As the unemployment rate recovers faster than job
creation does, there's been much consternation about the quality of the
job market improvement. Yes, the unemployment rate has fallen to 7.8%,
but how do we account for the following chart? As it shows, since the
end of 2008 the labor force participation rate has fallen from
65.8% to 63.6%.
Aggregates can be misleading. For
instance, that surge in the participation rate from the 1960's to 1980's
is a result of women joining the workforce.
The male rate, on the other hand, has been declining since the 1950's.
Male participation has fallen under President
Obama. It fell under President George W. Bush. And President Clinton.
It's fallen in every presidential administration going back to at least
Eisenhower's, with the exception of Carter's, for whom it was flat.
Why are fewer men choosing to work? For that, we turn to the Census Bureau's 2012 Statistical Abstract.
The participation rate is lower for single men than for married men, and marriage
rates in the US have been falling for decades, so we'd expect a modest
decline from that. Looking by age bucket, it's been pretty steady for
single and married men for everyone over the age of 25 since the start
of the Great Recession.
The recent decline we've seen has been primarily
among young, single men. For single men age 16-19, participation fell by
almost 9 points from 2006-2010. For single men age 20-24 it fell by
almost 5 points. This could be for a variety of factors, from men
deciding it's not worth bothering to apply for a job at the local
grocery store, to men more focused on their education with unskilled
work harder to find, to those living at home who decide there's no need
for spending money when so much entertainment is free online.
Additionally, the acceleration in the labor force
decline began when the oldest baby boomers began turning 60. Yes,
because of deflated housing prices and retirement accounts, boomers will
work longer than they thought. But 60-year olds still work less than
30-year olds, and that demographic shift is being reflected in the data.
What's more, this decline in the workforce is part of a century-long trend towards working less in the United States. Child labor laws were passed during the Great Depression, restricting child labor. During the Truman administration, the US government instituted the 40-hour work week for federal employees. The passage of Social Security and Medicare reduced incentives for seniors to work as well.
This is a good thing. Among his many writings, John Maynard Keynes talked about an eventual 15-hour work week to satisfy the material needs of citizens. We're progressing slower than he thought, but we're getting there.
But can fewer working young adults possibly be a good thing? It's intuitive that fewer workers means less work and a smaller and weaker economy. But since the decline is mostly among very young men (and, to a lesser extent, young women) we need to understand why they're dropping out.Student loan debt outstanding has grown from $360 billion to $900 billionover the past seven years. The size of this debt is daunting, but it shows that some of the labor force decline is due to young people investing more in their education, an eventual long-term positive.
And those not dropping out for education-related reasons? If it's just a bunch of 17-year olds who are content spending their time on Facebook instead of earning a few bucks bagging groceries, that's one thing. But if it's people who feel shut out of the workforce, that's something policymakers should address.
These are issues we're going to have to grapple with, because with robotic labor on the horizon, our desire and ability to compete with emerging market and silicon-based labor, especially for less-educated Americans, is likely to continue to fall.
The American republic was long safeguarded by settled norms, now shattered by the rise of Donald Trump.
A long time ago, more than 20 years in fact, the Wall Street Journal published a powerful, eloquent editorial, simply headlined: “No Guardrails.”
In our time, the United States suffers every day of the week because there are now so many marginalized people among us who don't understand the rules, who don't think that rules of personal or civil conduct apply to them, who have no notion of self-control.
Twenty years later, that same newspaper is edging toward open advocacy in favor of Donald Trump, the least self-controlled major-party candidate for high office in the history of the republic. And as he forged his path to the nomination, he snapped through seven different guardrails, revealing how brittle the norms that safeguard the American republic had grown.
Science says lasting relationships come down to—you guessed it—kindness and generosity.
Every day in June, the most popular wedding month of the year, about 13,000 American couples will say “I do,” committing to a lifelong relationship that will be full of friendship, joy, and love that will carry them forward to their final days on this earth.
Except, of course, it doesn’t work out that way for most people. The majority of marriages fail, either ending in divorce and separation or devolving into bitterness and dysfunction. Of all the people who get married, only three in ten remain in healthy, happy marriages, as psychologist Ty Tashiro points out in his book The Science of Happily Ever After, which was published earlier this year.
Social scientists first started studying marriages by observing them in action in the 1970s in response to a crisis: Married couples were divorcing at unprecedented rates. Worried about the impact these divorces would have on the children of the broken marriages, psychologists decided to cast their scientific net on couples, bringing them into the lab to observe them and determine what the ingredients of a healthy, lasting relationship were. Was each unhappy family unhappy in its own way, as Tolstoy claimed, or did the miserable marriages all share something toxic in common?
Oregon, one of the whitest states in the union, also has one of the most generous safety nets. Is that a coincidence or something more troubling?
SALEM, Oregon—In much of the country, poor people are finding that there are fewer and fewer government benefits available to help them stay afloat. But here in this progressive corner of the Northwest, the poor can access an extensive system of state-sponsored supports and services.
In Oregon, a higher share of poor families is on welfare (now called TANF, or Temporary Aid to Needy Families) than in most states. The state has some of the highest food-stamp uptake in the country. It subsidizes childcare for working parents, asking the poorest of them to contribute as little as $27 a month. It helps people get off of welfare by linking them to employment and paying their wages for up to six months, and then allows them to continue to receive food stamps as they transition to higher wages. Families can be on welfare for up to 60 months, as opposed to 24 months in many other states, and once the parents are cut off due to time limits, their children can still continue to receive aid.
After a 4-year-old climbed into a gorilla’s pen, the internet unleashed its fury at his mother, showing a profound lack of empathy.
