Newsweek had an odd article regarding the beached white male. Evidently, the recessions has been particularly hard on white males over the age of 40 who thought they would have it all. The pain these men evidently feel is one of a psychological nature.



Yes, there are "re-training" programs, but employers don't want to hire the older workers due to fears about age discrimination lawsuits, and many of hte jobs being "re-trained" for are not worth the cost of the program.



Questions for debate

1.)To what extent will the "mancession" influence a change of understanding regarding what constitutes manliness and being a man?

2.)What is the answer for helping the over 40 BWM's to obtain equal or better jobs than what they once had?

3.)What is the secret of success if you are an over 40 BWM?

4.)Do we need to remedy age discrimination in light of the fears of employers of taking on older employees?

5.)Is this a legitimate concern, or is this just a psychobabble, self-serving, over indulgent, whining, puff-piece?

I probably fit the BWM profile myself, though the US and UK economies, attitudes to masculinity, and the laws on discrimination on age are different, so my replies will be filtered through a British prism (no more so than usual, I dare say )

(edited to add) Actually, reading the article, I'm nowhere near the attainment levels of the BWMs mentioned in the article. They're more like the people who laid me off the last few times around, so I'm tempted to just say they should suck it up, eat up what they've been dishing out for 40 years, etc.

1.)To what extent will the "mancession" influence a change of understanding regarding what constitutes manliness and being a man?

I think it will continue the shift away from conceptualising "manliness" mainly in terms of career trajectory and earning power that has been going on since the main thrust of feminism in the 1960s and 70s, and towards an independent identity of some kind. I say "of some kind" because it has not yet become clear exactly what does define male identity and masculinity while status and money are receding.

Physical aesthetics of the kind that have always been aimed at women are much more common these days - ask your father or grandfather if he was ever made to feel bad for not having a six pack and he'll automatically think of turning up to a party without beer and not about doing 100 abdominal crunches.

2.)What is the answer for helping the over 40 BWM's to obtain equal or better jobs than what they once had?

Rewind globalisation and feminism - i.e. it ain't gonna happen. The way forward is for people (not just men over 40) to stop placing their self esteem solely in their job title and salary package.

This is really hard to do - I know it myself; I had what I considered to be a successful career and good prospects right up until the point where my job disappeared six years ago. Now I just have a job, on the same money I was getting ten years ago, with zero prospects for advancement, and I hate it. (The situation more than the job, though it's taken me a while to realise that.)

3.)What is the secret of success if you are an over 40 BWM?

If you find out, please let me know. I suspect it's just having enough luck not to fall off the conveyor belt, as getting back on is harder than ever.

4.)Do we need to remedy age discrimination in light of the fears of employers of taking on older employees?

I'm not sure exactly how the US legislation works, but isn't not hiring BWMs because you fear they'll make age discrimination claims age discrimination in and of itself?

5.)Is this a legitimate concern, or is this just a psychobabble, self-serving, over indulgent, whining, puff-piece?

It's a legitimate concern for those affected by it. But they may not get much sympathy from anyone else - as ever, capitalism eventually eats those who thought they were serving it. There is no way to stop this without interfering in the way capitalism operates which creates its own problems. (The argument then becomes whether the problems created by intefering in markets are greater than those caused by them, which is quite an old chestnut here on and everyone who's been paying attention should know which side of it I'm on.)

Julian:


I really like your comment. A lot of men take their job as who they are, rightly or wrongly. The key may be to find another thing upon which you can attach your sense of self too. "I'm a volunteer coach/mentor," or "I work at a rescue mission," etc. I could see earning half of your pay and still feeling great pride in doing something that is socially valuable. I don't know how it easy it would be to go from saying you made $100,000 a year, to reading the Bible to inmates or volunteering at the fire department.



Oh wait, but what we were supposed to have even more jobs than ever now because of it, remember? Why take an $18.00 an hour job when we can send it overseas and have you clerking for $7.25? Perhaps our values have shifted away from the well being of our fellow citizens? Just a thought.

1.)To what extent will the "mancession" influence a change of understanding regarding what constitutes manliness and being a man?

What doesn't kill you will make you stronger. I made my way through this stuff, and yep, it's true. You come out stronger in your manhood and person-hood. There really isn't anything left that corporations can do to you, and there's no insult that can stick. Those who have not been through it look like a bunch of children playing in sandboxes, oblivious to what's coming down the road for them.

2.)What is the answer for helping the over 40 BWM's to obtain equal or better jobs than what they once had?

Socialism.

3.)What is the secret of success if you are an over 40 BWM?

Keep busy, don't give up, face your feelings head on, maintain your primary relationships, sell any guns you own, don't forget to smell the roses, try things you've always wanted to try, learn to cook with beans, take your vitamins, get plenty of rest, forget about the corporation. It's already forgotten about you.

4.)Do we need to remedy age discrimination in light of the fears of employers of taking on older employees?

The only thing that will do that is socialism. Or maybe some other system that nobody has dreamed up yet. Corporations are well insulted and can practice their fears intrepidly. However, once they hire you, they are at risk. Thereby, corporations try to get rid of their people once they hit 55 through early retirement. Now, what are you going to do for the remaining 25-30 years of your life? This is worse for those laid off at 40. They've made it only half way.

