The Costs of the Sexual Revolution

[David_N]

Yes, and I'm sure that's because the 1960s made it socially acceptable for people to hump one another like animals whenever they feel like it.

Oh! Wait! I'm not, because that's stupid. Why are you people trying to make this ridiculous assertion, again? :roll:



OMG! Thinks of the wimminz!! :scared

Care to provide any evidence suggesting that rape and domestic violence were all that more common back then to begin with?



In other words, you've got nothing, but you insist on opening your mouth anyway, simply because you like making obnoxious noises. :lol:



You are, apparently, given how much time you spent in the abortion subforum, and how your entire political philosophy seems to be aimed around maintaining the system I mentioned. :lol:



NPR is ****. While I'm not surprised you would quote them, a great many better sources are available. Brookings - The Marriage Crisis Hurts Social Mobility

FYI, "two decades ago" would have been 1995. The welfare state, gangsta culture, and the problem with single motherhood were already more than "locked in" themselves by that point.



Or, we could focus on growing the economy, as to create actual jobs for these people to work, while simultaneously encouraging them to engage in behaviors more likely to get them out of poverty, rather than keep them in. :roll:

Is the Left interested in any of that? Nope! They'd much rather have an underclass of desperate state dependent proles they can count on to vote for them every election cycle.



I want them to do their civic duty by providing the next generation, and actually raising them in a satisfactory manner, yes.



Easily debunked propaganda is debunked propaganda.

Atheists actually have the highest divorce rate of any religious group when you factor in the fact that they're also simply the least likely to marry in the first place. Conservative Middle Class Catholics and Evangelicals have the lowest.

Oh! Wait! I'm not, because that's stupid. Why are you people trying to make this ridiculous assertion, again?

I did?

In other words, you've got nothing, but you insist on opening your mouth anyway, simply because you like making obnoxious noises.

Notice how you ignore the attitudes towards women that were present.

You are, apparently, given how much time you spent in the abortion subforum, and how your entire political philosophy seems to be aimed around maintaining the system I mentioned.

So support of abortion is somehow equal to wanting to "purge the poor?"
Uh, the source you quoted in regards to marriage and mobility doesn't support your point, mobility still exists, and hasn't really been going down. It's true that poor people have a hard time moving up, we don't disagree.

Or, we could focus on growing the economy, as to create actual jobs for these people to work, while simultaneously encouraging them to engage in behaviors more likely to get them out of poverty, rather than keep them in.

Rhetoric. What does this mean? Cut taxes? That's all conservatives offer. They certainly don't want the government to employ these people.
Ah, tell people not to have sex, because that works EVERYTIME.

Is the Left interested in any of that? Nope! They'd much rather have an underclass of desperate state dependent proles they can count on to vote for them every election cycle.

Yes, they are. The left wants to raise wages so people have to rely less on these programs some of the right wing rallies against.
You can't not raise wages and cut the safety net.

I'm trying to find where you got your chart.
Exact link.

 

[Gathomas88]

Notice how you ignore the attitudes towards women that were present.

Modern views of the "attitudes" towards women in past decades tend to be ridiculous propagandistic caricatures at best, and outright lies at worst.

So support of abortion is somehow equal to wanting to "purge the poor?"

Who do you think has the vast majority of abortions? You people were the ones bragging about how that brought the crime rate down, not me. :shrug:

Uh, the source you quoted in regards to marriage and mobility doesn't support your point, mobility still exists, and hasn't really been going down. It's true that poor people have a hard time moving up, we don't disagree.

A state of affairs which has been made much worse by the current epidemic of single motherhood.

Rhetoric. What does this mean? Cut taxes? That's all conservatives offer. They certainly don't want the government to employ these people.

Ah, tell people not to have sex, because that works EVERYTIME.

Yes, they are. The left wants to raise wages so people have to rely less on these programs some of the right wing rallies against.
You can't not raise wages and cut the safety net.

Tax cuts aim at stimulating growth in businesses and the economy as a whole, so that more workers can be employed, and hopefully get out of poverty and no longer need state assistance. The Left's policies actually achieve the exact opposite. They slow growth and diminish employment, at the cost of making the smaller number of jobs which already exist cushier, and expanding the welfare state for the unemployed.

