Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: Drugs - specifically opioids - cause 20% of the labour market decline [ThisIsIt] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
ThisIsIt wrote:
tri_kid wrote:
ThisIsIt wrote:
scorpio516 wrote:
https://www.bloomberg.com/...men-from-labor-force



Dude from Princeton studies labour force participation rate over this century. He concludes that yes, most of the low rate is that boomers are old and kids are able to choose school over jobs, but 20% of men out of the labour force are there due to drug abuse. We're at 63% participation rate right now.


If you want to drill down deep, 35-44 year olds. In 2000, 85% participation rate. 2017? 82.5% ish.
Men, 16+. 2000: 75%. 2017: 69%
I'd like to compare men, 25-54, but the BLS is hard to work with.



It's almost enough to ask what it is it about modern U.S. society that drives people to drugs?


I watched a Jordan Peterson lecture last week or so and he brought this up. I'll try and find it and post the link to the video. Anyways, he blamed it on the Western male's loss of responsibility in society. In other words, the traditional role for men has deteriorated, resulting in men turning to drugs.


Interesting, but large scale drug abuse would seem to predate that by a good bit. I wish I could remember where I saw the information, but it was something that indicated that drug abuse levels have been fairly consistent for awhile, it's just the drug of choice that changes.

Prohibition was in response to widespread alcoholism which at least from a modern perspective would seem to have been well before the traditional role of males changed (although I guess you could argue that that really began with the industrial revolution, which I've heard said is when alcoholism became widespread in the west).


You could also argue that alcoholism took off during the industrial revolution for two reasons:
  1. Cheap, mass produced beer. Now that we had factories, we naturally could have factory produced beer. But it's not like beer was ever really expensive and not for the masses.
  2. Free time. No longer were you working the fields for 18 hours a day to make sure you eat, you now work 12 hours a day in a factory. Suddenly you have 6 free hours every day! Some people took up team sports, some people took up pints.

Quote Reply
Re: Drugs - specifically opioids - cause 20% of the labour market decline [scorpio516] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
scorpio516 wrote:
ThisIsIt wrote:
tri_kid wrote:
ThisIsIt wrote:
scorpio516 wrote:
https://www.bloomberg.com/...men-from-labor-force



Dude from Princeton studies labour force participation rate over this century. He concludes that yes, most of the low rate is that boomers are old and kids are able to choose school over jobs, but 20% of men out of the labour force are there due to drug abuse. We're at 63% participation rate right now.


If you want to drill down deep, 35-44 year olds. In 2000, 85% participation rate. 2017? 82.5% ish.
Men, 16+. 2000: 75%. 2017: 69%
I'd like to compare men, 25-54, but the BLS is hard to work with.



It's almost enough to ask what it is it about modern U.S. society that drives people to drugs?


I watched a Jordan Peterson lecture last week or so and he brought this up. I'll try and find it and post the link to the video. Anyways, he blamed it on the Western male's loss of responsibility in society. In other words, the traditional role for men has deteriorated, resulting in men turning to drugs.


Interesting, but large scale drug abuse would seem to predate that by a good bit. I wish I could remember where I saw the information, but it was something that indicated that drug abuse levels have been fairly consistent for awhile, it's just the drug of choice that changes.

Prohibition was in response to widespread alcoholism which at least from a modern perspective would seem to have been well before the traditional role of males changed (although I guess you could argue that that really began with the industrial revolution, which I've heard said is when alcoholism became widespread in the west).


You could also argue that alcoholism took off during the industrial revolution for two reasons:
  1. Cheap, mass produced beer. Now that we had factories, we naturally could have factory produced beer. But it's not like beer was ever really expensive and not for the masses.
  2. Free time. No longer were you working the fields for 18 hours a day to make sure you eat, you now work 12 hours a day in a factory. Suddenly you have 6 free hours every day! Some people took up team sports, some people took up pints.

My impression has always been that factory workers put in a lot more hours than farmers of the time. At least for a good bit of the year farmers don't have all that much to do.
Quote Reply
Re: Drugs - specifically opioids - cause 20% of the labour market decline [ThisIsIt] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
ThisIsIt wrote:
tri_kid wrote:
ThisIsIt wrote:
scorpio516 wrote:
https://www.bloomberg.com/...men-from-labor-force


Dude from Princeton studies labour force participation rate over this century. He concludes that yes, most of the low rate is that boomers are old and kids are able to choose school over jobs, but 20% of men out of the labour force are there due to drug abuse. We're at 63% participation rate right now.


