In ‘The Missing Fifth,’ New York Times columnist David Brooks attributes joblessness to lack of ambition among American men.
Twenty percent of men age 25 to 54 aren’t contributing to the workforce. Why? You might attribute the stat to the dearth of available jobs—but then you’d be in disagreement with David Brooks. In his most recent New York Times column, Brooks attributes this widespread joblessness to a lack of “dynamism.” We’re not sure we agree. So let’s break it down. (If you start to pick up on some sarcasm in what follows, that’s because we’re laying it on pretty thick.)
Brooks opens the column (“The Missing Fifth”) with a quote from a 1910 book by Henry Van Dyke, The Spirit of Dynamism: “The Spirit of America is best known in Europe by one of its qualities—energy.”
Brooks:
This has always been true. Americans have always been known for their manic dynamism. Some condemned this ambition as a grubby scrambling after money. Others saw it in loftier terms. But energy has always been the country’s saving feature. So Americans should be especially alert to signs that the country is becoming less vital and industrious.
Read: In 1910, this country was largely white and didn’t fret over (or, God forbid, spend tax dollars on) the health and wellbeing of its lower classes. Nowadays? Well, now that they took the coke out of Coca-Cola, American men have lost their vim, and the economy is paying the price:
One of those signs comes to us from the labor market. As my colleague David Leonhardt pointed out recently, in 1954, about 96 percent of American men between the ages of 25 and 54 worked. Today that number is around 80 percent. One-fifth of all men in their prime working ages are not getting up and going to work.
Yes, that 20 percent are all sleeping in and watching The Price Is Right. None of them is trying to find employment in the worst job market since, ya know, the Great Depression. These good-for-nothing layabouts are just “not getting up.”
The number of Americans on the permanent disability rolls, meanwhile, has steadily increased. Ten years ago, 5 million Americans collected a federal disability benefit. Now 8.2 million do. That costs taxpayers $115 billion a year, or about $1,500 per household.
Obviously all of these disabled people are gaming the system. None of them could actually be, ya know, disabled? Brooks doesn’t raise the issue of whether a portion of these people are cheating us out of our tax dollars; he hopes we’ll assume (as he does) that people on disability simply lack energy and dynamism. If only America was the way he imagines it used to be, everyone would just walk it off and get back to work.
Part of the problem has to do with human capital. More American men lack the emotional and professional skills they would need to contribute.
Apparently, back in 1910, men were renowned for their emotional skills. He follows up this claim with statistics on the joblessness of those without high school diplomas versus college graduates. That is, he lets the claim that more men today lack emotional skills to hold a job stand totally unsupported by evidence—or even just an anecdote about the time Tom Friedman’s caddy had a bad attitude. Here’s the accompanying graph:
Besides the increase in laziness, Brooks briefly acknowledges that there may be other reasons that the fifth is missing.
Part of the problem has to do with structural changes in the economy. Sectors like government, health care and leisure have been growing, generating jobs for college grads. Sectors like manufacturing, agriculture and energy have been getting more productive, but they have not been generating more jobs. Instead, companies are using machines or foreign workers.
A fair point. But what he covers euphemistically as “structural changes” might better be described as “lack of opportunity.” In the first 70 years of the 20th century, a man without a high school diploma could find a job (with security!) that could propel him into the middle class. The reasons for the lack of opportunity are many and various, and addressing them would be outside the scope of a single column (although it would be a lot easier if it didn’t require citing any evidence, so let’s not sell Brooks short). But take the graph that’s actually referred to in Brooks’ column:
If you’re David Brooks, this is ample evidence that men are getting lazier.
The result is this: There are probably more idle men now than at any time since the Great Depression, and this time the problem is mostly structural, not cyclical.
Idle—not “unemployed” or “out of work” or “laid off”—just freaking inert. But can there really be any doubt that a willingness to work hard is no longer sufficient to earn a living wage? We’re betting that as (or if) opportunities return, there will be a corresponding resurgence of “dynamism” among American men. But the fact that more men than ever are having a hard time say, eating, isn’t Brooks’ primary concern.
These men will find it hard to attract spouses. Many will pick up habits that have a corrosive cultural influence on those around them.
Ahh, OK, now we’re getting to the proper order of things in Brooks’ world. Men need to be the primary breadwinners, the ones “attracting spouses.” And what are these “habits that (will) have a corrosive cultural influence on those around them”? Brooks doesn’t say, of course. He trusts us readers to supply the sentiment he’s aiming at. Namely, sissified men will get in the habit of letting women buy the groceries.
Reinvigorating the missing fifth—bringing them back into the labor market and using their capabilities—will certainly require money. If this were a smart country, we’d be having a debate about how to shift money from programs that provide comfort and toward programs that spark reinvigoration.
Don’t like ads? Become a supporter and enjoy The Good Men Project ad free
Unemployment and Obamacare? Forget that jazz! We need to make these layabouts (many of whom are obviously lying about being disabled) sing for their suppers.