What happened, starting in 2001 -- the movie referenced in the article is 10 years too late -- was a perfect storm of dot-com bubble bursting, Y2K concerns evaporating, crooked corporate officers stealing, the 9/11 attack upsetting and a bunch of people getting caught in the headlamps in their 40s and 50s. This led to the Great Recession, the Economic Meltdown of 2008, and now this article. Way too late. What has happened is dead and gone, and now we face a future that is uncertain and scary for those who are just now taking a look at it.

5.)Is this a legitimate concern, or is this just a psychobabble, self-serving, over indulgent, whining, puff-piece?

It's as real as sin. If you don't believe that, you have not encountered it . . . yet. It's just a matter of time.

Reaching 40 has always been a curse in the job market. Reaching 50 has always meant death of the career. Hitting 60, forget it . . . unless you've built something else up.

Well children, keep this all in mind as you age. That's one of the very certain things, along with death and taxes.

Also keep in mind that even though some people still make good money all the way through, that is becoming ever less common. Luck has a great deal to do with it, especially luck at forecasting what the future will bring. There's not much new about this, other than it has hit so many people in such a short time. Just one decade, and it doesn't look very good that conditions will improve.

So . . . be prepared. Try to get a workable strategy. Concentrate on your core skills and talents. If you don't know them, figure them out.

Here's a good place to start:

Richard Bolles and Figuring It Out

I've been recommending this guy ever since I used his ideas to move from a dead-end warehouse job to my first gig in computers, circa 1979.

Watch out for shysters. It's pretty impossible to not get burned by these crooks, but at least learn from your mistakes.

Well, it's time to work on one of my gigs. A core talent for me is writing, have been strong at it since grade school. I developed technical acumen along the way, and those two things have helped to keep my head above water. What are your core talents and skills? You've got them. Everybody does. You will need them. Everybody will.

*

I was at one of our public libraries last year picking up research material for a gig. A working-class hero showed up, his first time in a public library. He wanted his resume printed, and the library did it for the whopping charge of $0.10 per page. The guy, a welder by trade, was overjoyed at this service. He got a dozen copies done on a nice color laser printer, decent 20-lb. stock. I suppose he could have gone to a copy outfit somewhere, but then I noticed him browsing through the books. As I was checking out, he was getting his library card. GOAL!

Whatever we do, keep our public libraries. They are absolutely necessary for job hunters, career developers and freelancers. If we take this little bit of socialism away, expect violence in the streets. This is not a threat but an inevitable outcome from pushing people to the absolute last threads of their ropes.

*

They say you have to hit rock bottom before you can pull up. Eh, it's more like hitting a series of rock bottoms. Most people have no idea how deep this canyon is and how many shelves are to be hit on the way to the bottom.

Then there are the thermals that raise you up for a brief time, then let you fall again. It can be maddening. I finally had to swear off those thermals (temp jobs) because they were holding me back. Well, that's just me, but I bet it happens a lot.

What may come of this is a voting population of tough self-made men and women who have absolutely no sympathy for inherited wealth, celebrity wealth, corporate wealth or any wealth garnered from anything less than exercising core skills and talents to the max.

That would be interesting.

1.)To what extent will the "mancession" influence a change of understanding regarding what constitutes manliness and being a man?

I don't think this "trend" will have much of an influence on what's considered "manly". Women entering the corporate world didn't change the fact that women still have to be pretty (still a more important measure of success than most anything else...it simply added the expectation that a woman must be BOTH beautiful and successful in a career), and male layoffs won't change the fact that men are expected to be successful. If the trend continues, we'll likely see fewer over 40 men driving around in Lexuses and Porches with 20 year old women who aren't their daughters.

3.)What is the secret of success if you are an over 40 BWM?
I suppose the academic answer is to have the job skills that make one especially valuable to employers. But that category of exclusivity is getting rarer and rarer. These people are a product of their own demise. They felt little empathy before, backing measures to outsource companies to foreign countries which expanded their wallets in the short-term via decreased expenditures and increased stock ticker values. Now they realize that the beast they created has made them expendable too. They've trained foreigners to replace themselves, and in doing so became redundant. The arrogance is beginning to wear off and that might be a good thing.

4.)Do we need to remedy age discrimination in light of the fears of employers of taking on older employees?

I don't support government interventions to stimulate the hiring of employees over 40, no. In some cases (women for instance), age can offer some advantage (depends on the type of job obviously). Those age groups are less likely to take maternity leave, for instance.

5.)Is this a legitimate concern, or is this just a psychobabble, self-serving, over indulgent, whining, puff-piece?

It's a concern, sure. But when I read the article I'm struck by what a group of arrogant bastards these people come across as. Perhaps it's karma, and they'll learn a few things.


Regarding AM's response to number 2, above, I don't think Socialism is the answer, but I do recognize that a rise in support for Socialism and Communism has historically been fueled by social discontent which increases during times of high unemployment. And this growth in public support for Socialist measures and pressure on the government to act can happen very very quickly.

Right, and nobody has a better answer. I wish there were one, and believe me, I've thought this through over the past decade.

I suppose that corporations could change their ways and embrace the aging workforce for the wisdom members can bring to the job. But then you have the very human situation that younger managers hate older employees who can point out various things that make the managers look like what they are -- inexperienced and rather dense. Or it could turn to where corporations can no longer afford the mistakes made by the young, and so the experienced workers are called back. Then the problem becomes how long have the older workers been unemployed, and have they finally abandoned stupid corporate management tricks?

It is so true that socialism doesn't just happen. Something pushes it into being, such as enough people being out of work for long enough periods while the fat cats roll in the dough, preparing themselves to be deep fried and served up as pigs in blankets. This as the situation today.

