What do you think?
Rate this book
Men Without Work: America's Invisible Crisis
By one reading, things look pretty good for Americans today: the country is richer than ever before and the unemployment rate is down by half since the Great Recession—lower today, in fact, than for most of the postwar era.
But a closer look shows that something is going seriously wrong. This is the collapse of work—most especially among America’s men. Nicholas Eberstadt, a political economist who holds the Henry Wendt Chair in Political Economy at the American Enterprise Institute, shows that while “unemployment” has gone down, America’s work rate is also lower today than a generation ago—and that the work rate for US men has been spiraling downward for half a century. Astonishingly, the work rate for American males aged twenty-five to fifty-four—or “men of prime working age”—was actually slightly lower in 2015 than it had been in 1940: before the War, and at the tail end of the Great Depression.
Today, nearly one in six prime working age men has no paid work at all—and nearly one in eight is out of the labor force entirely, neither working nor even looking for work. This new normal of “men without work,” argues Eberstadt, is “America’s invisible crisis.”
So who are these men? How did they get there? What are they doing with their time? And what are the implications of this exit from work for American society?
Nicholas Eberstadt lays out the issue and Jared Bernstein from the left and Henry Olsen from the right offer their responses to this national crisis.
For more information, please visit http://menwithoutwork.com.
But a closer look shows that something is going seriously wrong. This is the collapse of work—most especially among America’s men. Nicholas Eberstadt, a political economist who holds the Henry Wendt Chair in Political Economy at the American Enterprise Institute, shows that while “unemployment” has gone down, America’s work rate is also lower today than a generation ago—and that the work rate for US men has been spiraling downward for half a century. Astonishingly, the work rate for American males aged twenty-five to fifty-four—or “men of prime working age”—was actually slightly lower in 2015 than it had been in 1940: before the War, and at the tail end of the Great Depression.
Today, nearly one in six prime working age men has no paid work at all—and nearly one in eight is out of the labor force entirely, neither working nor even looking for work. This new normal of “men without work,” argues Eberstadt, is “America’s invisible crisis.”
So who are these men? How did they get there? What are they doing with their time? And what are the implications of this exit from work for American society?
Nicholas Eberstadt lays out the issue and Jared Bernstein from the left and Henry Olsen from the right offer their responses to this national crisis.
For more information, please visit http://menwithoutwork.com.
216 pages, Paperback
Published September 12, 2016
108 people are currently reading
1365 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 78 reviews
October 11, 2022
Special notice: If you want to be able to read the graphics that are in this book, buy the paperback and not the Kindle edition. The Kindle e-reader will not produce the graphics at readable size and you will not be able to print any graphic from the Kindle or print it from any Kindle highlights that you save. Links are provided for each graphic but getting to many of them involves more than simply going to a link as I discovered.
In recent years I have seen so many help-wanted signs that I have wondered what is going on; why aren't there more job seekers? I bought this book to find out and my question was answered. There are a large number of people who could take jobs, but they are not interested in doing so. To be more specific, there are four times as many people out of the workforce by choice than there are people looking for work but not finding it.
This book is full of facts and graphs documenting the long term rise in the number of men who are not looking for work, a trend Nicholas Eberstadt shows began in the mid 1960's and has continued to increase ever since regardless of recessions or economic booms. He rightly criticizes the way media and government do not account for this group when reporting on unemployment. The impression given is that the labor market is tight because there aren't enough people to take the jobs that, while technically true, ignores the fact is that there are more than enough people to take the jobs who will not do so.
Eberstadt credits disability payments for supporting the living expenses of those not wanting to work, either benefits directly received or received by another member of the household. He rightly states that this is an unintentional implementation of the universal basic income idea that would pay everyone whether or not they work. The lifestyle of the non-workers (he calls them un-workers) is not enviable but they are able to survive. He doesn't attempt to distinguish those who are genuinely unable to work from those who could if they wished to do so, stating that government disability programs are not coordinated or documented in a way that a researcher could tap to get more information.