Hell! Join the ****ing Army for all I care. It's better than living "off the dole," it provides a valuable service to the nation, and it actually creates opportunities for education and future advancement.

I'm trying to find where you got your chart.
Exact link.

1964

Knock yourself out.

 

[SmartCat]

Regardless of the social costs of the sexual revolution, many people have enjoyed it. That it why it happened. The government did not force it on anyone.

In The Hidden Agenda of the Political Mind Jason Weeden & Robert Kurzban point out what should be obvious: those who enjoy casual sex and sexual variety and who have little interest in in marriage have enjoyed it; those who have little interest in casual sex and sexual variety and who value marriage have not.

Sexual inclinations like these overlap. Nevertheless, women are more likely to be in the second category. For them the sexual revolution has made it more difficult for them to find men who are willing to wait until marriage before having sex.

The Hite Report was written by Shere Hite, and published by Macmillan Publishing Company in 1976. This is based on responses by about 3,000 women to a questionnaire Ms Hite had printed in various media.

In the chapter on the sexual revolution some women expressed approval. Others wrote statements like, "Boys are constantly looking laid, girls are constantly getting hurt. What else is new?"

And, "The sexual revolution was late sixties bull****. it was about male liberation, women being shared property instead of private property. And we know which kind of property gets better treatment."

The only benefit I can see in the sexual revolution is that it seems to have reduced the birth rate. When sex is separated from marriage, it is also separated from procreation.

 

[SmartCat]

Tax cuts aim at stimulating growth in businesses and the economy as a whole, so that more workers can be employed, and hopefully get out of poverty and no longer need state assistance. The Left's policies actually achieve the exact opposite. They slow growth and diminish employment, at the cost of making the smaller number of jobs which already exist cushier, and expanding the welfare state for the unemployed.

This is a side issue. Nevertheless, during the twentieth century there was nearly always more growth in the per capita gross domestic produce in constant dollars, and more growth in the stock market and the jobs market under Democratic presidents, when the top tax rate was usually higher.

Documentation on request.

 

[cpwill]

Regardless of the social costs of the sexual revolution, many people have enjoyed it. That it why it happened. The government did not force it on anyone.

In The Hidden Agenda of the Political Mind Jason Weeden & Robert Kurzban point out what should be obvious: those who enjoy casual sex and sexual variety and who have little interest in in marriage have enjoyed it; those who have little interest in casual sex and sexual variety and who value marriage have not.

Sexual inclinations like these overlap. Nevertheless, women are more likely to be in the second category. For them the sexual revolution has made it more difficult for them to find men who are willing to wait until marriage before having sex.

The Hite Report was written by Shere Hite, and published by Macmillan Publishing Company in 1976. This is based on responses by about 3,000 women to a questionnaire Ms Hite had printed in various media.

In the chapter on the sexual revolution some women expressed approval. Others wrote statements like, "Boys are constantly looking laid, girls are constantly getting hurt. What else is new?"

And, "The sexual revolution was late sixties bull****. it was about male liberation, women being shared property instead of private property. And we know which kind of property gets better treatment."

The only benefit I can see in the sexual revolution is that it seems to have reduced the birth rate. When sex is separated from marriage, it is also separated from procreation.

While I broadly concur (as does the available social science) with your depiction of the negative impacts of the loss of family formation (especially on children), I don't necessarily see how that is a benefit. Social Security and Medicare are closing in on collapse because of that reduced birth rate, and growth slows as well.

 

[Gathomas88]

This is a side issue. Nevertheless, during the twentieth century there was nearly always more growth in the per capita gross domestic produce in constant dollars, and more growth in the stock market and the jobs market under Democratic presidents, when the top tax rate was usually higher.

Documentation on request.

I suspect that has more to do with the eras over which those presidents resided than anything else. A whole string of Democratic presidents got to oversee the economic boom created by post-WW2 reconstruction, for example, even though their policies ultimately did backfire and result in the "Stagflation" crisis of the 1970s. Clinton, meanwhile, got to oversee the post-Cold War globalization and technology boom, in an economy largely based upon Neo-Liberal reforms instituted by Reagan in the previous decade.

As you said, however, this is a side issue.

 

[SmartCat]

I have a lifetime of experience with white men, I know they're all angry and hate muslims. Trust me, I was raised in the south. YOU CAN'T REFUTE THAT. :comp:

I am a white man. Despite a life that has often been unhappy and unsuccessful I am not angry. Having read the Koran in three English translations, I am ambivalent about the Koran, Islam, and Muslims.

My thread discusses the costs of the sexual revolution. I appreciate the way Islam has been more sucessful in restricting sex to marriage than Christianity. At the same time, I regret the fact that in Islamic societies rape victims are often punished more severely than rapists. Nevertheless, I suspect that rape is much less common in Islamic societies than in the West.

 

[cpwill]

If someone gets married, does that automatically make them loving and nurturing, or are loving and nurturing people more likely to stay married? I think you're confusing cause and effect here.

It's both. Being involved daily in their childs' life makes men into better fathers, and men who are likely to be better fathers are more likely to want to be involved daily in their childs' life.

Before the Oh But You Can't Say What If He Doesn't Marry But Still, the stats are fairly plain on that one - as a rule (exceptions agreeably exist to prove it - I know a couple) men who are not married to their childs' mother are not involved or not heavily involved in their childs' daily life.

We see similar effects on marriage and income - those who are married tend to succeed more, but those who are more likely to succeed more also tend to be more likely to become married. The effects are mutually-reinforcing cycles.

 

[SmartCat]

I suspect that has more to do with the eras over which those presidents resided than anything else. A whole string of Democratic presidents got to oversee the economic boom created by post-WW2 reconstruction, for example, even though their policies ultimately did backfire and result in the "Stagflation" crisis of the 1970s. Clinton, meanwhile, got to oversee the post-Cold War globalization and technology boom, in an economy largely based upon Neo-Liberal reforms instituted by Reagan in the previous decade.

As you said, however, this is a side issue.

I look forward to discussing this matter with you in another thread, perhaps one you begin.

 

[SmartCat]

While I broadly concur (as does the available social science) with your depiction of the negative impacts of the loss of family formation (especially on children), I don't necessarily see how that is a benefit. Social Security and Medicare are closing in on collapse because of that reduced birth rate, and growth slows as well.

I am familiar with the argument that we need more young people to take care of the old people. However, the old people will die, the young people will get old, and we will still have to contend with problems cause by population growth.

Population growth is a major, perhaps the major reason for Islamic terrorism. Millions of young Islamic men enter job markets that have little use for them. Because they believe that they have little to live for, they long for meaningful deaths. Because they believe that they cannot support a wife they long for the affections of 72 Heavenly virgins who can only be wooed by killing people on earth.

 

[cpwill]

In The Hidden Agenda of the Political Mind Jason Weeden & Robert Kurzban claim on the basis of a survey they mention in their appendix, but whose name I unfortunately forget, that when both marriage partners are virgins there is am 85% chance that they will stay married.

Currently, the divorce rate is over 50%. The illegitimacy rate is over 40%. Plenty of evidence exists that when children are raised by both parents living together in matrimony they tend to do much better in life than children no so raised.

---------

Children in single-parent households are burdened not only with profound economic disadvantages, but are also far likelier to eventually get into trouble with the law. As a Heritage Foundation analysis notes, youngsters raised by single parents, as compared to those who grow up in intact married homes, are much more likely to be physically abused; to be treated for emotional and behavioral disorders; to smoke, drink, and use drugs; to behave aggressively and violently; to engage in criminal activity; and to be arrested for a juvenile crime. According to the National Fatherhood Initiative, 60% of rapists, 72% of adolescent murderers, and 70% of long-term prison inmates are men who grew up in fatherless homes.
Poverty and Crime - Discover the Networks

---------

When Alfred Kinsey published Sexual Behavior in the Human Female in 1953 many Americans were shocked by his assertion that fifty percent of American brides were not virgins. Now it seems unusual that fifty percent of American brides were virgins. Nevertheless, Kinsey seems to have overestimated the percentage of American homosexuals, so it is reasonable to suspect that he underestimated the percentage of bridal virgins.