It's an unstable condition. Something's going to happen, and although it can turn ugly, my hope is that what started in the 2008 election season returns even more strongly in the 2012 season. If government can't fix things, then I am afraid we're looking at violence breaking out. I have zero faith in corporate wisdom being able to avert it. Shoot, corporations can't even take care of their own customers' information, not to mention the crooks in charge working their schemes.

Meanwhile, I have been blessed with Lydia who helps me to obtain gigs and supports my other writing projects. Words to the wise -- maintain those relationships, swallow the pride, figure out the way, and go down that path. It's the scariest thing you've ever done, but nobody can do it for you. However, there's help to be had. It doesn't cost much either. Check out the link I gave above and get the library card, if you don't already have one.

The library should be used long before it's ever needed for heat. Also, ask librarians for help. They know of what they speak.

*

You know that we aren't talking about corporate officers here running around in fancy vehicles and collecting trophy babes. It's more like your average middle-class guy who did the big mistake of growing older. Or maybe not getting snuffed in Vietnam or taking too many drugs and leaving an attractive corpse. Those thoughts sometimes cross my mind. They're dangerous when the feelings of no longer being useful crop up. That was a bigger problem about six years ago. It's also why I recommend selling all the guns. They make it too dang easy.

True, but I'm just basing my response on the article. I'm assuming that's why they're using a play on the beached white whale with the beached white male...implying these were giants in corporate industry (along with said examples). The average middle-class guy has been dealing with these issues a lot longer.

The main thing this article does is confirm (once again) to me that Newsweek is a crappy magazine. I'm glad I canceled my subscription years ago. Citing an anonymous blog post as evidence that BWM's "are toast" if they lose their jobs? I wouldn't be surprised if that rag was run by Communists. "Capitalism has always been cruel to its castoffs, but those blessed with a college degree and blue-chip résumé have traditionally..." Utter crap.

1.)To what extent will the "mancession" influence a change of understanding regarding what constitutes manliness and being a man?

Oh no, they've hit 5% unemployment. God help them!

2.)What is the answer for helping the over 40 BWM's to obtain equal or better jobs than what they once had?

Actually, this answer is in the substandard article: "Many of these guys may be great on the back nine but totally lack the skill set to get them through anything like this..." Get some skills people. Does anyone doubt that within corporate bureaucracies there was dead weight? Recessions clean out the dead weight. These "BWMs" need some skills that will make them attractive to employers.

3.)What is the secret of success if you are an over 40 BWM?

Competency and hard work. The same as people under 40. The article has one example of a guy that is making the tough decision about going to the beach. This guy should look in the mirror to discover why he doesn't have a job.

4.)Do we need to remedy age discrimination in light of the fears of employers of taking on older employees?

This has nothing to do with age discrimination. These dead beats just need for the economy to recover to the point where companies are willing to put some dead wood back in the forest. Then they'll be re-hired in order to increase capacity.

5.)Is this a legitimate concern, or is this just a psychobabble, self-serving, over indulgent, whining, puff-piece?

I'm not sure that this even rises to the level of psychobabble and this article gives a bad name to puff pieces. It certainly is whiny enough though.

Yeah, I only skimmed the article. I can see this and Mrs. P's take on country club wimps crying about being unemployable. I also have zero sympathy for them because they've had it so cushy along the way, apparently. I really don't know because I've never met anyone like this. Not ever, not even through nepotism and the Good Old Boy system. There was this former wing commander from the Air Force who was trying to run a datacenter. He was incompetent, but he also listened to us techies and learned rather than trying to be a top gun off the bat. I admired his openness, and I guess he appreciated my truthfulness and my ability to explain complex situations in regular human language.

However, nobody under 40 should think for one minute that age does not play a big part in the hiring process. Your value to the corporation has a limited shelf life, and it's a lot shorter than your entire lifetime. Since that fact of life probably won't change, the time is now to start figuring out what good you are otherwise. What else can you do to make a living?

Lydia and I have had an advantage because we've been thinking like this all the way through. Our resumes would surprise most people because we've done so many different things. She was once a nuclear facility building/glove box/misc. inspector. I once designed CBT (Computer-Based Training). We've both done semi-pro musical performances. We've both written music software, and we're both writers. I'm better at it; she's better at teaching. Our skills and talents meld to produce a greater whole.

In any case, don't fool yourself. Aging is inevitable. Get prepared, and I don't mean save for retirement. It's a jungle out there! Shysters and connivers everywhere! No one seems to care about you, and, Hey! Whose in charge here?

You are, grasshopper. You have always been in charge here.

No, really. It's true. There are limitations, but the journey starts with a single step and all that. Those who have hit true bottom know this, and all that's left at the bottom is faith. Shoot, a lot of times even off the bottom all that's left is faith.

Maybe our wimpy, yuppie country club types will learn this. Or not. They may be cursed, which would explain why I've never met them going up, coming down, going back up and all points in between. There's this thing about circles of people and karma.

What this piece says to me is that some journalist is trying to break out as a "culturally relevant" writer, or really failed at finding a good story. Let's take a broader look at unemployment. For one, one of the hardest hit sectors is construction work (A Man's World, of course), with workers making up a significant amount of the unemployed. What about the "construction worker-cession." Unemployment among blacks has been higher than the national average. What about the "black-cession"?