Eberstadt rightly mentions that as national wealth has greatly increased, the percentage of the workforce that is working has dropped, but he notably fails to mention that this large increase in wealth has gone overwhelmingly to the wealthy investor class, who, in their own way, speculate rather than work. He doesn't mention that this rewarding of the non-workers at the top of the income scale may be a disincentive to people who, if they took the kind of work they could get, would be laboring much while receiving little and in routine mindless jobs (flipping burgers) that provide no personal satisfaction.
It's clear that the author is bothered by the large number of people who are doing nothing while being paid by the government, forgetting the well established fact that our government spends with no need for tax income, that deficits don't matter to a government that can print money at will and that issues the world's reserve currency. Inflation alone limits the printing press. He approvingly mentions the work ethic of old where self-respect and the lack of a safety net would drive everyone to work not matter how little could be earned.
We know that gambling in the stock market and pulling stunts with borrowed money to "leverage" buyouts of companies in order to strip their assets for personal profit has long been common practice among the wealthy. This is not work that produces anything, but to the contrary can destroy productive companies for private profit that then goes into mansions and yachts. We also know that investors are bailed out by the government while the little guy is left hanging as seen in the mortgage disaster of 2008-9. While this raiding of businesses and preying upon the little guy as the banks have done goes on in plain sight without sanction, it is hard for me to look down on people who prefer to scrape by on government funds rather than work long hours for little reward.
Eberstadt mentions the large number of men with felonies on their records, 1 our of every 7 American males. He cites the average prison time for felons as two years. That means 90% of felons are out of prison and among us. These men find it very difficult if not impossible to get a job, putting them truly out of the labor force. Might it not be better to provide them with minimal support than have then look to crime to survive? As with those on disability, Eberstadt does not separate the felons from the total of those not looking for work. Correcting for this might significantly reduce the number of those he claims could work but will not.
Only briefly mentioned are the flight of production overseas, the destruction of unions and the shedding of benefits such as health insurance and pensions by business in general. Whereas in the 1950's a worker could appreciate what his union was doing for him and what his company was doing to support him, this sharing of power that showed respect for the individual has disappeared with the government actively de-regulating if not passively looking on. President Obama told the bankers after the mortgage disaster that he was the only thing between them and the pitchforks before he went on to have the Fed pay them in full for their otherwise worthless holdings.
Much has changed since 1965 when the upward trend of the non-working population started to grow. This population has grown three times faster than has the working population since. I think Eberhardt would like to see some sense of shame drive the non-workers back to looking for work, but in view of all that has happened to enrich the rich at the expense of the worker that continues today, I can't join in his disapproval. This book is a valuable data source and I agree with the author that the issue is kept well under the radar in reports on the economy and in the news.
In recent years I have seen so many help-wanted signs that I have wondered what is going on; why aren't there more job seekers? I bought this book to find out and my question was answered. There are a large number of people who could take jobs, but they are not interested in doing so. To be more specific, there are four times as many people out of the workforce by choice than there are people looking for work but not finding it.
This book is full of facts and graphs documenting the long term rise in the number of men who are not looking for work, a trend Nicholas Eberstadt shows began in the mid 1960's and has continued to increase ever since regardless of recessions or economic booms. He rightly criticizes the way media and government do not account for this group when reporting on unemployment. The impression given is that the labor market is tight because there aren't enough people to take the jobs that, while technically true, ignores the fact is that there are more than enough people to take the jobs who will not do so.
Eberstadt credits disability payments for supporting the living expenses of those not wanting to work, either benefits directly received or received by another member of the household. He rightly states that this is an unintentional implementation of the universal basic income idea that would pay everyone whether or not they work. The lifestyle of the non-workers (he calls them un-workers) is not enviable but they are able to survive. He doesn't attempt to distinguish those who are genuinely unable to work from those who could if they wished to do so, stating that government disability programs are not coordinated or documented in a way that a researcher could tap to get more information.
