This is an anthology. Let’s Start with this facebook post by Former Labour Secretary, Robert Reich:
Buried in yesterday’s jobs report was the fact that only 85.3 percent of men aged 45 to 54 are now working. This is the lowest percentage of working men in that prime age group since 1948. It’s 2 percent below the lowest level of their labor participation during the Great Recession. Why are so many of these men without jobs? Presumably, they lost them starting in 2008 and haven’t been able to find new ones. Many have stopped looking altogether. So how are they getting by? Some got extended unemployment benefits, which are now running out. Others qualified for disability insurance. But it’s undoubtedly also true that many men not in the workforce are now dependent on their wives’ earnings. This marks a completion of a trend that began in the late 1970s, when male earnings first began stagnating or declining, and wives and mothers streamed into paid work in order to prop up family incomes. The two-income middle-class family represented the largest social revolution in modern American history. It gave women more economic independence, altered traditional parenting roles, and caused new stresses and adjustments in families. Now, in many cases, we’re back to a single breadwinner — but instead of it being the man it’s the woman of the family. If the trend continues, what can we expect of the future? When will men become obsolete?
Next, let’s move to this description of a show on Britain’s Channel 4 called The Intern, which is basically another version of the apprentice.
Channel 4 framed the programme (through a concerned Devey) with shocking figures about the millions of unemployed – and the particular problems for those under 24. This was the show’s supposed raison d’être, to highlight the problem and give youngsters hope. To help give a hand-up, not a handout, to Britain’s youth.
Then the really heartbreaking part. We met three young people – good people – who just needed a break. One was a young mother determined to build a career after having a child at 20, another a university graduate who’d found it impossible to get work. The third was a studious hard worker with 100 applications under his belt and not one interview.
I can’t really come up with a good quote from this Salon Magazine article about the glut in Lawyers. It’s nothing I haven’t said before about how overlawyered the US happens to be, but the really important part is that people go to law school and believe they will receive a high paying job. Unfortunately, most are ending up with a pile of debt and no high paying to pay off the debt.
This is perhaps the most relevant comment in the article:
Yet most pre-law students ignore the persistent warnings. Somehow those negative images can’t compete with the positive ones. Psychologist Daniel Kahneman, who won a Nobel Prize in economics, may have a partial explanation. Kahneman researches and writes about a universal human characteristic: clinging to preconceived notions, even as contrary information and unambiguous data undermine them. The phenomenon is a variant of confirmation bias, the tendency to credit information that comports with established beliefs and jettison anything that doesn’t. In the context of the legal profession, most prelaw students think they’ll be the exceptions—the traps that ensnare people like Mitch McDeere won’t get them.
That last paragraph probably sums up why people are willing to overlook reality and vote against their interest–they are too hopeful that something will indeed trickle down for the.
But, you would think that 30+ years of that philosophy would have changed people’s minds.