There’s a recent trend of articles that claim men are either not as employed as previous generations, or losers at higher rates, or in general just unimpressive to women. The prevailing sentiment is that this is somehow inherently due to men today not being motivated or engaged at the same level, and that it’s due to men’s collective dissatisfaction with the world. However, I think it’s far more mathematical than that, and shifting demographics and workplace trends likely explain a lot of this as natural phenomenon and nothing inherently wrong with today’s men.

Source:

Summary article going over the trend “it’s not a male loneliness epidemic, it’s a male loser epidemic”:

https://tedbauer.medium.com/alright-so-now-its-a-male-loser-epidemic-21c065a36c62

Firstly, there’s a finite amount of job growth compared to population growth, as the two are correlated, but not directly linked. We are also seeing recent trends with AI replacing low end workers and higher rates of unemployment straight out of graduation from college. These relate to gender dynamics as decades ago women were legitimately oppressed and prevented from entering the workforce, which meant more men took up these jobs. With women primarily being homemakers, low skill men still were employed, especially in a different style of economy. As women have entered the workforce, they naturally take jobs And replace some men because now the marketplace for jobs is much more about the talent than it is about gender dynamics. Simply put men who would have had jobs 40 years ago are now replaced by more talented women. If the economy was more balanced in previous generations, we would’ve seen no declining trend in men’s employment.

Source:

We are at the levels of employment currently that match just before the 2008 crisis, meaning it took us nearly 20 years to match back to where we were:

https://equitablegrowth.org/equitable-growths-jobs-day-graphs-march-2022-report-edition-2/

Secondly, the types of jobs today are much more conducive to women’s employment and success. Jobs like agrarian or manufacturing work have physical labor components and men are naturally stronger than women. Now we have switched to a service based economy where ideas and office work are the primary drivers of the economy, Which women have no disadvantage. A woman can theoretically code to the same ability as a man can. As such, the replacement rate for jobs is even higher than if it was traditional, physical labor work.

Sources: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/US-Employment-History-and-Trends_fig1_280830838

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/visualizing-150-years-of-u-s-employment-history/

Thirdly, women today grew up with mothers and grandmothers who were rejected from the workforce, and are likely getting coaching and prodding to fulfill their career dreams instead of settling down. Men have been able to work for generations, there’s no inherent push for men to enter the workforce like there is for women

Fourth, things are dramatically more expensive than they were in previous generations, and Low to mediocre men looked far better in comparison statistically because things were much cheaper. In the 1970s factory workers could afford homes, which is far more attractive and they had decent rates of marriages. Statistically these men look very successful, despite their relative low salary. Today is the opposite where there are many people who earn decent salaries, but cannot afford a home, Without a home there’s a lack of stability which may affect rates of relationships. There is a small correlation with things being more expensive making dating more expensive, and therefore reducing romantic interaction, but I think the majority of it is that by comparison men look poor and less stable compared to their peers decades ago, whereas women may look better today as technically speaking many women had zero income in the 1960s because of their homemaking, or were reduced to low wage jobs.

Source:

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/11/10/home-prices-are-now-rising-much-faster-than-incomes-studies-show.html

The way I see it, there are increasing rates of loser men, but this is nothing inherent to these men that would be different than 50 years ago. There were losers in the 1950s, but due to the type of work and gender dynamics, these men were employed , and their woman counterparts were either homemakers or institutionalized. Now that the work market is more democratic, we see a more even distribution of losers. However, this does not mean men are inherently, worse quality than previous generations, just that it’s being represented more accurately.

Sadly, I don’t think this actually matters. At least as of right now women seem to be of the opinion that they want to demand the best of the best, and if they do not get it, they’re willing to be single as evidenced by rising rates of singleness among women. Ideally to keep a stable society, we would see the destruction of typical gender norms with the destruction of a gender based economy, in that there would be women who are the bread winners in some relationships, as well as some women asking men out, but so far this does not seem to be the case. I do not know if this will change with time as more people get used to that sort of thing, but right now it feels that the solution from women is to keep asking for the same things and not accept anything less. I am focusing on women because the solution for men would be to outcompete or to get higher end jobs, but because the labor market is a zero some game with finite supply this inherently means beating out women, which I don’t think women want to become homemakers again. Yes, individual men can strive to do better, but I’m talking about a pangender solution and not an individual solution.