If you want to drill down deep, 35-44 year olds. In 2000, 85% participation rate. 2017? 82.5% ish.
Men, 16+. 2000: 75%. 2017: 69%
I'd like to compare men, 25-54, but the BLS is hard to work with.



It's almost enough to ask what it is it about modern U.S. society that drives people to drugs?


I watched a Jordan Peterson lecture last week or so and he brought this up. I'll try and find it and post the link to the video. Anyways, he blamed it on the Western male's loss of responsibility in society. In other words, the traditional role for men has deteriorated, resulting in men turning to drugs.


Interesting, but large scale drug abuse would seem to predate that by a good bit. I wish I could remember where I saw the information, but it was something that indicated that drug abuse levels have been fairly consistent for awhile, it's just the drug of choice that changes.

Prohibition was in response to widespread alcoholism which at least from a modern perspective would seem to have been well before the traditional role of males changed (although I guess you could argue that that really began with the industrial revolution, which I've heard said is when alcoholism became widespread in the west).

The thing about alcohol/alcoholism is that you can still go to work the next day. Sure, you might miss a day or two, but the thing is, your boss is probably drinking too. Also, look at the lifestyle of the Japanese salary man. Drink with the boss every day after work. No (virtually) opioids in Japan. Just smoking and alcohol and passing out on the train everyday (and its acceptable). Men still dominate the labor market in Japan, women still pour tea. This isn't the video I watched, but Peterson discusses the same thing here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDtAI7wZGVw

He is basically saying that once men fall out of the labor market in the West, they have a high tendency for opioid abuse. Just imagine what men would have done if opioids were as strong during the Great Depression as they are today. Drugs, especially prescription drugs, have changed so dramatically over the last couple decades. Men don't stand a chance once they're hooked. Its probably a combination of those two factors. Opioids are stronger, and men are out of work.
Quote Reply
Re: Drugs - specifically opioids - cause 20% of the labour market decline [scorpio516] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
scorpio516 wrote:
ThisIsIt wrote:
tri_kid wrote:
ThisIsIt wrote:
scorpio516 wrote:
https://www.bloomberg.com/...men-from-labor-force



Dude from Princeton studies labour force participation rate over this century. He concludes that yes, most of the low rate is that boomers are old and kids are able to choose school over jobs, but 20% of men out of the labour force are there due to drug abuse. We're at 63% participation rate right now.


If you want to drill down deep, 35-44 year olds. In 2000, 85% participation rate. 2017? 82.5% ish.
Men, 16+. 2000: 75%. 2017: 69%
I'd like to compare men, 25-54, but the BLS is hard to work with.



It's almost enough to ask what it is it about modern U.S. society that drives people to drugs?


I watched a Jordan Peterson lecture last week or so and he brought this up. I'll try and find it and post the link to the video. Anyways, he blamed it on the Western male's loss of responsibility in society. In other words, the traditional role for men has deteriorated, resulting in men turning to drugs.


Interesting, but large scale drug abuse would seem to predate that by a good bit. I wish I could remember where I saw the information, but it was something that indicated that drug abuse levels have been fairly consistent for awhile, it's just the drug of choice that changes.

Prohibition was in response to widespread alcoholism which at least from a modern perspective would seem to have been well before the traditional role of males changed (although I guess you could argue that that really began with the industrial revolution, which I've heard said is when alcoholism became widespread in the west).


You could also argue that alcoholism took off during the industrial revolution for two reasons:
  1. Cheap, mass produced beer. Now that we had factories, we naturally could have factory produced beer. But it's not like beer was ever really expensive and not for the masses.
  2. Free time. No longer were you working the fields for 18 hours a day to make sure you eat, you now work 12 hours a day in a factory. Suddenly you have 6 free hours every day! Some people took up team sports, some people took up pints.

Hogarth's "Gin Lane", a famous depiction of the alcoholism of the lower classes, was printed in 1751, which was a little bit before the industrial revolution took off. I'm not so sure alcoholism increased during the industrial revolution. It's possible as more people moved to cities that reporting of it did.
Quote Reply

Prev Next