“Men without Work” is a running research by Dr. Nicholas Eberstadt. It is about men who choose not to participate in the labor force. A phenomenon that can be traced back to 1940s and that has been linearly increasing to-date. Dr. Nicholas work tries to shed light on the problem from a political Economic point of view(I guess).
Now the interesting part. The work straight up claims the primary driving force for the men without work problem is mooch-ery. Moochery as in taking advantage of parents, relatives, gov programs or any support system which allows such men to go through life without an honest day of work.
To be clear, I don't know much about economic analysis, but even then my ignorant ass can see reducing such a complicated problem into something trivial as smooching is BS. I mean, the work presents no concrete reason why there is no mention of unlivable wages, working conditions, cost of living, mental health/substance abuse/health care in general, fucking incarceration, and all the shit folks in this sub talk about. Surely not all of it is negligible.
Am I missing something or this whole boomer Harvard Economics stuff is out of touch? I mean BANANAS out of touch? Does work like this go on to make a case when design policies(fucking Banana policies) or is it there to just misinform?
References
– https://youtu.be/f52xw-FH9QI