In a country like the United States there is little the government can to do influence sexual behavior. Consequently, sexual behavior is not really a political issue. This is why the religious right has been unable to restore the ethos of the 1950, when the illegitimacy rate in the United States was six percent.

Nevertheless, I think it is beneficial to look back on the 1950's and measure what we've lost.

For the record, I am a Democrat who is in favor of legalized abortion and gay marriage. However, I have always viewed the religious right with interest, and a degree of sympathy.

This is one of those areas where both the Thinking Left and the Thinking Right agree on the nature of the problem (and disagree perhaps on ways to go about mitigating or solving it). The unthinking right blames minorities, and the unthinking left pretends it isn't a problem.

I would point out, however, that, while there is little that the US Government can do to influence sexual behavior, there is some good it can do to influence marriage behavior. In particular, it can get rid of marriage penalties in the social safety net and tax structures. If you are low-income in this country, the government can and will punish you to the tune of thousands of dollars if you marry the other parent of your children. That's destructive, and it creates perverse incentives that we should get rid of.

 

[Gathomas88]

Regardless of the social costs of the sexual revolution, many people have enjoyed it. That it why it happened. The government did not force it on anyone.

In The Hidden Agenda of the Political Mind Jason Weeden & Robert Kurzban point out what should be obvious: those who enjoy casual sex and sexual variety and who have little interest in in marriage have enjoyed it; those who have little interest in casual sex and sexual variety and who value marriage have not.

Sexual inclinations like these overlap. Nevertheless, women are more likely to be in the second category. For them the sexual revolution has made it more difficult for them to find men who are willing to wait until marriage before having sex.

The Hite Report was written by Shere Hite, and published by Macmillan Publishing Company in 1976. This is based on responses by about 3,000 women to a questionnaire Ms Hite had printed in various media.

In the chapter on the sexual revolution some women expressed approval. Others wrote statements like, "Boys are constantly looking laid, girls are constantly getting hurt. What else is new?"

And, "The sexual revolution was late sixties bull****. it was about male liberation, women being shared property instead of private property. And we know which kind of property gets better treatment."

The only benefit I can see in the sexual revolution is that it seems to have reduced the birth rate. When sex is separated from marriage, it is also separated from procreation.

In fairness, there's supposedly been a bit of a female "counter-attack" going on in this regard for the last decade or so. However, I'd dispute how effective that's really been (women still report far more regret and dissatisfaction with casual sex than men, and there's also very little doubt that hyper-promiscuous men are still the overall winners here in terms of outcomes).

I'd also hardly say that women embracing "sexual liberation" to a greater degree has really been a "good" thing for society. All it's really resulted in is the creation of a large minority of young women out there who are just as nasty, callous, misbehaved, manipulative, and wantonly promiscuous as the very worst sorts of promiscuous men they used to complain about, and will ultimately have trouble maintaining marriages and serious relationships due to the damaging impacts of that behavior. In turn, that has simply resulted in anger from men, which has created a more broadly combative and mistrustful attitude between the sexes in general, from which nonsense like the "Men's Rights" and "Pick Up Artists" movement have spawned.

Either way, like you said, people who aren't crazy about casual sex (of either gender) aren't getting much out of this. They're simply running afoul of ever larger populations of scummy people they have to avoid, and having to work a lot harder to find people actually interested in anything serious.

Meanwhile, marriage is falling to shambles in the background, the birthrate is sagging to unsustainable levels, and STDs shoot through the roof in ever more dangerous and difficult to cure varieties.

 

[cpwill]

I am familiar with the argument that we need more young people to take care of the old people. However, the old people will die, the young people will get old, and we will still have to contend with problems cause by population growth.

I don't see the problems created by population growth. However, the problem of having young people take care of old people is, well, pretty basic in the realm of Data. Take a map of the European states having trouble with their social safety nets and overlay it with a map of European nations with lowest fertility rates - you will see a lot of commonality. Similarly, the upcoming collapse of Medicare/OASI in this country is driven by the fact that Baby Boomers did not produce enough children to pay into the system while they were retired.

One of the issues of a socialized old-age pension system is that it socializes benefits and individualizes costs for elderly care. This creates a tragedy of the commons in which the incentive for each player is to beggar their neighbors. :shrug:

Population growth is a major, perhaps the major reason for Islamic terrorism.

As someone who studies Islamic Terrorism both academically and professionally, I have not seen this case ever made convincingly. Youth Bulges exacerbate Islamic terrorism, but they are not the major cause of the rise in popularity of Islamist Fundamentalism. A Youth Bulge is mainly dangerous when males cannot attach to females (that is a cultural condition created by polygamy), and when young male expectations are unmatched (which is a largely political condition created by rentier governments subsidizing everything). An excellent read that I Highly Recommend to Anyone and Everyone. Youth Bulges help to exacerbate instability - the form of the instability is simply what happens to be there at the moment (Baby Boomers, for example, did not become religious fanatics when they were in their late teens/early-mid twenties - instead their contribution to the increase in American political instability was quite in the opposite direction). Islamist Fundamentalism, for example, appeals especially heavily to those who are trained in Engineering and the Medical fields.

 

[joG]

In The Hidden Agenda of the Political Mind Jason Weeden & Robert Kurzban claim on the basis of a survey they mention in their appendix, but whose name I unfortunately forget, that when both marriage partners are virgins there is am 85% chance that they will stay married.

Currently, the divorce rate is over 50%. The illegitimacy rate is over 40%. Plenty of evidence exists that when children are raised by both parents living together in matrimony they tend to do much better in life than children no so raised.

---------

Children in single-parent households are burdened not only with profound economic disadvantages, but are also far likelier to eventually get into trouble with the law. As a Heritage Foundation analysis notes, youngsters raised by single parents, as compared to those who grow up in intact married homes, are much more likely to be physically abused; to be treated for emotional and behavioral disorders; to smoke, drink, and use drugs; to behave aggressively and violently; to engage in criminal activity; and to be arrested for a juvenile crime. According to the National Fatherhood Initiative, 60% of rapists, 72% of adolescent murderers, and 70% of long-term prison inmates are men who grew up in fatherless homes.
Poverty and Crime - Discover the Networks

---------

When Alfred Kinsey published Sexual Behavior in the Human Female in 1953 many Americans were shocked by his assertion that fifty percent of American brides were not virgins. Now it seems unusual that fifty percent of American brides were virgins. Nevertheless, Kinsey seems to have overestimated the percentage of American homosexuals, so it is reasonable to suspect that he underestimated the percentage of bridal virgins.

In a country like the United States there is little the government can to do influence sexual behavior. Consequently, sexual behavior is not really a political issue. This is why the religious right has been unable to restore the ethos of the 1950, when the illegitimacy rate in the United States was six percent.

Nevertheless, I think it is beneficial to look back on the 1950's and measure what we've lost.

For the record, I am a Democrat who is in favor of legalized abortion and gay marriage. However, I have always viewed the religious right with interest, and a degree of sympathy.

Quite right. I just wonder how high the net cost/benefit of the combined behavioral change will be. We will not live to know as these things take a couple of generations to work themselves out.

 

[SmartCat]

Quite right. I just wonder how high the net cost/benefit of the combined behavioral change will be. We will not live to know as these things take a couple of generations to work themselves out.

Changes in sexual mores and behavior can move in either direction. What I would like ideally would be stable marriages, and a low birth rate.

 

[SmartCat]

I don't see the problems created by population growth.

More people mean that there is less of everything good to go around. The relationship between the average standard of living and the human population can be explained with an equation:

(natural resources x level of technology) / human population = standard of living

More people also mean more job applicants, more consumers, and consequently higher profits. Economic conservatives agree with me that population growth benefits the employer - investor class at the expense of those who are dependent on pay checks. They disagree that this is a problem.

 

[cpwill]

More people mean that there is less of everything good to go around. The relationship between the average standard of living and the human population can be explained with an equation:

(natural resources x level of technology) / human population = standard of living

No, that's Malthusianism, and that theory has failed every time its predictions have been put to the test. We have more people than ever before in human history, and more of everything to go around than ever before in human history.

