Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: SeekAndFind
The overall male participation rate for men aged 16 and over stood at just 67%, down from 73.5% two decades ago and from 87% in the postwar years when Ehrenreich’s story begins.

There are, however, other factors, too. The gov't has expanded the safety net to the point where you really don't have to work if you don't want to. Also, parents seem more amenable to the idea of a son living at home, even into their 30's.

6 posted on 05/22/2026 8:44:52 PM PDT by econjack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: econjack
The overall male participation rate for men aged 16 and over stood at just 67%, down from 73.5% two decades ago and from 87% in the postwar years when Ehrenreich’s story begins.

This particular item in the narrative is poorly presented and misleading. In fact, it’s probably not even relevant to the author’s underlying point. The reason for this is that the “aged 16 and over” statistic has no upper limit, and the size of the total potential work force in the U.S. includes everyone ages 16 and over who is not in school, in prison, or in a nursing home.

U.S. labor participation rates have declined over the last 80 years mainly because more and more Americans today are RETIRED, not because of any of the factors the author discusses here.

40 posted on 05/23/2026 4:09:01 AM PDT by Alberta's Child (If I leave here, it’s because I’m tired of arguing with geriatric parrots wearing MAGA hats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson