September 26, 2016

3 theories on why lower-educated men have so much more leisure time than higher-educated men.

By Derek Thompson, writing in The Atlantic. (The title is so bad: "The Free-Time Paradox in America/The rich were meant to have the most leisure time. The working poor were meant to have the least. The opposite is happening. Why?" I hate the use of the word "meant," and the article is mostly about men who don't work, so "working poor" is bad.)

Theory #1: "The availability of attractive work for poor men (especially black men) is falling, as the availability of cheap entertainment is rising."

Theory #2: "Social forces cultivate a conspicuous industriousness (even workaholism) among affluent college graduates."

Theory #3: "Leisure is getting 'leaky.'" (That is, work leaks into leisure time through our wonderful gadgets.)

123 comments:

YoungHegelian said...

Higher-educated men (& women) who enjoy higher incomes because of their educations do so mostly by selling their labor. They just sell their labor at a much higher cost than lower-educated men (e.g. a lawyer vs a grocery clerk). In the past, the leisured class were leisured because they were rentiers, living off of property rents or farm produce, with others doing the work. Not so today.

The professional who sells his high end labor can only work so many hours in a day, but he is greatly rewarded for every hour he can struggle through. Not so the uneducated laborer, who is also blocked in the search for more billable hours by the fact that he often performs exhausting manual labor, & his body just gives out.

Upper class professionals who wish to optimize their income potential know there's really only one route: own the means of production, i.e. go into business for themselves & take a cut of the labor of others who work for you.

Michael K said...

I agree but the present trends are all against this. My generation of doctors were small business men and women. Now most young doctors work for salaries and, by the way, work about 2/3 as hard as we did.

Older doctors I know are dropping all insurance and working for cash. I think that trend may grow as younger ones get student loans paid off.

Jack Wayne said...

Facts beat theories: rich people get rich by working harder than most people.

TosaGuy said...

I worked my tail off for three sources of income last year and did pretty well. Uncle Sam came calling and basically told me to stop that because taxes essentially took all my after-expense earnings from that third source of income. Learned my lesson. This year has a been a process of rearranging things so that doesn't happen again. The result will be the same monthly cash flow to me (plus a few more free weekends) and a lot less money for Uncle Sam at the end of the year.

Within 5 years, income #2 will have provided what it is supposed to do and, with some planning now, will go away along with some bills. The result will be the same monthly cash flow (indexed for inflation) and a lot less money (plus some free weekends) for Uncle Sam at the end of the year.

Working hard is for suckers.

rhhardin said...

take a cut of the labor of others who work for you

You're giving them a way to exchange their labor for something they value more than their labor, namely the money.

That their labor is worth more to you than what you pay for it is how a voluntary trade happens. Both sides come out ahead.

The wealth of the nation rises by that much.

buwaya said...

Speaking of technical professions here, industrial workers and engineers.

Higher educated men tend to be less replaceable, not so easily substituted, and they are expensive. There is less available backfill, on a given system or process they may be the only one who knows it. They are also responsible for systems and processes in a way that lower level workers aren't so if there is trouble after work they are effectively on-call 24/7.

There are highly paid blue-collar workers, but these usually are hired on projects or more or less short term gigs with often long stretches of free-time/unemployment between them. When they are needed, they are REALLY needed, and are paid accordingly, but when they aren't, they aren't.

Rusty said...

rhhardin @ 1:58

First of all,"You didn't build that."
And second of all."Why do does the middle class keep voting against their interests?"
To which rusty must ask."Where does wealth come from?"

eric said...

This seems quite ignorant of how socialism is supposed to work.

The workers work and pay for everyone else to do nothing. This is why it never works. Because more and more people get the idea, hey, I want leisure without work! And people stop working.

We have a lot of socialism in America today. Out highschools and colleges breed this behavior. We no longer try and teach how to enter the labor force, instead, we want to encourage amateur philosophers and artists. Anyone can be one, right? Who cares if women's studies is useless. At least it's what you want to do and someone else can pay for it! Yippee.

And we know, thanks to Nancy pelosi, that not working is a good thing. We can all pursue our acting and singing careers because mommy told us we are better than everyone else! Plus school has taught is to have self esteem without earning it. We just conjure it up from within!

Btw, this state doesn't last long.

Lance said...

Theory #4: men who are not working get unemployment, food stamps, free health care, so don't need to work to support themselves.

JaimeRoberto said...

The opportunity cost of not working for someone earning $50/hr is much higher than for someone earning $10/hr, so the higher earner keeps working. On the flip side, someone earning $10/hour might lose some benefits by having a higher income if they work more, so instead they work less. Incentives matter.

Andrew said...

These unemployed men at home aren't living off social programs, they're living off their parents' government programs.



jdniner said...

30 hour work week is the answer. And pay all benefits based on an hourly basis instead of full time status. No more part time benefits. And do like in Bali, give a worker a few more benefits if they artistically contribute to society.

Paddy O said...

Because this is America and not Victorian England.

carrie said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Paddy O said...

A lot of people pursue higher education as a way of getting paid well for doing that which they like to do, so work and leisure blend together. Whereas for lower education careers, there is more of a tendency for a work hard, play hard mentality where work funds a separate and distinct leisure lifestyle.

traditionalguy said...

This is Trump's achilles heel with the millennials. They are totally familiar with having no jobs to work at and no money to marry and raise children with.

Why does the old fool Trump think they want to change that???

PBandJ_Ombudsman said...

I know cons hate the librul lame stream Times. And, I don't recall if Althouse brought this to your attention. But, this is pretty cool:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/12/12/upshot/where-men-arent-working-map.html?_r=0#

How many loser men do you have in your neck of the woods?

Junaid Shahid said...

wah.. what a post <3 its make me crazy your headline is much interesting and eye catchy Theory #1: "The availability of attractive work for poor men (especially black men) is falling, as the availability of cheap entertainment is rising." agreed from this theory because its happen in my high school you are doing very good blogging :)

richlb said...

This sort of reminds me of the Adam Carolla meme-turned-book Rich Man, Poor Man, in which he compares and contrasts the various was in which the very wealthy and the very poor are surprisingly similar. Examples include:

Own multiple vehicles (of course, the Rich Man's are exotic, and most of the Poor Man's don't run)
Family members in and out of prison (for the Rich Man it's embezzlement, the Poor Man perhaps assault)

You get the idea. So in this case, let's of leisure time (for the Rich Man, to travel the world, for the Poor Man, to collect unemployment). Except in this case it's the Rich Man getting the short end of the stick.

Nonapod said...

Well, the reality of moving towards a post scarcity economy is that the universe of available jobs shrinks as automation and robotization increases. Being poor in 21st century USA is a quite a bit different than being poor in most other places and times in that even the poorest of us live in a state of relative plenty. Being poor (meaning inhabiting the bottom economic quintile) no longer necessarily indicate a state of minimum subsistence.

So if young men don't have to work to live pretty well and even be happy, why would they? Where you think this ultimately leads our culture I guess depends on your general view of humanity. Our entire modern culture is built around the concept of work. If working truly becomes optional for everyone, the repercussions will be significant.

PBandJ_Ombudsman said...

My gut tells me that berating loser men who don't work will win the day. But, the mush between my ears has taught me that we may have passed the tipping point where these folks (because of the strength in numbers effect) are beyond shaming.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

So wealthy people work longer hours. I wonder if this is just a coincidence, or if being wealthy somehow causes someone to work longer hours...

Such a mystery...

Andrew said...

JaimeRoberto said... "Incentives matter."

Bottom line.

Anyone who has worked for both a wage and a salary during their lives know this.

madAsHell said...

Reason #4 - EBT cards.

Larry Day said...

I spent a good portion of my younger years as a dedicated climber of rock, snow and ice, on everything from small crags to the high mountains. As a group, most of the climbing bums I knew tried to find ways to climb as much as possible, and work as little as possible. One day in Yosemite Valley, Eric Beck happened to notice that Steve Roper was reading "Theory of the Leisure Class", and commented that "There is a leisure class at both ends of the social spectrum." I guess that's as true today, as it was back in the 60s and 70s.

PBandJ_Ombudsman said...

"Anyone who has worked for both a wage and a salary during their lives know this."

Don't forget the folks who really make dough. Hint: they have folks w/ wages and salaries who work for them.

viator said...

There is no status to leisure unless it costs a great deal of money. Some from Appalachia can get on the dole, tinker in the gray and black economy, drink beer, and coon hunt. Some from Baltimore can get on the dole, tinker in the gray and black economy, hang out on the corner and the bar, smoke some choom and do the dozens.

But it costs a great deal on money to vacation in Nantucket, Martha's Vineyard, Paris, Venice, and Aspen. You have to work mighty hard and long to afford that leisure.

PBandJ_Ombudsman said...

Btw, regarding these loser men, it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

Presumably this was the lame reference Althouse had in mind as a reaction to this post. I don't know if that contest applies to all posts. Anywho, I guess that means I win, by losing.

PBandJ_Ombudsman said...

And, for the record, isn't DJT doing a great service to BHO by sussing out exactly what BHO said?

PBandJ_Ombudsman said...

The difference is that where BHO empathized, DJT capitalizes.

traditionalguy said...

Lo and behold. People work for the opportunity to make real money.

That is Adam Smith 101. The insane notion that people will work for love of the Party and the State is Karl Marx 101. But, as the Russians said, " Under Communism, we pretended to work and the Party pretended to pay us."

PBandJ_Ombudsman said...

"o, it depends on where you are, but I think it’s fair to say that the places where we are going to have to do the most work are the places where people feel most cynical about government. The people are mis-appre...I think they’re misunderstanding why the demographics in our, in this contest have broken out as they are. Because everybody just ascribes it to ‘white working-class don’t wanna work — don’t wanna vote for the black guy.’ That’s...there were intimations of that in an article in the Sunday New York Times today - kind of implies that it’s sort of a race thing.

Here’s how it is: in a lot of these communities in big industrial states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, people have been beaten down so long, and they feel so betrayed by government, and when they hear a pitch that is premised on not being cynical about government, then a part of them just doesn’t buy it. And when it’s delivered by — it’s true that when it’s delivered by a 46-year-old black man named Barack Obama (laugher), then that adds another layer of skepticism (laughter)."

DougWeber said...

This just proves my definition of Capitalism: Exploitation of the rich by the masses.

Terry said...

Blogger PBandJ_Ombudsman said...
I know cons hate the librul lame stream Times.

I don't think conservatives hate the NY Times. Conservatives aren't like liberals, who feel that by expressing their hatred of certain people and news outlets, they are signalling virtue to people whose opinion they value. Conservatives do recognize that the NY Times expresses liberal political opinion even in its straight news stories, while claiming that its news stories are unbiased.

PBandJ_Ombudsman said...

"Exploitation of the rich by the masses."

Being rich sucks.

PBandJ_Ombudsman said...

Terry,

Assuming you're cool w/ reading census data compiled (into a cool graphic) by the NYT, what percentage of working age men don't work in your county?

Danny K said...

The answer is so blindingly obvious. This article should be nominated for one of those Fox Butterworth awards. Also, what is "attractive work" as opposed to just "work"?

Terry said...

"The Free-Time Paradox in America/The rich were meant to have the most leisure time. The working poor were meant to have the least. The opposite is happening. Why?"

Meant by whom? The editors of the Atlantic?
A more honest subhead would acknowledge that the bourgeois who edit and read the Atlantic believe that the purpose of wealth is to provide leisure time.

PBandJ_Ombudsman said...

Would it be out of place to note that a base model Toyota Land Cruiser costs 84 grand?

Big Mike said...

The professional who sells his high end labor can only work so many hours in a day, but he is greatly rewarded for every hour he can struggle through. Not so the uneducated laborer, who is also blocked in the search for more billable hours by the fact that he often performs exhausting manual labor, & his body just gives out.

@YoungHegelian, you overlook the impact of Obamacare, which provides financial incentives for employers to limit the work of their unskilled and semiskilled laborers to 29 hours per week.

Terry said...

Blogger PBandJ_Ombudsman said...
Terry,

Assuming you're cool w/ reading census data compiled (into a cool graphic) by the NYT, what percentage of working age men don't work in your county?

My county is not on the map. It seems to go by cities. Anyway, my county is unusual in its demographics and its economy, plus it is an island, so when times are hard, people tend to leave -- it is not economically viable to live here and work in another county. Also, it is not majority white, or Black, or Hispanic. The economy is based on ag and tourism.

PBandJ_Ombudsman said...

An F-ing Toyota gets close to 100 grand in a state w/ sales tax on vehicles. Of course these poor saps don't have time for leisure. Don't ya know, the Jones have a Land Cruiser?

Darrell said...

The highly educated lie. I'm busy, busy, busy! I'll call you back when I get some free time.

PBandJ_Ombudsman said...

Terry,

How about other places you've lived? Perhaps where you grew up?

You can, and probably should, ignore me. But, this demographic question of working age men who don't work is interesting to me. I worry about work ethic. I know the fuss is about taxes and regulations and....whatever. But, I don't care about that, I wonder why some folks work hard and others don't.

n.n said...

Theory #4: persistent smoothing functions (e.g. welfare)

PBandJ_Ombudsman said...

There are questions about what DJT really believes. And, in this haziness the uneducated folks seem to be eager to look to him as their savior.

But, if I know anything (which is questionable), I know that DJT knows that losers who don't work hard to better themselves have only themselves to blame. Sure, suckering them into buying Chinese ties or falling for get rich schemes (TrumpU) or watching the tube or voting for DJT is cool, but that can't sustain for four, never mind eight, years. Lucky for the dullards the rest of us are looking out.

bagoh20 said...

The article and some comments here conflate higher education with wealth. The question is about educated versus uneducated. I think it's pretty simple: the work of educated people is generally easier to do for long hours than that of the uneducated. Educated work often involves sitting, reading, talking, writing. It's not really the same thing as "working". It's more like the kind of activities you do for leisure. Those who work in manual labor see and feel a clear line between work and leisure and they keep it as separate as possible. I think you would find the people who do manual labor don't feel the same need to visit the gym as much. That's like working.

jr565 said...

i think its due to the fact that govt has provided so much in the way of basic sustenance (food stamps, tax credits for people earning under the mininum etc) that people have learned to eke out a living on as little as possible. Without having to work. If you aren't working, all your time is leisure time.
And capitalism allows even poor people to take advantage of things like Xboxes, and big screen tv's and iphones. So, people with no money can still afford these items which 20 years ago only rich people could afford.
Meanwhile well educated people are probably earning a lot of money, but have to work for it, often at very stressful jobs. Cutting down on their leisure time.

The other thing causing this is that computers end up costing time, not saving time. People thought they would get off of paper and everything would be automated. Instead, you now have to spend time doing the work you'd want the computer to do, and then find additional time troubleshooting why the computer isn't working. So the more technology, the less free time.

PBandJ_Ombudsman said...

Bag,

I mostly see, and agree w/, where you're coming from.

It's smart to avoid over simplifying definitions of work types. But, don't forget that a lot of uneducated work isn't really labor intensive. IIRC, you're into manufacturing. Presumably, not all your staff require so-called higher education, and that sort of work doesn't command super high pay. But, there are some non-college jobs that can make good dough and benefits, especially when unions are involved. For example, I know a decent excavator operator can cost an employer (considering everything) around $46/hour, and then the employer needs to make dough on top of that. This isn't a get rich sort of income, but it seems livable.\

Anywho, IIRC you're in CA (LA?) (though cathartically, if not seriously, threatening to move to Texas), would you consider following the NYT link I posted and seeing what percentage of working age men don't work in your hood?

Left Bank of the Charles said...

I would imagine that, as any housewife would be glad to explain, if you define work as cleaning a toilet, pushing a broom, or using a shovel, you would find that the higher-educated man does a lot less work than his lower-educated counterpart.

David said...

They seem puzzled that work patterns do not fit into the pattern expected by the Communists and Socialists. This kind of thing always confounds them.

David said...

I did several jobs involving "uneducated" work when I was young. It was pretty clear that these would be very hard to continue for a lifetime.

bagoh20 said...

PBandJ_Ombudsman,

I did go to your link.
Where I live on the west side of town the non-working men percentage is at the very bottom (4%). Where I work, near Compton, the level is near the top (+40%). The cost of living is unaffordable for most people in either area, even if you are educated. Frankly, I don't understand why anybody lives here, other than the weather, but that is not worth the cost. I'm working hard to find a way out for myself and my employees who want to go. They will be instantly richer the moment we cross the California border. The one good thing here is that there is a lot of money thrown around by foreign and domestic investors, corporations and tourists, so it's easier to find a way to get some. It's just so hard to keep it.

Incidentally, nobody in my company has a college degree, including myself, yet we do most things in house, including accounting, I.T., design, product development, all training, and the maintenance of a vast array of high tech equipment. You don't have to go to college to know how to do things - you just have to learn how to do things.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Um, let me introduce you to Theory #Obvious:

Americans don't value leisure.

PBandJ_Ombudsman said...

"You don't have to go to college to know how to do things"

Truer words were never spoken. The best thing about having a somewhat noteworthy degree (ChemE) is being able to make exactly that point w/o being accused of throwing rocks from outside the glass house.

Jupiter said...

It is absurd on the face of it to regard "The Highly-Educated" as a group with occupationally similar characteristics. Lawyers are highly-educated, as are people with MFAs in textile art.

It is absurdity on stilts to regard "Everyone Else" as a group with occupationally similar characteristics. "Everyone Else" includes, for example, auto mechanics, waiters, and most of the people in prison.

Michael K said...

"falling for get rich schemes (TrumpU) or watching the tube or voting for DJT is cool,"

I have not made a study of Trump U but my impression is that it was one of the very common training programs that I hear advertised on the radio every weekend.

On the other hand, I don't believe he was paid $17 million to introduce somebody to Hillary and some other rich people. I understand that being Honorary Chancellor is hard work but that's a lot of cheeseburgers.

PBandJ_Ombudsman said...

"I don't understand why anybody lives here, other than the weather, but that is not worth the cost."

For a while I wintered in Santa Monica. It was pretty great. I could exist between Venice, Santa Monica and West Hollywood w/o ever getting on a highway. LA in that context is fun. But, strangely, I like having winter, up North. Maybe when I'm a geezer I'll be back.

PBandJ_Ombudsman said...

Mike K,

I like politicians to be such that their lameness is obvious and it hangs on them. HRC (though not necessarily WJC) has this characteristic. DJT very much does not. That's a problem.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Terry said...

My county is not on the map.


Xanadu?
Narnia?
Shangri-La?
Middle Earth?

glenn said...

Jack Wayne said it best.

"Facts beat theories: rich people get rich by working harder than most people."

That's how I did it.

PBandJ_Ombudsman said...

I know that the con POV is that folks don't work because...er...somehow it's the fault of a lib, socialist gov.

I'm open to that. But, I can't help but also consider that there's a way of understanding the Randian exaltation of the intrinsic human pursuit of self interest that could also, ironically, explain why so many men aren't hard workers. IMHO, there's a certain selflessness to good workers. Selflessness is, by definition, anti-Rand.

David said...

"Americans don't value leisure."

Oh, I think Americans value leisure, but they value consumption more.

PBandJ_Ombudsman said...

glen,

How do you define being rich?

Harold said...

I know a few people who've never held a job for a full year. The damn fools they're working for go ahead and schedule them to work during hunting season, after they're told them they're not going to show up even if they are on the schedule. Why a business would consider work a higher priority then hunting strains their brains.

David said...

Might also be influenced by the fact that higher educated men tend to marry higher educated women, whose expectations of male (nonsexual) performance are also high. And these get transmitted to the higher educated children (whose higher education is pretty costly.)

If the higher educated woman is a non-earning homemaker, the man has to hunt and gather more bounteously. If she is a workplace earner, he is reluctant to slack off and look unsuccessful by comparison. (Women seem less affected by this latter compensation.)

tim in vermont said...

PB&J, social Darwinist and muddled thinker.

Maybe the working class has finally come around to elite opinion:

College whites and church whites are taught different moral values in their respective houses of learning, values which trickle up into policy preferences. Members of white Christian congregations are more likely than any other racial-religious group to rank personal responsibility above structural factors, such as unequal access to education, in explaining racial disparities in income. And while secular universities rarely purport to give moral teachings to their students, research has found that college education increases tolerance.

I guess that competing with large scale influxes of cheap labor, largely brought in to increase Democrat vote counts, has brought lower income whites around to the idea that structural factors weigh at least as heavily as personal responsibility.

David said...

"How do you define being rich?"

More than me. It's an election year.

tim in vermont said...

Hmmm.

Unknown said...

I wonder if hunting and fishing is classified as "leisure time" across the board? Because if it is, it will certainly skew the results. In rural areas, like where I live, both of those "leisure activities" are used to enhance the larder. Hence, they are a de facto pay increase...

mockturtle said...

Michael K. correctly reports: I agree but the present trends are all against this. My generation of doctors were small business men and women. Now most young doctors work for salaries and, by the way, work about 2/3 as hard as we did.

Older doctors I know are dropping all insurance and working for cash. I think that trend may grow as younger ones get student loans paid off.


Most people don't seem to understand that physicians in private practice are struggling to keep their small businesses afloat in these days of Obamacare and mega-corporations taking over. And it is no secret that we are now importing more foreign physicians than we are graduating from US medical schools.

coupe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
PBandJ_Ombudsman said...

TinV,

Presumably you realize that illegals don't vote. Has it occurred to you that they were brought in to help the Chamber of Commerce Republicans who hire them.

Not that there's anything wrong w/ that. Look at the link I posted way up-thread. We have a lot of places in this country where the local dudes are total slacker losers who won't show up for an honest days work. What is the percentage of working age men in your county who don't work?

PBandJ_Ombudsman said...

"And it is no secret that we are now importing more foreign physicians than we are graduating from US medical schools."

And, I know a couple that clear plenty of dough (for normal folks), but they still have certain med stuff done in Mexico. Admittedly these particular folks are very worldly (e.g. they own homes overseas including in <> India), but still some docs in the States should take a pay cut. Never mind the backward countries, many US docs do exactly the same thing docs do in other first world countries, but for some reason they think they should be paid more. Nope. That's. Not. How. It. Works. Welcome to the free market.

tim in vermont said...

Presumably you realize that illegals don't vote.

I'm sure you believe that. If it's Chamber of Commerce Republicans who who are solely responsible for bringing in waves of illegals, undercutting wages for low skilled workers, then why do the Democrats fight tooth and nail any efforts to restrict the flow?

Don't answer that, you have already proven that you are careless with facts. Still, your point about the Chamber is a large part of the explanation of why Trump won the nomination though. Chuck is likely a big Chamber guy.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Oh, I think Americans value leisure, but they value consumption more.

Probably true.

"��The best things in life are free...��"

Or, if you prefer the screaming fan version.

The sound of audience auditory orgasms. Always a good palate cleanser after Professor's anti-language feminist post last night.

mockturtle said...

Presumably you realize that illegals don't vote.

LOL! In the four 'motor voter states', including California, where applicants for a driver's license are automatically registered to vote, they only ask if they are US citizens and do not require any proof whatsoever [to do so, would, after all, be racist]. So don't tell ME illegals and other non-citizens don't vote!

PBandJ_Ombudsman said...

TinV,

I don't want to upset whatever con-media it is you subscribe to. But, you may want to look into BHO's time as POTUS and the net illegal population v the historic rate of increase.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/09/20/5-facts-about-illegal-immigration-in-the-u-s/

OTOH, ignorance may be more satisfying. It's a free country, do what you will.

tim in vermont said...

Persiflage. The lousy economy is what has stemmed the tide of illegals.

PBandJ_Ombudsman said...

Mock,

Then you must find it as selfless and admirable to see that BHO cut off the increase of illegals, as shown by the data I just posted?

PBandJ_Ombudsman said...

"The lousy economy is what has stemmed the tide of illegals."

TinV, you must be pleased to see that BHO is the deporter in chief:

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21595902-expelling-record-numbers-immigrants-costly-way-make-america-less-dynamic-barack-obama

mockturtle said...

Tim has it right. Fewer jobs, fewer immigrants.

mockturtle said...

Oh, sure, PB&J--there are plenty of folks who love illegals who will work for less and sometimes under the table. They enrich Mexico's economy, too, by sending much of their pay back home.

PBandJ_Ombudsman said...

MockT,

Wouldn't fussing about a lack of jobs for Americans because of illegals seem a bit less silly if it wasn't in a thread about American men who are too lazy and lame to get their dumb asses away from tube watching and video gaming playing and sleeping and making welfare kids (or whatever it is they do instead of showing up for work)?

Look at that link I posted quite a ways up. We have an epidemic of American men who latch on to hints of reasons to place blame and make excuses for their own lameness. Don't enable them!

tim in vermont said...

We need comprehensive immigration reform with a pathway to full and equal citizenship. - HRC

tim in vermont said...

We have an epidemic of American men who latch on to hints of reasons to place blame and make excuses for their own lameness. Don't enable them! - PB&J, Social Darwinist and deplorer of the working class.

Brian A Davis said...

Theory #4 - Hard working men gets hot looking dates.

PBandJ_Ombudsman said...

TinV,

The problem w/ that HRC quote is that as soon as the illegals become legal, they also become lazy like the native legals.

The R thing about making them legal, but not citizens is the perfect solution. And, I'd also like to chip away at the free stuff that our bottom of the barrel citizens get, except real education. Not the for profit BS where gov dough goes to this or that rich person when suckers sign up. But, if some smart kid will work hard and study a useful subject at a legit institution, we should pay for that. Of course the real problem is that disadvantaged folks are already too far from that track well before 12th grade, when the track opens up.

PBandJ_Ombudsman said...

PB&J, Social Darwinist and deplorer of the working class.

TinV,

You do an unmeasurable and unforgivable disservice to the working class when you claim to be unable to understand that the self-selected-not-working-class are different than the working class.

tim in vermont said...

I had a for profit education, it worked out fine for me. My classmates did just fine too. Why do you go with every talking point the Democrats cook up for you to mouth?

PBandJ_Ombudsman said...

TinV,

Are you in one of the IT&T ads?

PBandJ_Ombudsman said...

I can see the copy:

'I'm Tim in Vermont and ITT made me a billionaire. You should sign up too!'

PBandJ_Ombudsman said...

Is ITT still around?

If not, will that make it tougher for TinV to arrange reunions?

tim in vermont said...

self-selected-not-working-class are different than the working class.

So if a guy made a living cutting lawns in Florida, but got undercut on price by another guy who employed crews of illegals, he should forget about working for himself as a small businessman and head down to McDonald's, hat in hand, begging for a job inside working for somebody else.

I get it. The man's a ne'er do well who is probably voting for Trump because he blames others for his own failings.

PBandJ_Ombudsman said...

TinV,

How much did you pay ITT (or WyoTech or TrumpU or whatever for-profit you went to) cost? Was this the full fair? Did the gov pay for anything? Did the gov loan dough or backstop private loans for you?

tim in vermont said...

I do fine. PB&J, don't you worry about me. I was happy to have those jobs I got with that certificate back in the day.

tim in vermont said...

Is a technical certification worth less than a BA in women's studies?

PBandJ_Ombudsman said...

TinV,

What to illegal lawn mowers make in Florida?

Where I am their bosses bill them out at $22/hour. That's more than the golden arches pays, so your scenario doesn't fly here. What are the number in Florida that support your premise?

tim in vermont said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
tim in vermont said...

