David Brooks Wonders Why Men Can't Find Jobs: Comedy Ensues. By Matt Taibbi
Last edited Sun Jul 21, 2013, 12:35 AM - Edit history (1)
From a David Brooks column in The New York Times this morning:
In 1954, 96 percent of American men between 25 and 54 years old worked. Today, 80 percent do. One-fifth of men in their prime working ages are out of the labor force.
Brooks' point piece turns out to be a popular column topic among conservative writers: Why aren't people working? The twist in this one is that it's a gender-based thesis. Brooks got hold of some stats showing that men are having more trouble recovering the jobs lost in the recent recession than women. He cites a Floyd Norris column from this weekend, "Gender Gaps Appear as Employment Recovers From Recession," which provides all the relevant numbers.
Norris's piece actually offered a simple explanation for the gender gap. The jobs that are coming back, he says, are in the health care sector, where women hold four out of every five jobs. In fact, if you read Norris's piece carefully, you learn that women are actually losing ground in non-health-care related industries like manufacturing and financial services, that men are getting jobs back in those fields at a better rate than women. But, again, there's been more recovery in the health care sector for whatever reason, hence the stats.
Brooks takes all this data and decides that the real issue here is that men are not adaptable and can't bring themselves to make the changes needed to find work. He weaves an elaborate analogy involving the John Wayne movie The Seachers, which I guess is about the end of the cowboy era and how the rugged, violent men who tamed the West had trouble fitting in to the cushy, civilized world they helped create. (What David Brooks knows about any of this is anyone's guess). Brooks writes about Wayne's Ethan Edwards character as the hero who has made himself obsolete. "Once the western towns have been pacified," he notes, "there's no need for his capacity for violence, nor his righteous fury."
There's a famous scene in the film where Edwards brings an abducted girl home after a seven-year quest but, being the obsolete brute that he is, is unable to cross the threshold into her civilized home upon his return. To Brooks, this somehow is a metaphor for the men of modern times, who are unable to "cross the threshold into the new economy."
Anyone who's ever been unemployed knows that statistics like the ones Norris cites have everything to do with what kinds of jobs are available, and very little to do with the willingness of the population to work. Pretty much everyone who doesn't have a job will do just about anything short of organ donation to get a job. If you've got kids and you can't make rent, nobody needs to help you cross any freaking threshold into any new age. If it doesn't involve sucking on someone else's body parts, you'll do it.
Not according to Brooks, who thinks there's another explanation:
" But, surely, there has been some ineffable shift in the definition of dignity. Many men were raised with a certain image of male dignity, which emphasized autonomy, reticence, ruggedness, invulnerability and the competitive virtues. Now, thanks to a communications economy, they find themselves in a world that values expressiveness, interpersonal ease, vulnerability and the cooperative virtues."
Surely, part of the situation is that many men simply do not want to put themselves in positions they find humiliating. A high school student doesn't want to persist in a school where he feels looked down on. A guy in his 50s doesn't want to find work in a place where he'll be told what to do by savvy young things.
Hmm. Men don't want to be put in positions they find humiliating? How many men out there today are working as telemarketers? As collections agents? How many grown men are working in fast-food restaurants, getting yelled at by people like Brooks when they put the wrong McNugget sauce in the take-out bag?
And as for those 50-year-olds not wanting to work in a place where he'll be told what to do by savvy young things it's the other way around. Usually, the savvy young things are turning down the older guy. If Brooks thinks there are 50-year-old men out there with families, people maybe facing foreclosure, who turn down jobs because they don't want to take orders from "savvy young things," he's crazy. All jobs involve taking humiliating orders from bosses and everyone who's ever had a job knows that. If you need a job badly enough, you'll take a job offered by Hermann Goering, Hannibal Lecter, Naomi Campbell, anyone.
It's not just Brooks. These days you can't throw a rock without hitting some muddle-headed affluent white dude who spends his nights stroking his multiple chins and pondering the question of the lazy poor, convinced as he is that there are plenty of jobs and the problem is that prideful or uncommitted or historically anachronistic (that's Brooks' take) folks just won't suck it up and take them.
