own nothing and offer no value it's very easy to see this
| causing a division. Should I as someone who works, pays tax,
| pays for his own home and pays for his own food be happy with
| someone who chooses not to work and have everything paid for
| them by people who work like me? And if you don't work and
| don't pay tax wouldn't you naturally want to see higher taxes
| and more government welfare?
| pm90 wrote:
| > I'm a big believer that people only care to preserve
| societies they have a stake in and if a large enough
| percentage of the population own nothing and offer no value
| it's very easy to see this causing a division
|
| Wouldn't someone that is able to spend most of their time
| playing video games (instead of e.g. farming) _want_ society
| to continue as it exists today? Without that society, wouldn
| 't they be forced to fight/work for sustenance?
| mkmk2 wrote:
| I was a whole lot more spiteful when I was playing video
| games 24/7 and felt like there was nowhere else to go. I
| would've been far happier seeing an end to everything then,
| when everything seemed impossible, versus now that I have
| some experience, some skin in the game.
| ajkdhcb2 wrote:
| Where is this socialist paradise that you speak of where you
| can have a home without working? There is nowhere like what
| you are saying.
|
| It is the exact opposite of what you are claiming.
| Affordability of essentials has become so much worse that
| many people can't afford to live a decent life with their own
| home even if they are working the jobs that they can actually
| acquire.
|
| These people aren't privileged because they "choose not to
| work and have everything paid for them by people who work
| like me", it is generally emotionally devastating to be stuck
| living with your family while your youth evaporates. Further,
| the money to do this is coming from the family (for those
| lucky enough to have a family wealthy enough). You're not
| paying for it with your taxes.
| Mediterraneo10 wrote:
| > Where is this socialist paradise that you speak of where
| you can have a home without working?
|
| Finland, for example. "Home", of course means a simple flat
| in a housing block and there might be a waiting list, but
| housing every single one of its people regardless of
| employment has been something that the state has sought for
| a long time.
| kypro wrote:
| > It is the exact opposite of what you are claiming.
| Affordability of essentials has become so much worse that
| many people can't afford to live a decent life with their
| own home even if they are working the jobs that they can
| actually acquire.
|
| Where do you live? Most people I know are literally given
| homes to live in by the government. Admittedly I'm a
| working class guy in the UK and I'm not that familiar with
| the US welfare system so perhaps its quite different there.
| But for example, my girlfriend's mum has never worked a day
| in her life but lives in a PS600,000 5 bed house. When she
| went to the job centre last year she was advised not to
| take part time work because she'd lose out on the benefits.
|
| If these people were starving or homeless, don't you think
| they would get a job? Today we have a generation of people
| who have parents rich enough to let them live in their
| homes rent-free without demanding they get a job while the
| government is there for you if you decide not to. Is it any
| surprise some people decide a 9-5 isn't for them?
|
| To your point though, I do accept it's harder to own your
| own home, but it's certainly not harder to live without a
| job today. At least not here in the UK.
| intarga wrote:
| Something doesn't add up about that story. I've lived in
| the UK, council housing and unemployment benefits are
| meagre.
| speeder wrote:
| I lived with my parents on and off until I was 31, that was when
| I managed to marry and move out hopefully permanently this time.
|
| It is Anedacta... but I think I know what is going on.
|
| 1. The labor market is a mess, for example today I got another
| rejection letter from a job I sent my resume, thing is, I am
| literally perfect for the job, my resume (that I didn't tailor
| for it) matched perfectly what they asked, even the "additional"
| things, including the fact they wanted someone that made Hidden
| Object games before (I had a whole company to make those with
| millions of downloads).
|
| I have a strong impression hiring is just screwed, people often
| don't even read resumes, for example I had a company invite me to
| do a job I don't know how to do, only for the interviewer of the
| company realize they are wasting time (a company asked me to do
| ML work, I never listed ML anywhere in my resume).
|
| Also I am 33 now, and never had a job registered legally in my
| country, I only had contracts and "contracts".
|
| Also here having internship is mandatory to graduate, a lot of my
| friends failed to graduate beause they didn't found any
| internship even for free, to graduate myself I actually created a
| company and hired myself (it is legal to do that O.o).
|
| Now relationshipwise: I looked for relationships very hard, and
| kept finding only people wnating flings, including one person
| that scammed me (she claimed she would marry me and whatnot to
| convince me to have sex with her, since I wanted to marry virgin,
| after she got bored with me she declared that all she wanted was
| my body and kicked me out).
|
| Only reason I managed to marry at all, is that I went to a
| church, found a childhood friend there that also wanted to marry
| and was having similar issues, and I asked her right off the bat
| if she wanted to marry me then, and she said yes. (we are very
| happy, for those wondering...)
|
| If it wasn't for a lucky coincincidence (in case you don't
| believe in God or something... I only went to that church because
| my car broke that day when I was going elsewhere and going that
| church was in the situation at the time the logical option) I
| probably would still be alone.
|
| Same thing applies to a lot of my friends, many, many of them are
| single, and jobless, after a while some of them just give up on
| living properly and settle for videogames... videogames are not
| the culprit, they are the escape, they are a solution to have a
| life, even if virtual, after your real life becomes seemly
| impossible to live.
|
| EDIT: by the way, student debt doesn't help, for example I did
| got "legal" job offers, but to earn mininum wage (for example
| supermarket cashier), thing is, my student debt monthly payments
| was roughly twice the mininum wage, so accepting a mininum wage
| legal job would put me in further debt. Thankfully my Startup
| Kidoteca was a reasonable success and I paid my debts with it.
| onion2k wrote:
| _I had a whole company to make those with millions of
| downloads_
|
| After my first startup failed I was rejected for developer
| jobs, and a few places said it was because they thought I'd
| want to quit and start a new company rather than stay there for
| the long haul. More anecdata obviously, but some employers see
| someone's previous independence as a forewarning of that person
| looking for independence again in the near future.
| shimonabi wrote:
| I had a pretty rough time between the years 2004 and 2016. I
| dropped out of college for a career track I dreamt about since
| childhood and I didn't know what to do with my life. I had no job
| experience and the recession hit also.
|
| If you live in a small country, where everyone is related on
| average 2.5 degrees away to a random person, it's pretty hard to
| get a job if you don't have any family connections. After several
| years I managed to get a warehouse and courier job through a
| crazy family connection with some boss of a firm. I enrolled in
| college again in 2010 and then went to work abroad to gain some
| credibility in my field. The job abroad was paid well, but soul-
| crushing, so a few months ago I found a job in my field at home
| for half the salary.
|
| I never played any videogames.
| leesec wrote:
| There are an insane number of job openings right now.
| TheAdamAndChe wrote:
| Good jobs with growth potential that don't require a four
| year degree and actually treat you like a human being?
| tomdell wrote:
| And a similarly insane number of applicants. Anecdata, but I
| recently hired for an entry level position at my company and
| received far more applications than when hiring for the same
| role a year and a half prior. Lots of applicants who
| graduated a year ago and have yet to find work.
| MattGaiser wrote:
| I assume that he is not American from the "small country"
| bit.
| troupe wrote:
| Are you in a field where you need to work onsite or can you
| work remotely?
| shimonabi wrote:
| The boss at my firm doesn't understand the concept of remote
| work. I did the job interview with my mask on and when there
| were hard restrictions on moving between cities in my
| country, so I had to have a signed document with me if the
| policed stopped me. I got my second shot 2 weeks ago and I'm
| working as usual.
| troupe wrote:
| Perhaps at your firm, but if the work you do doesn't
| require you to be onsite, there are other firms that may
| not have a problem with remote work.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-06-11 23:00 UTC)