You try to make a living for $22 an hour when you have to maintain a truck, a mower, drive around from job to job, not billing, and do the sales yourself. I know, I know, if they can't make it on that, they are lazy and shiftless.

Michael K said...

"DJT very much does not. That's a problem."

I don't understand. Trump is not lame and that is a problem ?

You comment about doctors:

for some reason they think they should be paid more. Nope. That's. Not. How. It. Works. Welcome to the free market.

Seems to miss my point. Doctors are increasingly choosing to go Galt. The foreign graduates are filling salary slots in corporate medicine.

How can you complain because a doctor choose to return to the old model of a small office, cash payment and low overhead ?

When I retired from practice, I had 276 contracts with different HMOs and PPOs, many of which had different rules and different offices I had to use for things like wound cultures. I was once fined $500 for sending a patient to a more convenient lab for a $16 wound culture. To keep it straight I had to have a $30,000 computer system.

Now, many young doctors work for salaries that are heavily impacted by bonuses and incentives to cut costs. They have only 15 minutes to see a patient and half of that is typing data into a keyboard.

You might not be able to but I ask young doctors and they all tell me they are unhappy with the practice they have.

In the first years I was in practice, about 1973, my partner used to say, "I hope they never find out I would do this for free." It was that much fun.

Now, I work a day or two a week and enjoy it although sometimes it involves travel. Most retired docs I know still work a bit.

We loved it that much. I'm not sure my students will feel the same way.

PBandJ_Ombudsman said...

TinV,

I know someone (a native, if that matters) who, decades ago, was making more than 100 grand a year while he was in high school because he organized other high school kids who mowed lawns. I know that many folks suffer and they can't help it, but I'm also certain that many more folks are too F-ing lazy and if they don't like their situation they should blame themselves first, and giving them a pass is only enabling their lameness, imho.

tim in vermont said...

I know that many folks suffer and they can't help it,

Are they allowed to vote?

I'm also certain that many more folks are too F-ing lazy and if they don't like their situation they should blame themselves first, and giving them a pass is only enabling their lameness, imho.

Are they allowed to vote?

I am just curious how this works. If successful people have a lot of nice stuff they get cheaper on account of globalization and immigration, does that nice stuff get averaged over the people who were hurt so that "on average" the people who are hurt are better off?

PBandJ_Ombudsman said...

Mike K,

I don't know anything about doc stuff. But, I have read research that has measured patient outcomes for identical maladies in different hospitals where there has not been a correlation between cost of care and the effectiveness of care. This finding poses as many questions as it does answers (e.g., even if the outcomes in San Francisco aren't so much better, the cost of living will make them more expensive.).

But, this sort of thing should be more studied than it is. W/ better data collection and analysis it should be possible to make wiser decisions, even though these may ruffle the feathers of this or that self-reverential doc (presumably you've seen one or two of those). I guess the snazzier way to describe making decisions based on data related to what works is to call the process "homicide panels," that was it, right?

And, btw, I have known plenty of docs in well regarded teaching institutions and multi-state trauma hospitals, so don't think you can totally BS me. I've heard a lot of background reality stuff, not to mention serious F-ups.

PBandJ_Ombudsman said...

TinV,

What's w/ the globalization boogeyman? We're not that much of a manufacturing country (as a percent of GDP), and we never will be, even w/ DJT's 35% tariffs. Uber poor folks in foreign countries will always out compete us, unless you're cool w/ paying a dollar an hour. But, that doesn't seem like something you're in favor of.

Fred Drinkwater said...

Two words:
Disability Insurance.
Wait, make that "Disability" Insurance.
Look up the trends and the multiplication of varieties.

chuck said...

I once worked on a factory floor. The work was repetitive and often ran overtime, but when I went home it was over, my time was my own. In contrast, when I worked as a professional work never ended, I'd think about problems before falling asleep, in the shower, at meals, and while driving. Work was with me all the time and doing something else felt like cheating.

Michael K said...

don't think you can totally BS me. I've heard a lot of background reality stuff, not to mention serious F-ups.



Why and how would I "BS" you ?

I have spent a second career trying to get insurance companies and universities to measure real quality.

Here's one attempt.

Here is another. I don't know if you know enough about medicine to understand those but they were completely in good faith.

I spent years on the Board of CMRI, the California Peer Review for Medicare and was chair of the data committee at the time I retired.

bagoh20 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
bagoh20 said...

Maybe people who work hard just like to work. The assumption seems to be that what you do for a living is something you don't like doing. I love my leisure time and use it pretty well having a great time, in my opinion, but I miss work after a week or so of anything else, and I do not have to work, nor have I had to for many years now. There is nothing else I can imagine doing everyday that would not bore the shit out of me in a very short time. That includes travel, sightseeing, laying around, oil painting, collecting tiny giraffes, or sexing up women one after another. Those things are alright, but everyday?

