Data Points To Stark Change Among American Men
Economists have offered several explanations for the trend, including automation, declining manufacturing employment, changing wages, disability, education levels, and shifts in the broader economy. But the scale of the problem has also raised a more uncomfortable question: Has American culture become less willing to expect able-bodied adults to work, even when the work available is […]
Economists have offered several explanations for the trend, including automation, declining manufacturing employment, changing wages, disability, education levels, and shifts in the broader economy. But the scale of the problem has also raised a more uncomfortable question: Has American culture become less willing to expect able-bodied adults to work, even when the work available is difficult, unglamorous, or far removed from their ideal career?
Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that labor-force participation among men between the ages of 25 and 54 has declined significantly over the past several decades. In the middle of the 20th century, more than 95 percent of prime-age men were either working or actively looking for employment. Today, the rate is considerably lower, leaving millions of men outside the workforce.
That change cannot be dismissed as a temporary result of a recession. It has developed over generations.
The Bipartisan Policy Center has noted that the decline involves a complicated mix of economic and social factors. Still, the long-term withdrawal of so many men from paid employment carries consequences that go beyond monthly labor statistics.
Nicholas Eberstadt, who has written extensively about men leaving the workforce, has argued that the trend reduces living standards while also weakening habits of independence and responsibility. In his view, a society in which large numbers of able-bodied adults remain detached from regular employment risks normalizing dependency.
That concern deserves serious attention.
America’s safety net was created to help people through hardship. Programs providing disability assistance, food support, housing subsidies, and other benefits serve an important purpose, particularly for people who genuinely cannot support themselves.
But good intentions do not make a system immune from bad incentives.
When a person can combine several forms of public assistance while remaining outside the labor force, the financial difference between taking a difficult, entry-level job and not working can become surprisingly small. In some circumstances, earning additional income can also mean losing benefits, creating what economists often call a benefits cliff.
The issue is not that every person receiving assistance is lazy or taking advantage of the system. That would be an unfair simplification. The real problem is that public policy should encourage people who can work to move toward independence rather than unintentionally making long-term nonparticipation easier.
Eberstadt has described the growing population of “men without work” as being at odds with America’s traditional emphasis on self-reliance. Whatever one thinks of that argument politically, it is difficult to deny that a healthy society benefits when capable adults have a reason to participate in productive work.
Economic policy, however, is only part of the story.
Another problem is the message that young people should refuse to settle until they find work that perfectly matches their passion.
For years, students have heard some version of the advice to “follow your dreams.” There is nothing wrong with pursuing meaningful work. The problem begins when fulfillment becomes a requirement for accepting a job at all.
A position in construction, manufacturing, trucking, maintenance, or another physically demanding field may not resemble someone’s childhood ambition. That does not make the work beneath them.
Mike Rowe has repeatedly criticized the idea that passion should determine a person’s career choices. His argument is simple: opportunities often appear after someone develops competence, discipline, and experience. In other words, passion does not always come first. Sometimes people become passionate about work because they become good at it.
That is a far more practical message than telling every young worker to wait for a dream job.
Work has never existed solely to provide personal fulfillment. It pays bills, supports families, creates independence, builds skills, and gives people a place in the larger economy. Sometimes it is rewarding. Sometimes it is exhausting. Often it is both.
The disappearance of millions of men from the workforce creates problems that ripple through the economy.
Employers in construction and other skilled trades have repeatedly reported difficulty finding workers. Labor shortages can delay infrastructure projects, increase costs, and leave businesses competing for a shrinking pool of experienced employees.
There are social costs as well. Long periods without employment can separate people from routines, coworkers, institutions, and responsibilities that once connected them to their communities. A paycheck is not the only measure of a meaningful life, but regular work often provides structure that is difficult to replace.
Reversing the decline will require more than a single government program or cultural slogan. Policymakers should examine whether benefit programs discourage people from returning to work. Schools should give skilled trades the same seriousness they give four-year degrees. Employers should create clearer paths for inexperienced workers to develop useful skills.
Americans once understood that a job did not have to be perfect to be worth doing. There was dignity in showing up, learning a trade, supporting yourself, and accepting responsibility even when the work itself was difficult.