Redefining "Dignity" and "Pride"

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/31/business/31men.html?adxnnl=1&pagewanted=all&adxnnlx=1318172581-aGaU9McISvTHvJDEZTsZDQ

This article is actually from a couple of years ago, pre-recession. But, the trends it gets into are multi-decade in nature. The mystery under examination is the huge number of American men, age 30-54, who do not work, even in a period of 4% unemployment. Fully 13% do not work, some of whom are looking, most of whom are not.

It's useful, first, to separate those looking for work (unemployed) from those not looking (idlers). These are clearly distinct categories. The unemployment figures are well-known; the number of idlers is a more interesting issue. From the numbers in the article and supporting data provided, the trend toward increased idlers was mostly gradual in the 50s, 60s, and 80s. In the 70s, 90s, and 00s it increased rapidly. Approximate number of idlers in each year:

1968: 3%
1980: 6%
1990: 6%
2000: 7.5%
2005: 8.5%

Unfortunately, the stats (on race, education, income) the Times provides do not distinguish between unemployed and idlers--an idiotic misstep. After all, the point of the article is to investigate the mystery of increasing idleness.

Some percentage of the idle work off the books at any number of casual, temporary, informal, or illegal jobs. Mostly, this type of thing is ill-paid and irregular. The main inducements to idleness are likely disability and Medicare benefits or a wife who takes up the slack with her income. A third of the unemployed and idlers have $50k+ household income--either they have significant financial resources or spousal income.

Given that the federal disability program increased its charity cases from 3 to 6.5 million from 1990 to 2005--it's fair to say it's being gamed by millions. This was a time period when jobs were becoming less strenuous and dangerous and population only grew 15%. The problem is that neither the Social Security bureaucrats nor the administrative law judges, who determine whether someone qualifies for disability payments, have an incentive to ensure a fair decision. They take the easy way out--approval (sometimes after appeals of the initial decision) for almost everyone who applies for this charity. No doubt many more will suddenly become disabled during this recession.

The racial breakdown for these men (unemployed and idlers), somewhat disguised by the statistical presentation the Times chose, is thus:

White:     11.5%
Black:      27%
Hispanic: 13%

The blacks are a special problem, as in so many other areas of life. Their excessive rate reflects various causal factors: a high rate of criminality, residence in areas with few jobs, poor education and training levels, the alternative appeal of criminal activity (esp drug dealing), the collapse in black America of the tradition of men supporting women and children, habituation to the low income/welfare dependency lifestyle.