[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:

{Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture.

Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY

Bible Help

Libertysflame Database Updated

Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit!

Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war

Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview

Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion

Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney.

Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared

Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin

How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End?

What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery!

2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years

2024 and beyond in prophecy

Questions

This Speech Just Broke the Internet

This AMAZING Math Formula Will Teach You About God!

The GOSPEL of the ALIENS | Fallen Angels | Giants | Anunnaki

The IMAGE of the BEAST Revealed (REV 13) - WARNING: Not for Everyone

WEF Calls for AI to Replace Voters: ‘Why Do We Need Elections?’

The OCCULT Burger king EXPOSED

PANERA BREAD Antichrist message EXPOSED

The OCCULT Cheesecake Factory EXPOSED

Satanist And Witches Encounter The Cross

History and Beliefs of the Waldensians

Rome’s Persecution of the Bible

Evolutionists, You’ve Been Caught Lying About Fossils

Raw Streets of NYC Migrant Crisis that they don't show on Tv

Meet DarkBERT - AI Model Trained On DARK WEB

[NEW!] Jaw-dropping 666 Discovery Utterly Proves the King James Bible is God's Preserved Word

ALERT!!! THE MOST IMPORTANT INFORMATION WILL SOON BE POSTED HERE


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Economy
See other Economy Articles

Title: Utter Decimation: Men in Labor Force Down to 78 Percent in 2015
Source: [None]
URL Source: http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/m ... bor-force-down-78-percent-2015
Published: Feb 10, 2017
Author: Martin Morse Wooster
Post Date: 2017-02-10 10:56:25 by Justified
Keywords: None
Views: 6279
Comments: 25

Utter Decimation: Men in Labor Force Down to 78 Percent in 2015 By Martin Morse Wooster | February 9, 2017 | 1:46 PM EST

A man plays an Xbox game at his home in Jupiter, Florida. (AP Photo/Rick Silva)

As the Trump administration continues to figure out ways to put people back to work, they have to deal with a simple demographic fact: there are tens of millions of American men, in the prime years of their working lives, who have dropped out of the labor force. It’s not that these men are trying, and failing, to get jobs. They’ve simply given up.

What is causing this problem and what can be done about it? Nicholas Eberstadt explores this issue in "Men Without Work: The Invisible Crisis."

Eberstadt is a long-time fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and one of the leading experts in global population trends. (AEI has been a client since 1990. Most recently I spent six months in 2016 providing research to AEI. I do not currently have any contracts with AEI.) He is also, for reasons I have never fully understood, one of the world’s keenest observers of North Korea. He doesn’t usually cover American domestic issues, but anyone interested in social trends has to take him very seriously.

American miners. (AP)

The crucial statistic comes from a time series kept by the Bureau of Labor Statistics’s Current Population Survey called “Age-Structure Employment-to-Population Ratio. U.S. Males, 20-64.” This chart shows that in 1967 over 90 percent of American males age 20-64 were working. The percentage fell by 10 percent so that by 1983 it was down to around 80 percent. Between 80-84 percent of American men were in the labor force between 1980 and 2007.

Then the Great Recession hit, and the percentage of men working fell from 82 percent to 76 percent by 2011. Although there’s been some recovery, the percentage of men in the labor force in 2015 had only risen to 78 percent.

What this means, says Eberstadt, is that 10.5 million men who would have been working in 1967 are not working in 2015—including six million men between ages 25-54.

“Romans used the word ‘decimation’ to describe the loss of a tenth of a given unit of men,” Eberstadt writes. “The United States has suffered something akin to the decimation of the labor force over the past 50 years.”

As I understand the rules, these men aren’t counted in employment statistics; when we say the unemployment rate is under six percent, it doesn’t include these men who are choosing not to work. If they were included the unemployment numbers would be far higher.

What are these men doing? Some of them are taking classes to improve their skills. Eberstadt thinks that perhaps a million men in this age bracket are undergoing education or other training. That still leaves ten million men unaccounted for.

