Long-Term Care in the 13th Century, and Other Links

Comments (13)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Desai says:

    @ At loneliness and dying alone

    I am not surprised by the research finding. However, what does concern me is that many people are going solo into their retirement, this good mean an unhappy ending for many, going by the research here.

  2. Patel says:

    @ Why have men stopped working

    I would assume because most of the manufacturing jobs have been outsources, traditionally this sector was dominated by men. And with this segment of the economy shipped off somewhere, many of these men are left with very little options for their skill set.

  3. Harley says:

    Not quite sure if that’s true Patel, the article references Germany which has a much larger manufacturing sector but male lfpr is still lower than the U.S.

  4. Jack says:

    Look at the rise in female LFPR, there are a number of possibilities.. It could be that women are getting jobs to supplement income — or maybe Ledbetter actually worked (I highly doubt it).

    Personally I like to think this is a general shift, in which the men stay home and the women support them. These thoughts give me hope.

  5. Donald says:

    “Feeling lonely won’t kill you; being alone might”

    This is very much so a cultural problem. Many other cultures value social interaction and familial involvement, but here we are suffering from increasing loneliness and machine-like behaviors in our culture. All that matters is getting to work, working, going back home and doing the same thing in the morning…and with time people forgot about other crucial elements of the human condition.

  6. Ron says:

    “Why have men quit working?”

    I find these studies encouraging because I think less men should be working anyways. Men contribute to many of the problems we have and women tend to solve the problems men create.

  7. Buster says:

    How did the English deal with long term care in the 13th century? The capitalist way: parents and children formed contracts.

    Yeah, but to be honest, the long-term care problem wasn’t that big back then. People tended to die young; and the biggest risk of disability was that some cantankerous witch might turn you into a newt!

  8. Irving Toller says:

    @Buster – “and the biggest risk of disability was that some cantankerous witch might turn you into a newt!” — That’s great! Spot on!

    @Donald – I completely agree. Americans are more focused on work than any other culture. Combine that with incessant technology and Americans have less interpersonal interaction on a daily basis. A human – I think – by definition, is a social creature. Thus we need relationships, real conversation and stimulation.

  9. A.D. Samson says:

    I agree with Ron. Im 100% ok with accepting a “lesser” role in society if my wife would want to support me. I think the role of the stay-at-home parent is an important one, and would gladly allow my wife to support the family financially while I managed the household!

  10. Bridget says:

    Regarding the third link on men quitting the workforce, here I found this other article that reviews the same topic but on an age-basis, rather than gender. It goes a little bit on the tangent from what Dr. Goodman is showing us here, but thought it was worth looking into from two different perspectives.


  11. Ashley V. says:

    @Ron and A.D.,

    Statements like yours, coming from two males, makes me wonder if these are the kind of “men” us women are counting on these days. Worrisome.

  12. Monkey's Uncle says:

    Why have men quit working?

    A generation or so ago most women didn’t work. Men hoping to enjoy the affections of a woman typically had to get married and support a family as the sole breadwinner. In the intervening years, women began to acquire their own source of income and social mores against non-marital fraternizing lessened. Over time the relationship between male work and the opportunity to pair bond (to use a term from evolutionary psychology) lessened, likely reducing the incentive to work in some males.

  13. Gabriel Odom says:

    “But it’s been happening literally as long as the statistical series has existed. That’s part of what makes it so fascinating. It appears to be impervious to the macroeconomic cycle or the changing fads of public policy.”

    I believe this is key. The first FRED data on the subject goes back to the mid-1940s – a time widely recognised to be an economic outlier. I believe that the male workforce participation rate in the 1940s was above the long run equilibrium, as we were in an expansionary gap. There was a massive shift in the American culture coming off the back of WWII, and this translated to more people working than usual.

    However, I am not certain that the male long-run equilibrium LFPS is as low as it is now, so I expect that male participation to increase (if we can remove extraneous labour factors such as welfare et al).