In other words, the journo has cherry-picked some stats and anecdotes to shoehorn it into this "BWM" narrative. I imagine what he's going for is a "man bites dog" story. "Look, you usually read stories about the poor or minorities being unemployed, but this time it's a story about white middle managers with Porsches. Isn't that ironic?" He also gets to play on the "cultural relevance" angle by trying to coin a term for a new stereotype -- "Are BWMs the next WASPs or DINKs?" Fluff pieces like this are very informative in that they're great examples of what's wrong with journalism today.

Does that answer the questions?


Heh, my parents are longtime Newsweek addicts for some reason. I haven't missed it since I left for school many moons ago, so I'm with you on this one.

It's actually Newsweek that's trying to stay relevant in an increasingly electronic world. An editor assigned the article to the journalist, unless perhaps the journalist did it freelance and submitted to the magazine. I do agree that magazines that haven't gone online are increasingly becoming irrelevant.

The over-40 crowd has always had trouble getting jobs. During recessionary times or even economic sluggish times, new college grads have had similar problems but in reverse -- not enough experience versus too many years. On the bright side, experience can be gained. On the downside, years cannot be shed.

There's another part to this. Students are made into consumers through credit, enter the workforce at low wages and have only 15-20 years to make it. Seems the foundation of our economy rests on this situation. Then there's the trend that workers have to change careers two, three, four or more times during their lifetimes. Match this up with periodic recessions, and what remains is an unsustainable economy.

Apparently this works for the upper 1-2 percent. For the rest of us, it's a series of crap shoots. What do I major in during college? What will be the first job? Should I go for something else while working the first job? What do I do if that job disappears? Should I get married and raise a family? Should we buy a house? Buy a new or used car?

During the 1980s and 1990s there were boom times. I watched as the sizes of houses got bigger and people decided to have families in their 30s, a time when income tends to maximize. But those mortgages go for 30 years, and kids still cost after they turn 18. Houses can be flipped, but not kids.

Now we are in the second decade of the 21st century. Where's the boom time? It's happening for the top echelons, yay. What might bubble to cause a boom time? In the 1980s it was high tech taking up the slack from the rust belt. In the 1990s it was a combination of a dot-com bubble and an ever-rising housing market, basically illusions. Today it's basically nothing.

There are some potentials, but I don't see the US running down that road. China is going for it full bore ahead. So what's a college student to do? Go into plastics? What's an over-40 to do?

About the only positive thing I can see is that we are pretty much in the same boat. Everybody gets a turn at trying to keep afloat at some point. Will common problems lead to better solutions? This question keeps me curious and watching.

Oh, and it's also a great equalizer. Everybody who hits rock bottom is equal.

Authormusician, what I observe is that you support the idea of government driven solutions to being down and out but in your own life you seem to be depending upon yourself by putting yourself forward through the entertainment business and journalism, two very competitive free market segments of society. Is this a correct observation? How does your philosophy coincide with your personal choices?

Gray-Individual motivation and desire plays a large part in having a successful professional life, no doubt about it. At the same time, we have to recognize that government can and does play an important role of facilitating that. From promoting "40 acres and a mule" back in the day to retraining programs, national priorities can be met. China appears to get the picture.


Source

So while the Chinese are retooling and gearing up for the future, we have the GOP refusing to help train workers to be competitive in the global economy. It is easy to tell the unemployed to go back to school and to continue to live as they do, all the while, forgetting that the global economic race doesn't stop for "up from your bootstraps" shortsightedness. Government greases the skids folks, we need it to help move people to those areas that we need the most, as opposed to allow them to wallow at clerking at Dollar General. That kind of productivity won't keep us at #1.

1.)To what extent will the "mancession" influence a change of understanding regarding what constitutes manliness and being a man?

Well this is a real problem. The BWM is not measured as much by his look but by his worth. Men are success objects.

2.)What is the answer for helping the over 40 BWM's to obtain equal or better jobs than what they once had?

There are not equal are better jobs. The economy is set to peel away from these employees at their same level. Our economy is set on giving these folks "do-over" career paths and to not pay them as mid-management but as entry level professionals. A strong economy is the best solution, but this is a larger sympton of the middle class crush that is on. It is part something that can be addressed with public policy and part something that can be attributed to overly optimistic expectations. Of course that overly ambitious expectation that is being frustrated is called the American dream, that we will do as well or better than our parents did.

3.)What is the secret of success if you are an over 40 BWM?
Keep plugging, plan ahead, and plan for the good times to be short. Take windfalls and secure your retirement when they come. Be careful about spending, even on important things like your children's educaiton.

4.)Do we need to remedy age discrimination in light of the fears of employers of taking on older employees?
Yes and no. We need to be ready to take lower pay and to make ourselves useful as BWMs and not expect a cush ride just because we are older. We will be working longer than we want to, and we will be having to find creative ways to make it work.

5.)Is this a legitimate concern, or is this just a psychobabble, self-serving, over indulgent, whining, puff-piece?

This is maybe the most legitimate concern. The modern economy is crushing the middle class and present fiscal/tax policies continue this course. As we lose the middle class, as Gen X learns that its retirement will be in poverty more often than their parents, as Gen Y learns they may be taking care of Mom and Dad who may not have had the $$ to pay for their college, we will be struggling to create the skills and the productive careers that will propel our economy forward.

All the while we will be distracted by the white noise that screams about the unfairness of our policies toward the very rich that were thriving before the bush tax cuts which have done nothing but impoverish our government and doom Social Security

I know, it seems like I'm a walking contradiction. However, when I say socialism is needed, it is taking the big picture into account. Most people aren't like me. I have this bug up my rear to do things that I'm good at rather than chasing after whatever pays the most money. In a perfect world, everyone would be doing this. Everyone would realize that each of us is special in our mix of talents and skills. Unfortunately, this is not the case and likely will never be the reality.