Accounting for the activity of these men leads Eberstadt to uncover the largest and most interesting piece of news in his book. We know that from the 1970s onward the U.S. sent more people to prison than comparable Western nations. The effort to reduce this prison population, and to put convicted felons back to work, has been one of the rare cases of cooperation between the left and right. As I noted in 2015, the issue of prison reform is one where the Koch brothers and liberal activist Van Jones are on the same side.

Being a felon is a formidable barrier to re-entering the labor force. Eberstadt does the best he can with the sketchy statistics available, but he suggests that it’s about three times as likely for felons to be out of work than non-felons, with rates higher for Latino and African-American men.

Obviously if we’re going to get felons off the streets and into jobs, we need to know how much of an employment barrier felonies actually are. This would be a good project for a liberal foundation—say Ford or MacArthur—with a deep interest in criminal justice reform.

Henry Olsen of the Ethics and Public Policy Center notes in a comment for this book an additional reason for the rise in male non-employment: the shrinking military. “The military used to take a very large share of low-skilled men out of the labor force,” Olsen writes, particularly before the end of the draft in 1972. A shrinking military not only means fewer jobs for these low-skilled workers, but also fewer opportunities for these workers to learn responsibility and good work habits from their time under arms.

What are these non-working men doing? The best evidence comes from the American Time Use Survey, produced by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In 2014, according to this survey, men who said they were “not employed nor in education or training” (or NEETs) said they spent seven minutes a day working and five minutes a day on education. However, they said they spent 489 minutes a day—or over eight hours—on “socializing, relaxing, and leisure,” with about six of those hours spent watching “television and movies (not religious).”

The National Opinion Research Center’s General Social Survey adds to our knowledge of what non-working men aren’t doing. According to this survey, they are less likely to go to church, read a daily newspaper, volunteer, or vote than were comparable men who worked.

Finally, we should note that the problem Eberstadt is describing is limited to men. Women drop out of the labor force regularly to raise children, but their parenting ensures they have valuable skills (beginning with a keen sense of time management) that ensure that when they want to get jobs they are more readily hired by employers than are men who drop out of work and spend their days watching everything on Netflix or getting to the highest levels of video games.

Eberstadt shows the depth of this non-employment problem and leaves it to others to come up with sensible solutions. But he warns that having millions of non-employed American men is a problem that threatens civil society.

“To a distressing degree,” he writes, “these men appear to have relinquished what we think of ordinarily as adult responsibilities not only as breadwinners but as parents, family members, community members, and citizens. Having largely freed themselves of such obligations, they fill their days in the pursuit of more immediate sources of gratification.”

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: Justified (#0)

How do they eat, house and clothe themselves?

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-02-10   12:31:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: Vicomte13 (#1)

With assholes in congress who voted to steal your money and give it to deadbeats.

Remember what God said. Don't work don't eat. Unless you are helpless of course.

A K A Stone  posted on  2017-02-10   12:40:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: A K A Stone (#2)

Remember what God said. Don't work don't eat.

God did not say that. Paul said that.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-02-10   13:00:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: Vicomte13 (#3)

Remember what God said. Don't work don't eat. God did not say that. Paul said that.

2 Timothy 3:16-17King James Version (KJV)

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

A K A Stone  posted on  2017-02-10   13:44:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: A K A Stone (#4)

All scripture is given by inspiration of God,

Yes, that's right. All Scripture is inspired by God (including those books you guys cut out of your KJV 1700 years after the fact).

And the Scripture itself, within the Scripture, tells you who is speaking.

When God speaks and gives law, God inspired the writers to make that plain.

Satan also speaks in Scripture several times. So, shall you take what Satan says and say "It's God's word!" No, it's Satan's words. God inspired the authors to write it in there, but not so that one can take those words and say that they are law for all time.

GOD is the source of all law.

Paul wrote something in his letters to a particular set of people in a particular time, that faced a particular problem. Those are Paul's words to them. They are NOT God's Law for all time.