But, of course, that’s not what is happening. Discretionary spending, which might be used to instigate dynamism, is declining. Health care spending, which mostly provides comfort to those beyond working years, is expanding. Attempts to take money from health care to open it up for other uses are being crushed.
And what are the “other uses” that Brooks would like to see this health care money spent on? He doesn’t say. He doesn’t need to. Health care costs, in today’s political environment, are code words for “money wasted on people other than me, a stand-up guy who’s worked hard and contributed while a lot of lazy good-for-nothings have skated by.”
Next time you see a politician demagoguing Medicare, ask this: Should we be using our resources in the manner of a nation in decline or one still committed to stoking the energy of its people and continuing its rise?
There’s nothing wrong with “stoking the energy” of American men, but assuming that the “missing fifth” is just lacking energy is preposterous. What they’re lacking is opportunity. And even when they are employed, many of them are lacking a living wage, health and retirement benefits, and that quaint, antiquated thing called “job security.”
David Brooks, who says he interviews 15 politicians or scholars every week (on the advice of late columnist and legendary man of the people Robert Novak), obviously doesn’t spend too much time talking to actual men. We’d like to drop Brooks into an average city neighborhood with $500 and a diploma from the local high school and see how he fares. Heck, we’ll pitch in a Ph.D. in philosophy and a bartender’s license. He’d have a tough time getting a job as a cashier, let alone anything like his current job synthesizing politicians’ ideas about the theoretical lazy people that are bringing down the economy.
(Photo: New York Times)
Instead lets blame the greedy corporations that pay the CEO’s and executives insane salaries while outsourcing jobs to cut costs. And when they do hise people they pay them next to nothing and never offer promotions. I’m glad i’m not in the unemployed category but I’ve seen college graduates who can’t even get an entry level job because they don’t have 10 years of experience. How are these poor guys and girls suppose to get the experience if they are never hired, especially when anybody can do most of these jobs without the experienc?
Why work hard….for what? It’s not like men have families to support. Many guys I know never planned to get married. I know a guy who is a highly skilled computer and network technician. He gets 12 month contracts and then can’t find a job for 6 or more months. He is on and off the unemployment roles. I would not blame him if he found a way to get on disability. Men should not work hard….there is no reward, no healthcare, no stable income or wages, no retirement….no nothing really.
Good article, Cam – important to challenge the ignorance that wants to paint anything with one brush. I wish there were not a lot of gray in this issue but the fact is – there is. A LOT. Are a lot of men who are unemployed wanting to work and struggling to work and make ends meet? Absolutely. Are a lot of men taking care of their kids while their partner “brings home the bacon?” Absolutely. Are a lot of men (and women) gaming the system? Absolutely. And, anyone want to hazard a guess how many of those on public… Read more »
David Brooks would win a Pulitzer if they had a special category for being clueless and smug. Nice work, Cam. Emily, I agree with you that we should have workplace regulations that would permit employees more flexibility to take care of their dependents (whether they be children or aging parents). It makes no sense at all for those with jobs to be overworked while we simultaneously shunt millions of others to the sidelines. assman: “An increase in the disability rate from 5.2 to 8 is a 50% increase in 10 years. Did the population increase 50%. Nope. Than why has… Read more »
Interesting article.
I agree with others that have not pointed out the many men who are engaged in unpaid work of caring for/parenting their children. Brooks probably doesn’t do this. I wouldn’t want men to suffer the same problems SAHMs have for centuries – or their children to suffer from the harms of this as well, but I do wish the political-economic leadership would acknowledge this improvement in how men take responsibility for their children.
Speaking of which, 80% of the Senate and Congress, and 80% of CEOs are men, yet 20% of men are unemployed. Curious.
Aargh- made a typo. I meant to say “I agree with others that have . . . pointed out the many men who are engaged in unpaid work of caring for/parenting their children.”
And what I mean by being concerned for SAHDs -just like SAHMs is that I wish we would see broader marketplace reform so that parents could have work/family boundaries respected, more 30-35 hour work weeks available, etc.
Debunking? All you did was use point by point sarcasm that did little to factually address what you thought was false. Stop making excuses for people Cam. We should be pointing people towards entrepreneurial endeavours instead of patting them on the heads and telling them that they’re being screwed by ‘the man’.
People may have a hard time understanding phrases like, ‘entrepreneurial endeavours.” You should write, ‘move to China’ instead.