The average Human is net productive, and resources are constantly being put towards higher uses.

More people also mean more job applicants, more consumers, and consequently higher profits.

It also means more jobs, higher growth, more invention, more innovation, and more competition.

Economic conservatives agree with me that population growth benefits the employer - investor class at the expense of those who are dependent on pay checks. They disagree that this is a problem.

Economic conservatives agree with you on the underlined, but not necessarily with the bolded, because we do not see the interests of the owner/investor as caught in a zero-sum game with those of the worker. Rather, we see mutually-beneficial trade as.... well, mutually beneficial.

It's worth noting within that that increase in particular kinds of labor can result in a reduction off of baseline (for example, if we were to increase the number of doctors in the United States by 150%, the price for medical services would go down). This, for example, is part of the critique of those conservatives who criticize mass-importation of low-skill labor - it disadvantages low-skill American citizen labor that it competes with. There is a debate within conservatism whether the long-run increase in growth, innovation, and living standards is worth the short-term loss for our more vulnerable populaces. I admit to finding good points on both sides of that argument.

 

[SmartCat]

As someone who studies Islamic Terrorism both academically and professionally, I have not seen this case ever made convincingly. Youth Bulges exacerbate Islamic terrorism, but they are not the major cause of the rise in popularity of Islamist Fundamentalism. A Youth Bulge is mainly dangerous when males cannot attach to females (that is a cultural condition created by polygamy), and when young male expectations are unmatched (which is a largely political condition created by rentier governments subsidizing everything). An excellent read that I Highly Recommend to Anyone and Everyone. Youth Bulges help to exacerbate instability - the form of the instability is simply what happens to be there at the moment (Baby Boomers, for example, did not become religious fanatics when they were in their late teens/early-mid twenties - instead their contribution to the increase in American political instability was quite in the opposite direction). Islamist Fundamentalism, for example, appeals especially heavily to those who are trained in Engineering and the Medical fields.

The First World War began in the Balkans when the Balkans had a youth bulge. When Japan invaded Manchuria in 1931 Japan had a youth bulge. During the 1960's to the 1980's Latin America had a youth bulge. Right wing dictatorships competed violently with left wing revolutionary movements. As the birth rate has declined in Latin America, the countries there are experimenting with democracy.

When the Soviet Union fell with little violence the Soviet Union had a fairly small youth population.

A young person who can look forward to a sucessful, prosperous life, and who becomes a terrorist is what journalists call "a man bites dog story." The idea being that dogs frequently bite men, so a dog biting man story is not news worthy. When a man bites a dog, that is unusual enough to be worth a news story.

The engineering and medical fields are highly competitive. I suspect that those trained in these fields who become terrorists failed to achieve professional positions. In The True Believer, Eric Hoffer said that when people fail at what is essential to their feeling of self worth they often become fanatics.

 

[SmartCat]

No, that's Malthusianism, and that theory has failed every time its predictions have been put to the test. We have more people than ever before in human history, and more of everything to go around than ever before in human history.

The average Human is net productive, and resources are constantly being put towards higher uses.

I have read Robert Malthus' An Essay on the Principle of Population He does not seem to have been aware of the industrial revolution. He disapproves of birth control and abortion. At the time he wrote birth control methods were expensive, difficult to find, and unpleasant to use. Abortion was painful and life threatening. Nevertheless, as both became inexpensive, widely used and safe, the birth rate has gone down. This negates part of his predictions. The increase in the productivity of industry negates the other part.

We should not assume that advances in technology will always help us out. Famines have often happened when the human population has exceeded the carrying population of various parts of the earth.

Also, advances in technology have had harmful side effects. The greenhouse effect is one of them. Advances in computer technology have reduced the economic value of jobs most people are able to learn.

 

[SmartCat]

Economic conservatives agree with you on the underlined, but not necessarily with the bolded, because we do not see the interests of the owner/investor as caught in a zero-sum game with those of the worker. Rather, we see mutually-beneficial trade as.... well, mutually beneficial.