Here's a situation that illustrates exactly what I mean. I'm a self-made person, but my oldest brother depended upon my father to pull strings to get a job in a taconite mine, which was unionized. His wife worked for the USPS. Now he has been on early retirement for -- holy crikey, it's been ten years already! His wife died a couple years later, leaving him quite a bundle. Well, let's just say if he had had to make it on his own wits, it would have been way more difficult. My brother voted for a Democrat once in his life, Eugene McCarthy. Then straight Republican from there.

I on the other hand could not get a job in the mines. They simply were not hiring when I got out of high school, and between that and the draft, I had only three ways to go. Join, run or go to college. I picked college. From there I've been figuring out how to make it on my own steam. BTW, my oldest brother did his tour of duty in Nam serving the Air Force as a loadmaster. He argued for the college choice, for which I am grateful. I was thinking Marines. That would have solved a lot of problems, huh? It was rather attractive for a nineteen-year-old. Would have left a good-looking corpse, except for the bullet holes.

The bottom line is that most people are average, give or take. So we have things like college degrees to differentiate what is basically a commodity item, as seen by capitalism. It's the labor pool. Interchangeable warm bodies. In about 1977, I realized that the computer field was about to take off big time, so by 1979 I had built a network of tech writers and landed a job writing about hardware and software. This greatly simplifies what I went through to get there, but I'm not writing a book on this (yet). My background was an English major and an ability to learn electronics, hardware systems, programming and what goes into what we call IT these days. From tech writing I took opportunities to do systems programming and systems administration.

But most people aren't like this. They bump around in jobs, sometimes get a career going, and when the poo hits the fan, are not able to get going again. I've even been the object of intensional sabotage from people like this who are seriously threatened by anyone who displays competence above theirs. People can be very nasty when insecure in what they do for their livings.

In any event, I see socialism as the only way we have for keeping the most people's heads above water. The alternative is to let them sink. This in turn will encourage violent revolution and forced redistribution of wealth, which the peasants may or may not see. A better way is to do some socialism, yet keep markets as free as possible. We have not been doing this for the past 30 years. We've been building a rigged system that allows incompetents and shysters to thrive and become suddenly socialistic when their sandboxes get inundated with payback flood waters.

We have also been favoring private corporations for the little bit of socialism that was put into place after The Great Depression and during The Great Society. President Obama comes along and tries to fix things, and he is pegged as a fully blown socialist. Eh, it's just a bunch of ignorant hyperbole spouted first from the mouths of corporations. They have those things now, mouths, according to the SCOTUS.

Well. The yuppies are out of work now, and that's very bad for corporations. The loyalty anyone has for them goes as far as the last paycheck. Once the income dries up, so does the loyalty. The next phase is to wonder what good those outfits are anyway. Without any clue as to how to make a living otherwise, people become desperate. Somebody becomes their leader, guns start firing, and who knows what will come of that.

Are we there yet? Nope. Are we heading towards it? You bet. Is there something we can do to make things better? Yeah, lots of things. But they aren't being done. I'm watching and curious how this all turns out, although time is getting short for me. I don't know, they say the good die young. If so, I've got a chance to see the outcome. <smile, that's a joke>

Just one other thought: The Great Society came in the wake of major urban riots. There's a connection. It came during a time of violence from left-wing revolutionary groups. There's a connection here as well.

It's not a matter of philosophy but necessity. I wish things were different, but they aren't. In words from Easy Rider, we blew it. Can we get it back or is it already too late? I'm a terminal optimist.

The history teacher in me has to chime in here. The urban riots happened soon after the Great Society was launched and the major pieces of Civil Rights legislation happened. The Voting Rights Act was passed, middle class liberal America reveled in its accomplishments and the Watts erupted in violence and put liberal middle class American into a confusion it might not have spun out of for ten years.

Then in 66, 67, and 68 the rioting continued in the long hot summers.

I too am sitting and watching how things turn out from the next generation and I am being smug enough to teach you history that you lived through.

Directed towards AuthorMusician but the audience really is anyone:

Is Obama part of the rigged system which rewards incompetents and shysters to thrive? Did not TARP do this? Did not the bail out of GM do this? Does not the support for high home prices do this? Does not the huge deficit spending do this? Does not the healthcare plan do this? I am unclear how all of these are seen as beneficial socialism for the masses as opposed to the reality that it is shysters friendly. The vast majority in Washington who the people have elected support shysters and rewarding incompetents. Obama is just one of around 500.

I see all of this to be part of the "emasculation" of older men. Everyone gets rewards, not just those who struggle. Those who are positioned with government get the most. I am part of the baby boom and I do not see society treating me with respect when it comes to government. The only respect I am proud of is that which comes from my involvement in the free market. How does socialism generate feelings of self worth? How does one feel proud because "I got a government check." Does it not make people feel entitled rather than proud? Big government does not seem like an ego booster except for those who get a kick out of manipulating the inferiors via it for their own benefit.

Do you see your brother's success to be part free market and part socialism? Did he get fair compensation or did he get advantage? What was the source of his advantage if it was not exactly fair?

I have seen many questions asking where has a truly free market ever existed? I never thought it to be an important question but an equivalent question would be, "When has a truly socialist government existed where the socialism was the source of people's feeling of self worth?"

Socialism seems capable to generate animosity. Look at Greece in current affairs. Can socialism quell the masses every time? When does it fail?

I know you and I do not agree with the role of government. I think there is a need for government but that need is very limited. I see the best of humanity coming from freedom, equal opportunity, and personal responsibility. Socialism seems to create many opportunities for malfeasance, loss of freedom, unequal opportunity, and low personal responsibility. With lowered personal responsibility comes lower egos and poor morale of the people.

Would not people help each other out if government was not forcing it?

Don't you feel pride in your choices and ability to keep your values? Do you think the people are capable of these feelings and making those choices? I would say 5% have a hard time functioning on their own. The vast majority handle freedom well. The United States is screwed up because over half get advantage via government. Would not a better mix of socialism and free market have 5% getting this?

Let me ask you a question GS. Name one important event in your life where some government was not a major player. You can start with your birth.

In a nutshell, you simply have not hit rock bottom yet. I should point out that I've lost pretty much everything four times in this lifetime and rebounded better than before each time, except for now. My experience at this is deeper and broader than most people's.

My brother got a better deal by getting a unionized job. When he worked overtime, he was compensated for it due to the union. When I worked overtime, it was all part of the salary. No time and a half, no holiday pay. My brother had job security due to being in a union. I had none, but then with that bug up my rear, I didn't need it. He votes Republican. I vote Democratic. There's the irony.

Another thing to be aware of is that it was either work for the mines or work for minimum wage. There was no in between where I grew up.

I am not saying that socialism is superior at all. I am saying it is the only solution we have when people run out of ways to make a living. Who has more respect, a person with an income or one without? Go long enough without an income, and where the paycheck comes from becomes irrelevant.

GM is making money again. So is Wall Street. The people working for GM are doing all right producing cars, SUVs and trucks. So are the people working for Wall Street, except they're doing obscenely better and producing nothing. Nobody at GM is running a ponzi scheme. Can't say that for Wall Street because we still won't know until they're caught. Bernie Madoff with lots of stolen money. <that's a pun>

Eeyore begin:
Regarding the history of the 1960s, the violence was simmering before it broke out. I can understand a history teacher locking onto specific dates, but nothing happens overnight. The Great Society was an attempted answer to poverty. Poverty breeds discontent that can erupt into violence, which it did. That can happen again.

The Great Society failed. That was partly due to Vietnam and partly due to strong resistance watering down the plans. Same thing is happening today, and perhaps worse. The one thing that's missing is the draft. What is here that wasn't there are multiple tours of duty. Not sure how that's going to play out.
Eeyore end.

President Obama's policies might help, but they seem too little too late, and trying to use hyperbole with them is counter productive. The fact of the matter is that too many people are losing their incomes. There isn't anything to take up the slack. These people don't just go away once they're off the statistical radar. In the 1960s, they somehow got hold of guns and bombs. It seems easier today through gun shows. The guns are much better.

Also, there's an attempt to lump everyone together. I don't do that. I'm not attempting to say what's best for everyone, since that cannot be determined. All I'm saying is that when conditions get bad enough, there's no other way out. I'm also saying that capitalism cannot stop the conditions from becoming bad enough. In simple terms, we are stuck with socialism until someone can figure out a better way.

I'm not that person. I'm a writer, not a philosopher nor an economist. I don't care if I get paid in gold or paper, electronic blips or live checks. I don't care if the money is coming from a business, a government or somewhere else like Canada. Just pay me, okay?

It use to be rare to be stiffed. Over the past year or so, it has become common. Shysters and crooks all over the place! Times are hard and the hustle is on.

I've also seen where people are willing to work for nothing to get experience in the hope of landing a paying job later on. Nothing new about that, but now it's more common. Without something bursting out, it will likely become even more common, much to the delight of capitalists. Can't beat free labor -- better than illegal aliens and offshore workers!

Lovely, huh? Well, in a couple of hours I get to work on a gig that does pay. There are still some honest people out there. The yuppies will eventually have to sell the house, the extra cars, the golf clubs and perhaps declare bankruptcy. Then after exhausting all assets and cash, it's off to homelessness and destitution. Rock bottom. It changes perspectives.

I can hardly answer these queries, being neither B nor WM. I think the recession and the jobless market has rather equalized the disparity between BWM's and BBM's. We, being in the very same "lifeboat", and if you're not rowing or bailing water, then you're the problem, and woe is you.

It is a certainty government is everywhere with fingers in nearly everything. A major player? Never. An unnecessary player, certainly. Because government is obtrusive to a high degree does not make it vital. If government is a good thing it would not need to be mandated as people would be seek it voluntarily.

Manhood, ego for anyone, is crippled by the loss of freedom and this overreach of government.

Interesting topic, nebraska!
1.)To what extent will the "mancession" influence a change of understanding regarding what constitutes manliness and being a man?

I'm not sure. Will have to wait and see. I hadn't really thought about it in those terms before--I was more focused on what the 'recession' might change across the country.

2.)What is the answer for helping the over 40 BWM's to obtain equal or better jobs than what they once had?

Always looking out for that next opportunity, and don't be afraid to reinvent yourself. Anyone who's been working for 20+ years has more skills and qualifications than they think they have. But these thoughts aren't new--you heard it all the time after the last recession too.

3.)What is the secret of success if you are an over 40 BWM?

Not becoming beached? If you are, I think staying positive and trying to use it as an opportunity. On the more negative side, understand the reality that you may not get a job as nice as the one you had, and that that's got nothing to do with you, its just the way the economy is right now.

4.)Do we need to remedy age discrimination in light of the fears of employers of taking on older employees?

I thought discrimination was already illegal. What further remedy could we have?

5.)Is this a legitimate concern, or is this just a psychobabble, self-serving, over indulgent, whining, puff-piece?

Yes!

It will be interesting, if this gathers steam, to see if we're ready for a program that specifically reaches out to white males as a disadvantage group. I think we might be, but the political iterations it would go through would be interesting to watch, if nothing else.

Gray-You certainly raise some salient points about government collusion with private business. With TARP and GM, we had to save the people, and some of the rats too(i.e.-execs, etc.) CEO pay has reached pre-recession levels and corporate profits are back to pre-recession levels as well while middle class wages have continued to stagnate. Undoubtedly, these companies are back to business as usual, but don't feel the desire to include the middle class. We have effectively gutted the middle class and then expected it to keep up through using debt to continue the spending spree. Would you not agree that our own free trade policies has exacerbated these problems and that any discussion of a recovery is a joke until we realistically look at our trade policy which benefits companies over the middle class? We have picked GM and other companies off of the floor. They are now creating jobs overseas and making sure that they are living high on the hog, all the while, they could care less about the depreciating buying power of the middle class consumer. At one time there was an agreement, now, there is just a short shaft which is used to stick the American worker.

I am not sure what free trade policies you have in mind. A free trade policy would be to not have regulations and there seems to be mountains of them. If you are referring to the policy of endless rules and intervention being a joke then we are seeing the same culprit. Regulation is the best means to discouraging competition. Crony capitalism for corporations, unions, or any interest group has put the welfare of the middle class at risk. The middle class are people who are capable and independent. Men of this ilk, productive people who are drained by those less so, are taking a beating though way too many of them are taking it good naturedly.

Manufacturing jobs will come back to the United States when the rest of the world no longer values our currency. We have been receiving goods in return for created money for many years. We have been taking advantage of this situation...that is why we have a enormous trade deficit. It makes good business sense to ship out printed dollars to get goods rather than having to hire people to make them. That is about to end. Jobs will be back, which is a good thing, but our artificially high standard of living will correct and that is the breaks.

When the correction happens will we continue to let government and its cronies continue to direct a nice percentage of our production to themselves?

Why did we do this? Why have we the people let it happen? The elitist may be right that the people are not capable of figuring out stuff on their own and they need to be managed by the smart elites who deserve their high falutin ways. It just seems so obvious that we have elected people who claim to be looking out for the middle class when the objective is power for themselves and other insiders. No conspiracy theory is needed other than knowing man can be very self centered. The elitist are even getting the very same people who are getting shafted to go out and help campaign for even more power and control for the elitists! It is disappointing seeming intelligent people can be manipulated over and over again.

--------

A sad over 40 group are those who have come to realize that their predicament is their own fault as they have been voting for this type of government and this type of people their entire lives. Best fix for this downer is to rally for freedom and begin voting for a new type of representation.

An even more sad over 40 group are those who have not figured out it is their own voting which is the problem. They have no idea what hit them or how to get out from it. Asking for their own personal bailout is not going to get them or us anywhere.

True, but discrimination on point of age is impossible to prove while looking for a job. My depth and breadth of IT experience is paying off on current gigs, but the clients don't know how old I am. That's because I'm actually in the background like a ghost writer, except it has to do with technologies and not big celebrity egos wanting to tell banal stories about maudlin subjects. Looks like for the foreseeable future, someone else gets the credit, which is okay. My byline will appear on my own projects.

Think of this though. What if among these BWMs there are actually competent people with depths of wisdom that the younger folks can't touch? Shouldn't these gray beards and blue hairs be found out and brought together into something like SCORE? Also, shouldn't the government pay at least low-end stipends to participants and promote the services?

For example, the older and wiser IT people could review a company's IT security policies and implementations with an eye to protecting the company's customer information. It could be done in such a way that the security techies at the company would not be threatened, as would happen if the old timers were to be hired. The company would pay a very competitive fee for the service, which would offset taxpayer dollars. SMBs would likely love this sort of thing, since they can't afford their own IT people, and the private outfits charge way too much.

Here's another possibility. I've written on a lot of different subjects over the years. What about old tech writers in a similar situation as aging security people, and perhaps challenge them to compose things like grant applications? Or educational materials? There'd likely be editors in the mix too.

I've though about this for a number of years. The US wastes its intellectual assets via early retirements and the very notion of retirement. Corporations don't want to deal directly with we who have developed wisdom and, frankly, the guts to tell it like it is. Fine, so just put us into the background, reap the rewards and take the credit. Then pay us, and all is hunky dory.

With my skill/talent matrix, I could also help support big iron systems remotely, in the background, a spider on the wall during meetings with feedback given via IM or Skype to the top brass.

Anyway, that's one way to eliminate age discrimination. Put us up in the lodge and have only the chiefs come in for consultations. The youngsters hate us due to a bunch of reasons, and we've lost all patience with them. A buffer zone is needed.

Your answer, you couldn't specifically find any. I'm quite familiar with ideology standing in for reality. It's all over these forums. It obviously is something that showed up in evolution and served some kind of survival function. Be glad it isn't the kind of belief that has you jumping off a cliff thinking you can fly. Some forms of unreality take you out of the gene pool and some don't.