You're treating the Bible as a Magic God Maker, that transforms every word of every man (or demon) in it into coequal authority with God's Own Words in there. That's idolatry - elevating the authority of the Bible above God.

God's law is to feed the sick, the poor, the orphan, the widow. God never said not to feed those who do not work.

Paul was addressing a particular group of people freeloading off the Church, coming to eat the agape meals but neither contributing nor working. That was Paul's solution in that church to those people. Paul is not God, and "He who will not work shall not eat" is not a divine commandment or a law of God. It's a maxim for dealing with freeloaders in a church, not a divine commandment regarding the unemployed.

You're treating a book as being higher than God in authority. That's idolatry and you should see what you are doing and stop it.

God inspired the book, yes, INCLUDING the parts of the book that very explicitly (and uniformly) lay out when God, specifically, is speaking and giving law.

God gives divine law. Men do not.

Paul is not God.

God never said "Don't work, don't eat." Paul said it. It is not a divine commandment. And it does not apply generically to unemployment. It applied to the freeloaders on the agape meals in a particular Church, and perhaps to freeloaders in agape meals in other churches. I don't know of any Church that has agape meals today.

So, you've misapplied what Paul was saying, generalizing to things that Paul was not talking about.

AND you've elevated the words of Paul to being divine commandments of God.

And the reason you think you are correct is because in another part of the Bible Paul, writing to a young priest, says that the Scriptures are inspired by God and good for instruction.

You have misread this to mean that every word in the Bible is a divine commandment of God, and that God's inspiration that caused the writers to clearly identify when God was speaking and when others were speaking is irrelevant.

By the same logic, then, Satan's words are also commandments of God, because all Scripture is inspired, and Satan's words are in Scripture. Even you know that's not true, and you would say "But Scripture SAYS it's Satan speaking." To which I would reply: EXACTLY! That's how you know that it's Satan, not God. Likewise, when it's Paul and the text doesn't say God is speaking, it's Paul, not God.

Jesus said that we live by every word that proceeds forth out of the mouth of God. Paul's words did not "proceed forth out of the mouth of God". "He who does not work shall not eat" is Paul's words, not God's, and it applies to a particular circumstances, not as the general divine commandment you've made of it.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-02-10   14:02:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: Vicomte13 (#5)

That's well thought and and well articulated, Vicomte.

I have a question I have pondered of late. If you care to answer I would be interested in your response. Or anyone else who might chose to answer.

Can God get angry? If so, has He gotten angry in the past, and could He get angry in the present or the future?

Thanks.

Pinguinite  posted on  2017-02-11   2:04:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: Pinguinite (#6)

Yes, yes, if the present is the time foretold, yes.

A K A Stone  posted on  2017-02-11   2:33:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: Vicomte13 (#5)

Lots of errors on your part imo. Maybe ill get back to you later on it.

A K A Stone  posted on  2017-02-11   2:36:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: Vicomte13 (#5)

All Scripture is inspired by God (including those books you guys cut out of your KJV 1700 years after the fact).

The orginal Authorized Version did include the Apocrypha. That appendix was removed in later editions.

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-02-11   12:06:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: A K A Stone, Vicomte13 (#7)

Yes, yes, if the present is the time foretold, yes.

I ask because I see anger as a sign of weakness. It reflects a lack of understanding, or patience, or both. When we see a co-worker, associate or friend fly off the handle, the typical Christian response is to pray for that person or to reach out and try to console them. So when people get angry, it's viewed as an indication that someone needs help. So why then is it not viewed as a weakness when God becomes angry?

This is not the same as saying that God has no right to be angry. If someone steals your car, you've been personally offended and we wouldn't consider that person's anger to be unjustified. But unlike God, a car theft victim would not expect his car to be stolen, would not know who stole it, and would be severely burdened financially with the outcome, none of which applies to God.

