I commented to a few blogs last week on this, cuz some of the reactions to the original article were interesting... some saw a feminist bashing undercurrent... which I didn't really see [maybe it's cuz I'm a guy] I am of the opinion that it was more a "get off your lazy eema and get back to work!" type thing... because the piece continually calls them "Missing Men" in the prime of their lives 30-55...
"Alan Beggerow has not worked regularly in the five years since the steel mill that employed him for three decades closed. He and his wife, Cathleen, 47, cannot really afford to live without his paycheck. Yet with her sometimes reluctant blessing, Mr. Beggerow persists in constructing a way of life that he finds as satisfying as the work he did only in the last three years of his 30-year career at the mill."
He was 48 when laid off and is now 53... they live in Rock Falls, Ill. Which is not really within commute of any large city.
I'm taking a practical approach.
The original, and all the others never bother to break to break that "prime of life" thing into something more useful. 30-55 is a big range, and it doesn't say much about reality. I think if you break that range by decade, you would see some stats on why this missing man thing is occurring, and find out it applies equally to women. When you get close to 50, your employability changes. If you get laid off and aren't in a high demand industry, or top management, it can be trouble. Younger people may have "enough" experience to do the same job, from the employers point of view, and are FAR cheaper. There is also the stigma, that if you hire on at a significant wage decrease you prolly won't stay. These things work greatly against anyone middle aged, especially if they don't have a good education. Even in a high demand sector like programming age can really make a difference. A friend who was 55 got laid off and couldn't find a job for 2 years. He isn't programming now, he is in software sales, which he positively hates since there is no stability. His job security is entirely based on his ability to sell lots of software, all the time. So, he could be on the street tomorrow, at 59. Even at 55 I'm sure employers were thinkin' "well, 10 years to retirement, he won't last."
So I think everyone writing about this is ignoring the age discrimination that goes on, and it would also apply directly to women of that age. No-one seems to be looking at how hard it is to get a "job below you" either. Although some of the posters comment on it. I have several times tried to get a second job, and even though I specifically state that it is just 'for EXTRA income' they say that I am WAY overqualified, and they are not interested. Duh, yeah I'm overqualified for any basic job. But if I'm willing to take the wage, why does it matter? It does seem to though.
Dr. Helen makes valid points about how this is trying to have it both ways, blasting guys for working too much, and then blasting them for not... I'm generally with the group that cannot 'not' work though, because I know how slippery the slope is. That and financially I'd be jumping off a cliff. The money has to come form somewhere, male or female... bottom line.
i just find the existence of the discussion fascinating, and i appreciated her "both ways" points. i have a feeling, because it sells news, that it's all a bit too generalized and pigeon-holed to really be of any value, but i'd interested if someone went where you suggested...delving deeper into the whys.
hmmm intersting. Let's see, if my family was finacially secure and I really didn't HAVE to work (read "don't need the monitary income to survive), then I probably wouldn't. I would also probably get board and try to findsomething to keep me occupied, be it working or something else.
But, since my house has both my wife and me working for the two incomes and we are for the most part "just getting by", I don't see me wanting or needing to NOT WORK. At our current rate I see me becoming a Wall-Mart greete with the smiley stickers in order to put food on the table.
Now if I win the lottery, thats a whole nuther story.
hee, wal-mart greeter IS my retirement plan :massive eyeroll: now I know why all those flower children started communes in the late 60's... this work/slavery sucks! 'course then those communes didn't work out so well either, did they?
it's a simple plan. ...Sitting inside an air-conditioned place accosting young wipper snappers with adhisive backed brainwashing images.....MWA HAHAHAHAHA
I'd do it for the entertainment value alone but they would want to pay me.
Those communes just "seemed" to work while you were on the mind altering substances.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
sforzinda
no subject
Date: 2006-08-08 04:22 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-08-08 05:56 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-08-08 03:47 pm (UTC)"Alan Beggerow has not worked regularly in the five years since the steel mill that employed him for three decades closed. He and his wife, Cathleen, 47, cannot really afford to live without his paycheck. Yet with her sometimes reluctant blessing, Mr. Beggerow persists in constructing a way of life that he finds as satisfying as the work he did only in the last three years of his 30-year career at the mill."
He was 48 when laid off and is now 53... they live in Rock Falls, Ill. Which is not really within commute of any large city.
I'm taking a practical approach.
The original, and all the others never bother to break to break that "prime of life" thing into something more useful. 30-55 is a big range, and it doesn't say much about reality. I think if you break that range by decade, you would see some stats on why this missing man thing is occurring, and find out it applies equally to women. When you get close to 50, your employability changes. If you get laid off and aren't in a high demand industry, or top management, it can be trouble. Younger people may have "enough" experience to do the same job, from the employers point of view, and are FAR cheaper. There is also the stigma, that if you hire on at a significant wage decrease you prolly won't stay. These things work greatly against anyone middle aged, especially if they don't have a good education. Even in a high demand sector like programming age can really make a difference. A friend who was 55 got laid off and couldn't find a job for 2 years. He isn't programming now, he is in software sales, which he positively hates since there is no stability. His job security is entirely based on his ability to sell lots of software, all the time. So, he could be on the street tomorrow, at 59. Even at 55 I'm sure employers were thinkin' "well, 10 years to retirement, he won't last."
So I think everyone writing about this is ignoring the age discrimination that goes on, and it would also apply directly to women of that age. No-one seems to be looking at how hard it is to get a "job below you" either. Although some of the posters comment on it. I have several times tried to get a second job, and even though I specifically state that it is just 'for EXTRA income' they say that I am WAY overqualified, and they are not interested. Duh, yeah I'm overqualified for any basic job. But if I'm willing to take the wage, why does it matter? It does seem to though.
Dr. Helen makes valid points about how this is trying to have it both ways, blasting guys for working too much, and then blasting them for not... I'm generally with the group that cannot 'not' work though, because I know how slippery the slope is. That and financially I'd be jumping off a cliff. The money has to come form somewhere, male or female... bottom line.
no subject
Date: 2006-08-08 07:37 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-08-09 03:36 am (UTC)Let's see, if my family was finacially secure and I really didn't HAVE to work (read "don't need the monitary income to survive), then I probably wouldn't. I would also probably get board and try to findsomething to keep me occupied, be it working or something else.
But, since my house has both my wife and me working for the two incomes and we are for the most part "just getting by", I don't see me wanting or needing to NOT WORK. At our current rate I see me becoming a Wall-Mart greete with the smiley stickers in order to put food on the table.
Now if I win the lottery, thats a whole nuther story.
no subject
Date: 2006-08-09 02:19 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-08-09 03:23 pm (UTC)...Sitting inside an air-conditioned place accosting young wipper snappers with adhisive backed brainwashing images.....MWA HAHAHAHAHA
I'd do it for the entertainment value alone but they would want to pay me.
Those communes just "seemed" to work while you were on the mind altering substances.