Work supplies unpredictable constantly changing challenges, with rewarding results when they are overcome. When I'm not at work, I do things that are just like it. I fix things, organize, DIY is my obsession. I can't resist. It's a calling. My mother was the same way. She could not sit down, or stop working until just a few days before she died at 83. When she was living with me, she would get mad at me if I didn't find sufficient productive work for her to do like painting the house, or gardening, or paperwork. Anything but pure leisure. Some of us are just made (or mad) that way. It's an obsession I would not want cured.

tim in vermont said...

What's w/ the globalization boogeyman? We're not that much of a manufacturing country (as a percent of GDP), and we never will be

How many conflicting thoughts can you get into a single sentence, I wonder.

tim in vermont said...

I have read research that has measured patient outcomes for identical maladies in different hospitals where there has not been a correlation between cost of care and the effectiveness of care.

I bet when you hear this same thing about spending on education, you simply ignore it.

Joe said...

Was just about to post what bagoh20 did. Many of the well to do genuinely enjoy what they do while at the same not, finding most leisure activities rather boring.

By contrast, a former brother-in-law has spent a "career" avoiding work, often spending more time and effort doing so than actually getting a job.

PBandJ_Ombudsman said...

Mike K,

So what was the punchline to your first link? That is, how did your results, after implementation, compare to the many case studies that were referenced.

Btw, it's interesting to read that docs were getting $47/visit in the UK.

Your second link was less broad, but there were two things that stuck out: 1) still more medical data was needed to make definitive conclusions regarding the comparison of care from different facilities, and 2) Polytetrafluoroethylene. Oh yah!

Robert Cook said...

"Facts beat theories: rich people get rich by working harder than most people."

Some do; many inherit their riches.

Some who "work" for their wealth are essentially gangsters with fancy addresses and corner offices, ripping off their customers and the people of the United States with impunity. (See Wells Fargo, see Goldman Sachs, see pretty much all of the big banks and financial houses over the past decade plus.)

tim in vermont said...

Some who "work" for their wealth are essentially gangsters with fancy addresses and corner offices, ripping off their customers and the people of the United States with impunity.

Yes, and they are connected to big government which creates regulations to favor them, and to socialize their losses while their profits are split among the cronies in and out of government.

What should have happened after 2008 was that these bankers should have had to sell their homes in the Hamptons and Manhattan co-ops to honest workers like plumbers and electricians.

tim in vermont said...

The government protected them from that fate.

Terry said...

I agree with Robert Cook:
Some who "work" for their wealth are essentially gangsters with fancy addresses and corner offices, ripping off their customers and the people of the United States with impunity.
American businesses work very hard to exclude competition by erecting barriers to entry. When workers do this they are accused of being socialists, of being un-American, of wanting a 'free-ride', and of promoting that thing that businesses do for themselves whenever they get a chance: increase economic inefficiency.

What is 'rich'? It used to mean that you could live your chosen lifestyle on the product of your capitol. These days we talk about the 1%. That's about $500k/year (family income), more than I will ever make, but not much more than a successful doctor/lawyer couple make. They can't quit, though. To make just $500k/year on T Bills, you would need to invest about $25 million.
So when we are talking about the 1%, we are often not talking about he wealthy, but about highly paid workers.

EMD said...

Being lazy is not an expensive habit.

EMD said...

"Some who "work" for their wealth are essentially gangsters with fancy addresses and corner offices, ripping off their customers and the people of the United States with impunity. (See Wells Fargo, see Goldman Sachs, see pretty much all of the big banks and financial houses over the past decade plus.)"

Yep. But let's put another crony capitalist into the White House just for shits and giggles.

Michael K said...

"So what was the punchline to your first link?"

The real punchline was that these studies never got funded. The NIH did not fund the dialysis study because they had given the contract to a group at U of Michigan, who never produced any data but spent all the money. An editor at NIH sent me the letters from the reviewers who did not understand the methodology. They were unfamiliar with statistical analysis. It is standard today., That was early in its use.

The second study on frail elderly was because the UCIMC administrator did not know what we wanted to do and did not agree with it even if he understood it. He was later promoted to CEO of UCLA.

It is very hard to study quality and doctors are not the problem.

Annie said...

Robert Cook, the same banks and financial institutions that pay Hillary $250k per speech? What does she, a grifter by trade, possibly have to say of any value to an industry she knows little about? There are no recordings or transcripts.

Joe said...

Some do; many inherit their riches.

Define many. Repeated studies over decades have found that the vast majority of the wealthy earned it on their own.