I can only come to the conclusion that God does not, can not, and will not ever become angry. Anger is indeed a sign of weakness or ignorance, neither of which apply to God. Those biblical citations about God becoming angry are human personifications cast upon God by authors who think God is like a human person in being subject to anger. But I think the reality is that God is far, far beyond that.

Pinguinite  posted on  2017-02-11   12:50:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: Pinguinite, A K A Stone, Vicomte13 (#10)

I can only come to the conclusion that God does not, can not, and will not ever become angry. Anger is indeed a sign of weakness or ignorance, neither of which apply to God. Those biblical citations about God becoming angry are human personifications cast upon God by authors who think God is like a human person in being subject to anger. But I think the reality is that God is far, far beyond that.

Not to preach too much but I don't think you grasp the difference between righteous anger and unrighteous anger as presented in scripture.

God's anger with mankind is always of the righteous kind, by definition. A man's anger can be judged righteous or unrighteous. In the New Testament, it consists mostly of instruction on avoiding unrighteous anger but there are instances of righteous anger as well.

Anger, in and of itself, is not a sin. No more than lust, in and of itself, is a sin.

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-02-11   15:20:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: Tooconservative (#11)

Thanks for commenting.

I don't think you grasp the difference between righteous anger and unrighteous anger as presented in scripture.

I thought I touched on the concept with the illustration of one's car being stolen.

Anger, in and of itself, is not a sin. No more than lust, in and of itself, is a sin.

I didn't say it was a sin. I said it was a weakness. I would still consider one being subject to anger a weakness, whether "righteous" or not. I see it as reflecting a lack of wisdom, knowledge, patience and/or love, none of which God is considered to be lacking.

Pinguinite  posted on  2017-02-11   21:00:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: Pinguinite (#6)

Can God get angry? If so, has He gotten angry in the past, and could He get angry in the present or the future?

Yes. God's wrath is a terrible thing too. We are made in God's image after his likeness, and our spirit is breathed into us by him, who created it. All of the universe reflects God's opinions, thoughts and temperament.

And God has revealed his temperament as well, and it's recorded in Scripture.

God has emotions. Jesus, his son, had emotions, and Jesus became angry at times. The Father also has emotions and becomes indignant and wrathful. And when he does, there is Hell to pay, so to speak.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-02-11   22:13:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: Tooconservative (#9)

The orginal Authorized Version did include the Apocrypha. That appendix was removed in later editions.

So, are those books in the Scripture or not?

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-02-11   22:14:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: Vicomte13 (#13)

Thanks.

Pinguinite  posted on  2017-02-12   1:56:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: Vicomte13 (#14)

So, are those books in the Scripture or not?

In the AV 1611, they were in an appendix sandwiched between the OT and the NT.

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-02-12   12:48:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: Pinguinite (#12)

4 verses on a jealous and angry God in the OT at Bible Gateway.

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-02-12   12:54:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: Tooconservative (#17)

4 verses on a jealous and angry God in the OT

Yes, I'm aware of the jealous reference too. And I can't buy that either.

If one is to start with the premise that the Bible is the Word of God, and then use it to come up with a characteristic description of God, then yes, you'll come up with one that portrays God as subject to anger and jealousy. (Or to be fair, whatever the original Hebrew word for "jealous" is/was, as I could see that term having some wiggle room of meaning).

However, if we apply some critical thought to the subject, and consider that God also is considered to have infinite qualities of knowledge about all that we will ever do, infinite love for us as His children, and infinite patience (unless one might see God as not necessarily having that quality) then the idea that He could be made angry or jealous simply does not add up. Yes, we can simply accept that He can be made angry or jealous and move on, but those inconsistencies could be a warning sign that our information isn't quite right.

And I don't think it is.

Pinguinite  posted on  2017-02-12   13:12:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: Tooconservative (#16)

In the AV 1611, they were in an appendix sandwiched between the OT and the NT.

I know they are in the 1611 Authorized Version. And I know they are not printed in the modern publications of the KJV. My question is: are they SCRIPTURE or not?