Move to China? More excuses for inaction. Every recession creates a surge of new companies and this one is no different. Your comment on ‘Move to China’ tells my that you only think of manufacturing as the only career choice for everyone. Shortsighted! Here is one example that is backed up by many more if you look: http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/basics/2011-03-07-lifestages07_ST_N.htm
“Read: In 1910, this country was largely white and didn’t fret over (or, God forbid, spend tax dollars on) the health and wellbeing of its lower classes. Nowadays? Well, now that they took the coke out of Coca-Cola, American men have lost their vim, and the economy is paying the price:” Cool…you have mind-reading abilities. What other superpowers do you possess? “Obviously all of these disabled people are gaming the system. None of them could actually be, ya know, disabled? Brooks doesn’t raise the issue of whether a portion of these people are cheating us out of our tax dollars;… Read more »
You have a very appropriate screenname, “assman”
Did the population of people over the age of 55 increase? Sure as hell it did; in most western countries, the ageing of the population is a huge problem. Illnesses and injuries that are going to plague people above a certain age are going to have a large amount to do with an increase in disability in the general population.
Thank you for this piece, Cam. And thanks to TGMP for addressing the heart of the issue for tens of millions of men in American today. For a number of practical policy suggestions to address the issue see the April 30 issue of The Economist, with a 3-page spread on the causes and potential solutions to the 1 in 5 level of unemployment among American men (the US is far and away the worst performing of the OECD countries in terms of utilizing the skills of men). Mike, no question there is some scamming of the system, but ask yourself… Read more »
I disagree with some of the points Brooks makes but I’m 100% with him regarding disability fraud. I work in the medical field, dealing with these so-called “disabled” people and I’ll tell you from my first hand experience that at least 35% are absolutely frauding the system. I see many young men (and women) that are labeled disabled by choice; they know how to work the system to their advantage. Why bother working? They can live comfortable, easy (though cash strapped) lives. If they don’t work they can collect food stamps, get SSI and have free health coverage. Plenty of… Read more »
So just because 35% fraud the system then it’s okay to condemn a system of support according to you?
So just because 1 in 3 people fraud the system we should keep throwing good money after bad at it as if it’s a cost of doing business?
Most people, like me, don’t support removing social programs that help people in need. We support reforming social programs to provide a 35% type savings while still providing support to those that REALLY need it. The more optimized a system is, the better the support for those that REALLY need it will be.
Mike, There are a lot of desperate unemployed people who’s benefits have run out, who are ineligible for welfare, who have very few options. Basically, they can grab a ski mask and a gun and start robbing, or get a triple beam and some dextrose and start selling meth, or they can take out a Craigslist ad and swallow semen for a living, or they can creatively fill out a disability application to get a modest income. If you lost your “medical field” job and were in their shoes, what would YOU do? Don’t judge a person until you’ve walked… Read more »
Usually Books is one of the few Republicans I can tolerate. He’s obviously speaking to the party base right here. Believing the unemployed to be lazy ne’er do wells can remove a lot of guilt.
That’s probably at play here. But never discount the effect a long stint at National Review will have on a person’s outlook. If you believe character is the plupart of success—and you’d have to if you wanted to work for Wiiliam F. Buckley—-then pieces like this one are to be expected every so often.
And I bet some of the proportion of male workers shown in the graph include stay-at-home dads. From non-existent in 1910, to “actually existent” nowadays, even if in stark minority.
But yeah, this attitude that “men who don’t work (outside the home) are just lazy” is certainly not helping on the shared parenting front.
In Santa Rosa 5,000 people applied for 120 jobs at an In&Out Burger………… most men want to work, most women do to, for every job opening there are many applicants, blaming people for being lazy is ”laziness” itself. There are over 1 billion unemployed people on the planet.
Love this magazine. But Mr. Martin, as a single, educated and dynamic woman, I have to agree with Mr. Brooks. And I’m pretty far left of center when it comes to most issues. I believe there’s plenty of data to back him up, too. Do everyone a favor – quit whining about the economy. It only makes things worse. Actually, quit whining period – that might reveal a whole wellspring of creativity and energy you (all) never knew existed. The blame game is zero sum. Just say no. And then Move On. Adapt. Like all species do. We women actually… Read more »
Thats right, folks !
Dara has figured it all out. All we need to do is man the eff up and do our godgiven job as men !
Like we have never heard that before.
So,in the fairy tail world you live in, there are lots of jobs, and men are just too lazy to take them.
In the REAL WORLD there aren’t enough jobs to go around (for men AND women) and lots of men (and women) are out of work through no fault of their own.
Basically, in the REAL WORLD the Wall Street greedheads broke the economy with their parasitic speculation, and working class Americans (of both genders) are now paying the price.
Don’t blame working class men for the sins of Wall Street financiers!
Good for Cam Martin for pointing out the absurity of Brook’s thesis. I work with men, both employed and unemployed. Believe me when I say that men want to work. We want to contribute to the lives of our families and to the society at large. Men already blame themselves when they aren’t able to be “breadwinners.” They see themselves as “losers” despite ample evidence that the cause of their unemployment is systemic, not because of personal failure or lack of energy and ambition. This is the reason the suicide rate skyrockets for unemployed men, particularily those in mid-life and… Read more »