Eberstadt rightly mentions that as national wealth has greatly increased, the percentage of the workforce that is working has dropped, but he notably fails to mention that this large increase in wealth has gone overwhelmingly to the wealthy investor class, who, in their own way, speculate rather than work. He doesn't mention that this rewarding of the non-workers at the top of the income scale may be a disincentive to people who, if they took the kind of work they could get, would be laboring much while receiving little and in routine mindless jobs (flipping burgers) that provide no personal satisfaction.
It's clear that the author is bothered by the large number of people who are doing nothing while being paid by the government, forgetting the well established fact that our government spends with no need for tax income, that deficits don't matter to a government that can print money at will and that issues the world's reserve currency. Inflation alone limits the printing press. He approvingly mentions the work ethic of old where self-respect and the lack of a safety net would drive everyone to work not matter how little could be earned.
We know that gambling in the stock market and pulling stunts with borrowed money to "leverage" buyouts of companies in order to strip their assets for personal profit has long been common practice among the wealthy. This is not work that produces anything, but to the contrary can destroy productive companies for private profit that then goes into mansions and yachts. We also know that investors are bailed out by the government while the little guy is left hanging as seen in the mortgage disaster of 2008-9. While this raiding of businesses and preying upon the little guy as the banks have done goes on in plain sight without sanction, it is hard for me to look down on people who prefer to scrape by on government funds rather than work long hours for little reward.
Eberstadt mentions the large number of men with felonies on their records, 1 our of every 7 American males. He cites the average prison time for felons as two years. That means 90% of felons are out of prison and among us. These men find it very difficult if not impossible to get a job, putting them truly out of the labor force. Might it not be better to provide them with minimal support than have then look to crime to survive? As with those on disability, Eberstadt does not separate the felons from the total of those not looking for work. Correcting for this might significantly reduce the number of those he claims could work but will not.
Only briefly mentioned are the flight of production overseas, the destruction of unions and the shedding of benefits such as health insurance and pensions by business in general. Whereas in the 1950's a worker could appreciate what his union was doing for him and what his company was doing to support him, this sharing of power that showed respect for the individual has disappeared with the government actively de-regulating if not passively looking on. President Obama told the bankers after the mortgage disaster that he was the only thing between them and the pitchforks before he went on to have the Fed pay them in full for their otherwise worthless holdings.
Much has changed since 1965 when the upward trend of the non-working population started to grow. This population has grown three times faster than has the working population since. I think Eberhardt would like to see some sense of shame drive the non-workers back to looking for work, but in view of all that has happened to enrich the rich at the expense of the worker that continues today, I can't join in his disapproval. This book is a valuable data source and I agree with the author that the issue is kept well under the radar in reports on the economy and in the news.
April 12, 2023
Useful stats about the growing population of able-bodied men who have dropped out of the workforce in recent decades. I wish there was a little more commentary at the end, but for what it does, it does well.
September 26, 2020
I heard Nicholas Emerstadt talk on the Art of Manliness in late 2017 (episode 365) about the effects of lack of work on Men. This was an interesting talk and hinted at areas on interest around Men’s Mental Health for me. If only he was as well written as he is well spoken. This is a statistic heavy book aimed at policy wonks. It would have been a better book if he had included examples and anecdotes of what he was writing about. It is a mercifully short book at 112 pages, but they are dense and hard to follow.
It is acronym heavy talking about NILFs (Not in the Labour Force), SIPP (Survey for Income and Program Participation), SSDI (Social Security Disability Insurance), LFPRs (Labour Force Participation Rates) amongst many others. This made is hard to follow. The keen reader would require a list of acronyms to get the most out of the book. I was not that keen.
What I got from this book is that men of prime working age are declining to participate in the workforce in declining and alarming rates. They prefer to watch TV or do other activities which do not contribute to their communities. Community participation rates (volunteering) were higher in people looking for work or engaged in full-time employment. The impression was that without work or the hope of it, men give up and decline to contribute to their communities, families (measure by hours spent caring for a family member), to themselves (engage in ongoing education) in any meaningful way. Without work men waste away with the associated rise in psychological and physical disabilities.
