Was geschah mit dem jungen Mann aus der Mittelschicht?

Every major shift in the graph before stagnation was all, un-fucking-suprisingly, in the 80’s. Like there was this massive shift across the NATO-aligned world at the time about going back to the good old days of robber-barons and limited government intervention… well limited in the sense that the only people benefiting from the government are too old to work.

Out earned by Seniors.

And the media pundits wonder why young men are radicalizing. I do wonder why if they are serious about asking those questions or just want to pivot into something else because as often as we see these stats, it’s not reflected in the reporting. There is no ‚crisis‘ in reporting about young men that isn’t related to SA, or the latest brain rot GenZ trend as there is for almost every other group out there.

There’s no one specific cause you could point to, but I posit that the emphasis on women’s issues and characterization of men as ‚priviledged‘ , overly unbalanced policies enacted meant to correct historical wrongs and decades of cumulative policy detritus whittling away at traditional high paying blue collar jobs, be it in forestry, resources, etc all contributes.

I think frankly this is not something nice words can fix, and even that is hard to come by in many places when I point to plight of young men and pleading with political parties to take a less hostile stand towards men and boys, I invevitably get someone ranting at me about priviledge.

I wish this article spoke more about OAS and our batshit bizarro reality: we are funding luxury retirements for seniors that already have solid incomes with debt that young people will need to pay for generations to come. Mike Moffat spoke more about it on the podcast, but it’s a political Gordian Knot that none of the political parties have any balls to fix, as rich seniors are the core Canadian voting block. Our country’s infrastructure is rotting and falling behind our global peers so that boomers can go on their third Viking cruise of the year on the taxpayers’ dime.

A man who was 35 in 1976 is now 84 and, for the most part, on their way out. And this entire group of people from 25 and up have represented a huge part of our population with a big wave of people behind them not only in Canada but throughout the Western world for decades. They’ve been making choices and decisions and investments that have gotten us here. And I don’t know if they envisioned their decisions would cut off young people at the knees, not just men but also women. Women are doing well in comparison to where they were before 1976 but they still lag in terms of salary and positions of leadership.

But I can’t help but notice, as a woman, the choice of 1976 in general. The mid 70s were pivotal for women. Their participation in the workforce, their ability to get their own credit, and discrimination against women was made against the law. It’s interesting to me that they chose the mid 70s in general. Maybe I’m reading too much into it. The interview mentions that they were going to discuss women separately but then mention briefly the issue of childcare costs. Why? How is this affecting men’s income? That’s part of the cost of living for sure but it’s not about income so I’m confused.