Of what reality am I not cognitive? You have denigrated me but on the basis of what? I am not able to defend myself against nonspecific accusations. I know you well enough to know you have a specific construct but without more detail your post is no more than an insult.

I see some humor in the post as it is has a theme of the demise of manhood. 'gotta love the use of evolution and survival.

I'm just poking fun at your avoidance of my question and your alternative of substituting ideology in its place. It's something I run into a lot. I also like your latest touch of asking ME for more details. Sorry dude I asked you first.

It's only an insult if you take it that way. My intent was to illuminate the reality starved ideology problem.

Just want to interject something here. GM didn't get a bailout. They filed for bankruptcy and got a loan. In order to qualify for government loans the shareholders were wiped, management was fired, retirement/insurance expectations were adjusted. All of this is what the Wall Street casino banks should've gotten. Instead we're stuck with the same self-serving management and princes who claim to be doing God's work. The two "crises" really aren't comparable. One organization went by their losses honestly and took whatever the government gave. The other held a metaphorical gun to Congress's head, demanding a golden parachute and leaned on an army of lobbyists and former employees in government positions.

How is this relevant to the thread?

I was born in a Catholic hospital. I attended Catholic schools until college and attended a public university.

Are you going to attempt something tangential and say that "well, the government helped institute standards at that private hospital!" or "How could those nuns know what to teach if it wasn't for the Department of Education?

The government does some things that are useful. Even when it does, however, it injects a level of stupidity and bureaucracy,

However, what does this have to do with the topic for debate?

Let's focus here.

Lesly, here are three sources with facts which do not support your interjection as to GM not getting a bailout. There can be no doubt those cozy with the federal government are receiving special advantages.

Wall Street Journal

National Legal and Policy Center

Reason magazine

There is no fundamental difference between government being cozy with banks nor the auto industry. You may quibble about the degree that certain individuals personally have profited. It is all the same animal.

------------

The bailouts are an example where manhood is reduced from what you can produce to what you can finagle. Everyone can be a winner when production is the metric but with finagles, there are winners and losers.

Gray, I know that GM is "paying back" the loan portion of the "bailout" by opting not to use the low-interest government loan since it has been able to report a profit after restructuring. I also know that GM has delayed paying the "bailout" in full. This isn't ideal, but at least GM is paying interest at all. (People arguing the Treasury is getting its money's worth with TARP don't seem to notice that a bank can't help but turn a profit when it is loaned money at zero interest.)

It is business as usual in Wall Street, where restructuring, forced sales and phasing out products to reduce debt obligations are unthinkable -- the public isn't even allowed to see which banks have applied for how much TARP money. And now the "distressed" banks are fighting tooth and nail to squash the gummy legislation passed last year to blunt their idiocy. GM's "bailout" is a Chapter 11 bankruptcy. If there's no "fundamental difference" between a reorganization and TARP, then we've had TARPs for decades.

If I had contextualized my question to GS's previous post I think it would have been relevant to the thread. But I didn't, so I apologize for the diversion.

You did offer the Catholic hospital and school counter so if I might reply, the whole infrastructure plus tax breaks support them. If there is a fire the Catholic fire department doesn't come to their rescue. You don't drive there on Catholic roads. The medicines and medical procedures are not Catholic sourced. The school books that are tax payer supported are secular in nature. Both in education and medical facilities many public standards apply. I doubt if exorcism would pass muster as a medical procedure. Etc. etc. etc.

And yes government does mess up, sometimes due to religious influence, but kind of like air can be polluted it is nevertheless ubiquitous.

To add to that as well- Providence hospitals are "catholic" hospitals that receive over 90% of thier funding from the federal government, which is probably actually higher when you count the education that most of the employees receive from the government, the equipment through grants etc etc etc. My first child was born at Providence Hospital, a "catholic" hospital- I think I saw a nun there once.

I was born in a municipal hospital, city-owned. From 1999-2000, I worked for one of the few remaining municipal hospitals. It turned a profit for the city, which was a bad thing for some people simply because the hospital was government-owned. Forget about how the profit benefited the city and all its residents. It was bad on philosophical and not practical grounds.

While I was growing up, our utilities were also city-owned. I have not seen that anywhere else, but I've lived in only a handful of places.

The college I went to was a state university, as opposed to a private university. Tuition was subsidized by state taxation, thereby allowing a working class hero type to better himself. That in turn helped me to establish myself into a growth career path, which was good for developing the illusion of manhood. I'm pretty sure that AMLord meant private university rather than public. There are public K-12 schools, but I've never heard of a public university.

In the end though, recession kills the illusion of manhood because of loss of control, which is tightly bound to loss of income. Later on, it becomes clear just what manhood really means without the illusion. This is also true of womanhood. Might as well call it personhood.

So not taxing a hospital (let's assume this is correct) is active support? Do you think the city hospital was taxed? Is the government feeding me too because they don't charge sales tax on food?

How about this infrastructure argument? Can any business operate without infrastructure? I'd say they can, although less efficiently. My mother could have walked to the hospital instead of being driven by my father. The infrastructure is helpful, but not required. What about lights and water? Well, the hospital is paying for those. The construction of them may have been subsidized (I'm not sure on that) but the government intervention was merely helpful, not required.

I guess the government is paying my salary too because they aren't taking 100% of it in taxes.

That is a very odd point of view, Dingo. It assigned all power to the government even when the government refrains from doing anything.



I went to a public, i.e. state run, university. Just because you've never heard the term does not mean they don't exist.