I doubt that there are many cold hearted capitalists who twirl their mustaches and chuckle with glee as they close factories, destroying the livelihoods of long term employees while raising profit levels. Nevertheless, that is what does happen. If you look at the facts, rather than at the slogans, you will see that the interests of employers and employees frequently conflict.

 

[cpwill]

The First World War began in the Balkans when the Balkans had a youth bulge. When Japan invaded Manchuria in 1931 Japan had a youth bulge. During the 1960's to the 1980's Latin America had a youth bulge. Right wing dictatorships competed violently with left wing revolutionary movements. As the birth rate has declined in Latin America, the countries there are experimenting with democracy.

Indeed. Youth Bulges can exacerbate instability - they do not steer it towards one ideological expression or another.

A young person who can look forward to a sucessful, prosperous life, and who becomes a terrorist is what journalists call "a man bites dog story." The idea being that dogs frequently bite men, so a dog biting man story is not news worthy. When a man bites a dog, that is unusual enough to be worth a news story.

Sadly, this is incorrect. The gentleman who shot up the Marine Recruiting station, for example, had an engineering degree; the guy who shot up San Bernadino had a rather safe comfortable government job. Engineering degrees are relatively common among Islamist Fundamentalist ranks (the order and structure and rule-based system appeals to them, I think). Ayman al-Zawahiri was a successful doctor. Nidal Hassan was a major in the military - meaning that he was making well above-average income and had a sweet gig for life upon retirement.

We see a lot of losers in the foreign fighter populace coming out of the West, which is not the same populace as "Islamist Fundamentalists", but are rather reacting to the home-grown variants.

The engineering and medical fields are highly competitive.

....To get into medical school is highly competitive. Once graduated, you're pretty much set unless you do something drastically stupid. Engineering isn't quite as cozy, but is still very much in demand in the West. In the Middle East it is a different story - and, again, that's a function of political economy rather than demographics. If you subsidize a crap-ton of your young males going through engineering school but aren't willing to open up your economy to create the kind of vibrant growth that will employ them, you're going to have a bad day, some day, in the future.

An interesting paper on the topic:

This article demonstrates that among violent Islamists engineers with a degree, individuals with an engineering education are three to four times more frequent than we would expect given the share of engineers among university students in Islamic countries. We then test a number of hypotheses to account for this phenomenon. We argue that a combination of two factors – engineers’ relative deprivation in the Islamic world and mindset – is the most plausible explanation.​

I suspect that those trained in these fields who become terrorists failed to achieve professional positions.

It's both-and. You get a lot of support for Radical Change as a revolutionary bit (see earlier discussion of the effects of youth bulges) from professionally trained males who haven't found jobs that would provide the lifestyle they feel they were promised. The most dangerous person in the world (demographically speaking) is a young male engineer who is unmarried and un or under-employed. However, that is a result of political and economic conditions, not demographic ones. You also get a lot of successful individuals who turn to Islamist Fundamentalism.

In The True Believer, Eric Hoffer said that when people fail at what is essential to their feeling of self worth they often become fanatics.

Indeed, and I would reinforce that with Franz Fanon's timeless The Wretched of the Earth. Fanon was a dirty little sympathizer, but he had terrorism as an act of psychological self-gratification down pat.

 

[cpwill]

I doubt that there are many cold hearted capitalists who twirl their mustaches and chuckle with glee as they close factories, destroying the livelihoods of long term employees while raising profit levels. Nevertheless, that is what does happen. If you look at the facts, rather than at the slogans, you will see that the interests of employers and employees frequently conflict.

...you are stating I should look past slogans.... while repeating a slogan.

The typical American stays at a job for less than five years, and has done so for decades. The Great Recession lengthened that stay a bit, actually, off of the 1980s, which is the time period in which all those poor life-long workers were supposed to have been laid off with no possible hope of another career by those mustache-swirling heartless Corporate Managers.



Reality doesn't match the narrative that is sold by those who overemphasize the experience of Detroit-centric union manufacturing. The US workforce is and has been highly mobile. Creative destruction is a necessary and beneficial component of growth. Closing a failing or less productive business down frees up the resources it was consuming to go to more productive uses - including labor.

