Last week I published two posts inspired by the murder of Charlie Kirk. Both focused on one key part of his message and, I’d argue, his appeal: gender politics. Kirk passionately advocated a return to long-gone traditional gender norms, in which women married early and focused on having children, not on building careers. That is, he wanted to reverse the “quiet revolution” in women’s lives identified by Claudia Goldin, in which young women’s decisions about education and work began to resemble those of young men.
Let me acknowledge that Kirk’s message wasn’t just about women. He was demeaning towards people of color, wanted to destroy the separation between church and state, attacked trans people, and was an absolutist on gun ownership despite our rising toll of gun violence. By not discussing the many ways in which Kirk tried to infuse polarization and exploit bigotry in our body politic, I am not attempting to airbrush his record. Because this post isn’t really about Kirk; rather, it’s about the relevance of Kirk’s views about gender roles and work and how that was a part of his appeal to his audience.
Kirk generally framed his arguments as being aimed at women themselves, arguing that their lives would be happier and more fulfilling if they lived the way their mothers had. But his support came largely from resentful young men, many of whom feel that society isn’t offering them the opportunities they deserve. And many of them blame women.
As I noted in my earlier posts, it is true that men in America are in trouble. In particular, there has been a striking rise in the number of prime-working-age men not in the labor force. And I also explained that neither Donald Trump’s nor Kirk’s prescriptions would improve the lot of men. In fact, Trump’s economic policies are making them worse off.
Today’s primer will offer a broader, more analytical discussion of the phenomenon of men not working. I’ve never done research on this subject, but I’ll try to draw on others’ work. Also, gender issues in employment are closely related, intellectually, to issues in two fields I have worked in: the economics of declining regions and the economics of immigration.
Beyond the paywall, I’ll address the following:
1. How many men aren’t working, and who are they?
2. Why do we care? Specifically, why are non-working men a bigger problem than non-working women?
3. The obvious, politically charged question: Are men’s problems the flip side of the rising economic role of women? (Spoiler: no.)
4. Why are fewer men working?
5. What can policy do to address the worsening problem of non-working men?...