Earlier this year, for instance, when Yale and Penn started suing their graduates for failing to pay back their student loans, Bloomberg asked a Cato Institute fellow named Neal McCluskey for comment. He replied:
You could take a job at Subway or wherever to pay the bills and that's something you need to do if you have agreed in taking a loan to pay it back . . . It seems like basic responsibility to me."
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/david-brooks-wonders-why-men-cant-find-jobs-comedy-ensues-20130716
Well worth the short read at the link. Matt uses an excellent video clip for his analogy at the end of the article.
limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)David Brooks is a pathetic miserable man.
adirondacker
(2,921 posts)appropriate. Taibbi didn't hold anything back on Brook's. Too bad the NY Times doesn't pick up Matt. The upper echelon could learn a lot.
limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)That is what his words do to people with weak identities.
adirondacker
(2,921 posts)Moyers was spot on about 'Narcissistic' government has created 'United States of Inequality'
boilerbabe
(2,214 posts)epressing as it is. I am what's left of the middle class. I have been through the struggle and even though I make decent money, the cost of living in my area (S.E. CT) has increased dramatically over the 16 years I have lived here.
l lived in So. CA for 14 yrs and if it wasn't for my parents sending me money, I would have wound up in a tent off I-5 like some people became friends with. It's only a short hop from a decent job to no job and homelessness.
This video hits all of the points that I would ever want to make on how badly this country is being managed. I think it really started during the Reagan years. I remember being in a line out the door to apply at McDonalds in CA years ago. I got hired, but I couldn't afford to buy the brown slacks they required so I never showed up. There were people with college degrees in that same line.
Speaking of college degrees...finally got mine online for IT. The latest debate on student loan interest rates also gets me going since they didn't even consider the actual cost of the education along with the interest rates.
Sorry to meander...thanks again for making us aware of what's really going on. Keep up the good work!
adirondacker
(2,921 posts)It's a brutal scene for anyone in the no longer middle class, which is the new lower middle class, anywhere in this country. Unless your a legacy in academia or government your life is hanging by a thread these days. Glad you appreciated the thread. Best of luck in the Nutmeg State!
boilerbabe
(2,214 posts)seabeckind
(1,957 posts)Brooks is an approved columnist while Taibbi writes for a rock mag that glorifies terrists.
Who should we believe?
Time to get that subversive rag off the store shelves.
</sarcasm>
boilerbabe
(2,214 posts)I would lke to see it...
I have been a subscriber to the Rolling Stone in the past and am probably going to subscribe again. I think Matt Taibbi is a great columnist and though I recall he used to have a lot of anger, it was always directed where it should be
Haha, I'm so slow, just noted your <sarcasm> postscript !
Anyways , never heard of this Brooks character.
boilerbabe
(2,214 posts)I don't know who this Brooks guy is with his multiple chins, but I think his ideas that men can't find jobs is misguided. Maybe because there are NO jobs. A lot of people are qualified for work that has been outsourced (do we even remember what in hell "Manufacturing" is??)
I am lucky in that I managed to get a decent job in a paper mill (I run a power plant there), but any time, the owners could just say "shut it down , it's not profitable". I lived in Southern CA for almost 14 years during the Reagan years. I know what its like trying to find a decent job. They treated employees like paper towels. Use them once and throw them away, since there are so many other people ready to take their place. Nobody values their employees any more.
It's not just men having probs, it's everybody. I do agree that Mr. Brooks seems to be coming from a skewed perspective (white & affluent). Maybe he should walk a mile in our shoes? I'm a woman doing "non-traditional" work in an area that used to have tons of manufacturing capability. It's almost all gone: Thermos, Ponema mill, Pfizer, United Nuclear, etc. It's all gone!!
The main thing I think is not that "men" or anyone else refuses to get jobs...it's the changing job market, where many people that did certain jobs are not qualified for the jobs that are out there. I have been in the same field for so long, that if I had to leave it completely I would probably not be qualified for anything at all.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)Think Tom Friedman and you have the right idea.
adirondacker
(2,921 posts)bemildred
(90,061 posts)But I hear you.