 

[cpwill]

I have read Robert Malthus' An Essay on the Principle of Population He does not seem to have been aware of the industrial revolution. He disapproves of birth control and abortion. At the time he wrote birth control methods were expensive, difficult to find, and unpleasant to use. Abortion was painful and life threatening. Nevertheless, as both became inexpensive, widely used and safe, the birth rate has gone down. This negates part of his predictions. The increase in the productivity of industry negates the other part.

We should not assume that advances in technology will always help us out. Famines have often happened when the human population has exceeded the carrying population of various parts of the earth.

No, in pre-modern times famines are generally the result of natural disaster or (more rarely) warfare. In the modern era, famines are generally the result of political decisions.

Also, advances in technology have had harmful side effects. The greenhouse effect is one of them.

There's a forum for that, so I'll avoid it here. I'll only point out that the solution to that "problem" is additionally technical in nature.

Advances in computer technology have reduced the economic value of jobs most people are able to learn.

On the contrary - computers have become powerful enablers of human beings, massively expanded pre-existing industries, lowered the threshold for entry into other industries, and opened up yet more industries that weren't available before. The Machines aren't taking our jobs any more than Population Growth is taking our resources.

 

[SmartCat]

...you are stating I should look past slogans.... while repeating a slogan.

The typical American stays at a job for less than five years, and has done so for decades. The Great Recession lengthened that stay a bit, actually, off of the 1980s, which is the time period in which all those poor life-long workers were supposed to have been laid off with no possible hope of another career by those mustache-swirling heartless Corporate Managers.

View attachment 67195112

Reality doesn't match the narrative that is sold by those who overemphasize the experience of Detroit-centric union manufacturing. The US workforce is and has been highly mobile. Creative destruction is a necessary and beneficial component of growth. Closing a failing or less productive business down frees up the resources it was consuming to go to more productive uses - including labor.

Thank you for that website. I had not known the information the graph reveals. However, when I clicked on the website this is what I read:

American workers are stuck in a rut, economists say. Despite improvements in education and technology, they’re staying in their jobs longer rather than seeking new opportunities. A high “churn” rate is typically seen as a reflection of a healthy economy. “People are holding on to their jobs not because they want to, but because they don’t have as much opportunity as they once did,” says Anthony Carnevale, director of the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce...

“Younger people have been hurt most by this,” Carnevale says. It now takes the average worker until age 30 to earn the national median salary; young workers in 1980 reached that point in their careers at age 26, according to a 2013 Georgetown University study, “Failure to Launch: Structural Shift and the New Lost Generation.” Young men have been hardest hit: As their access to blue-collar occupations has declined over the past three decades, they’ve been left unable to find work or are increasingly likely to work in jobs that pay less. In 1980, young men earned 85% of the average wage in the labor market; today, they earn only 58%, Carnevale says.
Typical U.S. worker now lasts 4.6 years on job - MarketWatch

A work force that is unable to find better jobs means that employers need to be less concerned with maintaining a desirable work environment. Even when their companies are profitable they can discontinue Christmas parties and company picnics. They can let employees go for years without raises, reduce benefits, and so on.

 

[SmartCat]

Reality doesn't match the narrative that is sold by those who overemphasize the experience of Detroit-centric union manufacturing. The US workforce is and has been highly mobile. Creative destruction is a necessary and beneficial component of growth. Closing a failing or less productive business down frees up the resources it was consuming to go to more productive uses - including labor.

Creative destruction would be beneficial to employees if most of them were able to find better jobs in new fields. This is rarely the case. College educated middle class middle aged semi professionals who lose their jobs often find that skills they have worked years developing are not transferable. This is particularly true in the computer field. This has become crowded, specialized, and changes rapidly. Years of generic experience are seldom worth much. Employers want several years of specific experience. Most are unwilling to train new employees in anything marketable.

In Denmark the government trains employees who have become unemployed because of creative destruction in new skills that are marketable. In the United States there is little effort by the government to do this. I would like to point out that Denmark, rather than Venezuela, is a country Bernie Sanders thinks the United States should emulate.