I remember losing my daughter at a park. I remember losing her sister at a restaurant. I remember losing their brother at a mall. “Losing” might be too strong: I lost sight of them briefly, and for a few horrifying moments wondered whether I would see them again. How could I be so stupid?
The answer is that I am human and I accepted the most important job of my life absolutely unprepared. No parent is perfect.
Here’s proof: A mother in Cincinnati allowed her 4-year-old boy to slip her attention and wander into a gorilla exhibit Saturday. After the 400-pound lowland silverback named Harambe dragged the boy roughly through in the exhibit’s moat, Cincinnati Zoo officials shot and killed the animal.
Unfavorable news reports on fundraiser money dogged the Republican nominee. Trump, it seems, couldn’t stand it anymore.
Donald Trump has a problem following through. He advocated for banning Muslims from U.S. soil, before qualifying all his policy proposals as “a suggestion.” He campaigned on the premise he would self-fund his race, before deciding to raise money after all. So when news reports suggested Trump hadn’t donated all $6 million he said he raised for veterans’ groups at an event this past winter, the revelation seemed to follow his pattern.
That is, until Trump went out of his way to defend himself, by holding a news conference Tuesday morning to describe the disbursements. He said the fundraising haul totaled $5.6 million—less than the $6 million he had claimed before, $1 million of which was supposed to come from his own coffers. The very public pushback he received for donation delays was not unlike pushback Trump has received for other controversial moves in his campaign. But it seems the risk of alienating veterans and their advocates was too much for Trump, after months of soliciting their support. He needed to mount a more vigorous defense to combat this particular strain of criticism.
This election will widen the distance between the class and racial composition of each party’s core of support.
One of the driving forces of modern American politics has been the kaleidoscopic reshaping of the electorate, as minorities have steadily increased their share of the vote while whites—particularly those without advanced education—have declined. But these trends have affected the two parties in strikingly different ways, likely to further diverge in 2016.
As the first chart shows, the change in the overall electorate has been steady—and profound. Since Ronald Reagan’s landslide reelection in 1984, working-class whites—defined as those whites without a college degree—have plummeted from around three-fifths of all voters in presidential elections to just over one-third in 2012. The share of the vote cast by whites with a college degree increased from just over one-fourth in 1984 to slightly more than one-third in the 1992 election (Bill Clinton’s first victory) and has largely stabilized there since.
Why do reality television’s most popular stars so uncannily resemble the heroines of the 19th-century writer’s work?
One of the more unconventional fairytales of our time involves a brilliant schemer, famous almost entirely for her physical attributes, who finds herself a single mother after her partner abruptly departs. Intent on bettering her situation, the woman pursues the wealthy and eligible son of a noted family, several members of whom she’s already intimately involved with. His relatives panic. But the man remains besotted with the woman, whose meticulous plotting and social savvy make him ever more intent on proposing marriage to her.
The person in question is, obviously, Blac Chyna. She’s also Susan Vernon, the antiheroine at the center of one of Jane Austen’s earliest works, Lady Susan. Their resemblance on the face of it might seem completely absurd: Blac Chyna, born Angela Renée White in Washington, D.C. in 1988, is a model and former exotic dancer best known for her romantic relationship with the rapper Tyga, her friendship with the reality-TV star Kim Kardashian, and the complications that have ensued (currently being televised on Keeping Up With the Kardashians) when Tyga started dating Kim’s sister and Chyna became pregnant with Kim’s brother’s baby. Lady Susan Vernon is a fictional character created by Austen in 1794 or so—an English widow in her mid-to-late 30s who idles away her hours in the stately homes of her aristocratic acquaintances and is described as possessing “an uncommon union of symmetry, brilliance, and grace.”
Interbreeding with our fellow hominins appears to have helped humans survive harsh climates.
Early human history was a promiscuous affair. As modern humans began to spread out of Africa roughly 50,000 years ago, they encountered other species that looked remarkably like them—the Neanderthals and Denisovans, two groups of archaic humans that shared an ancestor with us roughly 600,000 years earlier. This motley mix of humans coexisted in Europe for at least 2,500 years, and we now know that they interbred, leaving a lasting legacy in our DNA. The DNA of non-Africans is made up of roughly 1 to 2 percent Neanderthal DNA, and some Asian and Oceanic island populations have as much as 6 percent Denisovan DNA.
He lives near San Francisco, makes more than $50,000 per year, and is voting for the billionaire to fight against political correctness.
For several days, I’ve been corresponding with a 22-year-old Donald Trump supporter. He is white, has a bachelor’s degree, and earns $50,000 to $60,000 per year.
He lives near San Francisco.
“I recently became engaged to my Asian fiancée who is making roughly 3 times what I make, and I am completely supportive of her and proud she is doing so well,” he wrote. “We’ve both benefitted a lot from globalization. We are young, urban, and have a happy future planned. We seem molded to be perfect young Hillary supporters,” he observed, “but we're not. In 2016, we're both going for Trump.”
At first, we discussed Bill Clinton.
Last week, I wrote an article asking why Trump supporters aren’t bothered that their candidate called Clinton a shameful abuser of women who may well be a rapist. After all, Trump used to insist that Clinton was a victim of unfair treatment during his sex scandals. Either Trump spent years defending a man that he believed to be a sexual predator, even welcoming him as a guest at his wedding, or Trump is now cynically exploiting a rape allegation that he believes to be false.
Three Atlantic staffers discuss “Blood of My Blood,” the sixth episode of the sixth season.
Every week for the sixth season of Game of Thrones, Christopher Orr, Spencer Kornhaber, and Lenika Cruz will be discussing new episodes of the HBO drama. Because no screeners are being made available to critics in advance this year, we'll be posting our thoughts in installments.