I stopped reading when they started blaming video games. It's such a tired excuse. Sure, a few would rather play games than work, but most play games to escape their lack of real-world opportunities.

I wondered about that, too - it's an interesting theory, but if all of these "missing men" are actually not working at all, staying home and playing video games all day, they're being subsidized by some _very_ patient parents. I find it hard to believe that there are that many parents who are willing to put up with a total freeloader for decades on end: remember, if the man is in his mid-20's, the parents are in their mid 40's or 50's - that is, they're still schlepping themselves to and from work to pay for food and shelter.

I wonder how many of these young men have their own hustle to pay the bills

Yes the my rightwing sensor was screaming before I finished that sentence.

I’d argue that the “work is good in and of itself” idea is quite prevalent on the left too. You can certainly find left-wing advocates of “job guarantee”-type setups.

Not only, it seems like a completely speculative theory, unless I missed it there is no actual data in the article about an increase in media (games or other) consumption by the same group that is "working less".

And even if there is, it seems a lot like a chicken and egg problem, would young people consume more media because they cannot find a (as you note, "stable") work or are they refusing work because they are too busy consuming media (or have become addicted to it)?

Not just a speculative theory - a speculative theory that subtly shifts the blame to the young long term unemployed for being unemployed.

I like how they pretend we tried higher wages.

There were claims last year that "leisure demand" has increased: https://www.nber.org/papers/w23552 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/03/upshot/why-some-men-dont-... I can't speak to the study's method, though.

I'm curious! I would love to hear more about your ideas. Could you explain why precarious employment must be relevant, and thus why the failure to discuss it is a significant failure?

I ask this because it's not at all obvious to me why this would be the case.

well if jobs are extremely poorly remunerated, are unrewarding & have poor long-term growth options, not working becomes more attractive of course

The article in question appears to be postulating, in part, that the value of rewarding jobs with long-term growth options is becoming increasingly marginal. With that in mind, what is the relevance of precarious employment situations where alternative possible situations are not of significantly different value?

I don't see how this contradicts the ideas of the post. I agree though that it is an important point, that maybe jobs suck so much that cheap entertainment becomes even more attractive