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-02-12   13:29:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: Pinguinite (#18)

And I don't think it is.

That's fine. But you'll have to devise your own set of attributes of God, then, because you won't be able to use the old books that lists the ones it lists.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-02-12   13:30:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: Vicomte13 (#19)

I know they are in the 1611 Authorized Version. And I know they are not printed in the modern publications of the KJV. My question is: are they SCRIPTURE or not?

I wasn't addressing any broader questions, merely defending the original AV 1611. It is noteworthy that the King James and his committee thought it unexceptional to include them in their bible design. Shortly thereafter, it seems the Anglicans got more Protestanty and there was still some blowback ongoing against the various proclamations of the Council of Trent, some sixty years earlier. So the Apocrypha disappeared from subsequent versions of the KJV, even those used by high-church Protestant types.

The history of these various versions does offer some insights in the churches of their time. Even the Vatican finally got involved in vernacular bible versions.

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-02-12   14:38:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: Tooconservative (#21)

Ok. Well, to bridge the gap I am always willing to use the KJV as the base text when discussing Scripture, and of course it is my preference to use the AV 1611 because it is a full, unabridged Bible containing those texts that contain such important doctrinal points.

So, it sounds as though you and I would be able to discuss Scripture based on a common agreed up Scripture: the AV `1611, as that contains the full body of Scripture (other than the few extra books in certain Eastern and Oriental canons, which are also Scripture, but not in the Western canon).

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-02-12   16:58:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: Vicomte13 (#20)

That's fine. But you'll have to devise your own set of attributes of God, then, because you won't be able to use the old books that lists the ones it lists.

That makes me think of the New Testament idea of knowing Jesus. "I know my sheep, and my sheep know me". (Pulling from memory but I think that's close enough if not exact). Well, if you know someone, why do you need to look in a book to know what they are like and how they would react? Do we have a personal relationship with God or not?

Pinguinite  posted on  2017-02-13   0:55:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: Pinguinite (#23) (Edited)

That makes me think of the New Testament idea of knowing Jesus. "I know my sheep, and my sheep know me". (Pulling from memory but I think that's close enough if not exact). Well, if you know someone, why do you need to look in a book to know what they are like and how they would react? Do we have a personal relationship with God or not?

The people who rely exclusively on the Holy Spirit, without the resort to text or ministers or structure, are the Quakers. They are pacifists, which, it seems to me, is what God really asks of us.

I also know him to not want us to accumulate any excess wealth, that we are to use it instead to help secure others.

Ostentatious displays of wealth, huge houses, sports cars, yachts and jets and flashy jewels - all of that - are obviously contrary to what God wants of us. All of that money should have been spent instead raising up other people out of desperation.

I have a personal relationship with God, and I know that's what God is like and how God reacts to things, so when I look out at the world and see people behaving otherwise, or thinking otherwise, I know that they are opposed to God, even if they read their book and think they are God's friends and allies. I read their book too, and I see that in that book God says what I say about God, so what I know of God directly vouches for the validity of the book. Most Americans love money and want security through money much more than they want to listen to God. And most Americans do not trust God to protect them and are much more violent people than God wants us to be.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-02-13   8:50:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: Vicomte13 (#24)

Ostentatious displays of wealth, huge houses, sports cars, yachts and jets and flashy jewels - all of that - are obviously contrary to what God wants of us. All of that money should have been spent instead raising up other people out of desperation.

I would agree that such displays of wealth are of no value and are perhaps harmful. I also agree that helping others is what we should do. But we may disagree on the reasons.

I say that how much other less fortunate people actually benefit from our decisions is actually not very important to God. So a wealthy man who helps millions will not necessarily be viewed as having lived a a more valued life than someone who helps one person. It's the decisions themselves we make that define us.

What is the purpose of life itself? Why are we here? What is the purpose of hardship and tragedy? These are a few questions I have never found a satisfactory answer for in Christianity or the Bible.

Pinguinite  posted on  2017-02-14   14:07:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com