Emerstadt did published a number of critiques of his work, which earned an extra start from me. I found this book disappointing as it had the potential to say something important about men. Emerstadt does not offer any solutions or suggestions on how to improve the situation of these men. He falls short. A wonk that can write well can take his work and say something important about the state of the contemporary state of the Western Man. Emerstadt just needed to speak to some of the men he was describing.
It is acronym heavy talking about NILFs (Not in the Labour Force), SIPP (Survey for Income and Program Participation), SSDI (Social Security Disability Insurance), LFPRs (Labour Force Participation Rates) amongst many others. This made is hard to follow. The keen reader would require a list of acronyms to get the most out of the book. I was not that keen.
What I got from this book is that men of prime working age are declining to participate in the workforce in declining and alarming rates. They prefer to watch TV or do other activities which do not contribute to their communities. Community participation rates (volunteering) were higher in people looking for work or engaged in full-time employment. The impression was that without work or the hope of it, men give up and decline to contribute to their communities, families (measure by hours spent caring for a family member), to themselves (engage in ongoing education) in any meaningful way. Without work men waste away with the associated rise in psychological and physical disabilities.
Emerstadt did published a number of critiques of his work, which earned an extra start from me. I found this book disappointing as it had the potential to say something important about men. Emerstadt does not offer any solutions or suggestions on how to improve the situation of these men. He falls short. A wonk that can write well can take his work and say something important about the state of the contemporary state of the Western Man. Emerstadt just needed to speak to some of the men he was describing.
August 29, 2024
The only reasons i gave this 2 stars instead of 1: he discusses the basic trends thoroughly and with lots of charts cut by subgroup, and he allowed Jared Bernstein to clap back at the end
March 22, 2017
Men Without Work:America's Invisible Crisis (2016) by Nicholas Eberstadt looks at the dramatic decline in the US male labour force participation rate over the past 50 years. Nearly one in six men had no paid work at all and one in eight was completely out of the labour force. The US generally has lots of people who work lots of hours, but in terms of the male participation rate the US is dramatically lower than other countries.
The book goes through how the rate has steadily decline and Eberstadt looks at why those men might be out of the labour force. Interestingly, men who have children are much more likely to be in the labour force than those who don't, but it's hard to say which way this relationship goes. Eberstadt discusses the idea that ex-convicts, of which the US has dramatically more than any other developed country are one of the major drivers of this problem. It seems likely that they are.
The book presents a lot of statistics and also has some people who disagree with some Eberstadt's views who also put forward their ideas about the issue.
The book is an interesting read about a surprising and alarming aspect of the US.
The book goes through how the rate has steadily decline and Eberstadt looks at why those men might be out of the labour force. Interestingly, men who have children are much more likely to be in the labour force than those who don't, but it's hard to say which way this relationship goes. Eberstadt discusses the idea that ex-convicts, of which the US has dramatically more than any other developed country are one of the major drivers of this problem. It seems likely that they are.
The book presents a lot of statistics and also has some people who disagree with some Eberstadt's views who also put forward their ideas about the issue.
The book is an interesting read about a surprising and alarming aspect of the US.
July 13, 2025
Four stars only because all the stats are impossible to follow in audiobook format and because it's kind of a dry subject. Still, it's an important one and very worthy of discussion.
What was super interesting is that there are a couple of short chapters at the end written by critics of Mr. Eberstadt's analysis and a final rebuttal by him. Guess that's the part that stuck with me.
Mr. Eberstadt's point is that American men of prime working age have left the workforce in dramatic fashion: as of about 2015, for every man looking for work, there were THREE not looking for work. What civilization can long survive, with nearly 10 million men not contributing to society in any measurable way?
Where the author differs from is critics is in the CAUSE of this dramatic drop on workforce participation. The author believes it is due to the disincentives to work. While relatively few of these men have managed to qualify for disability, for example, other analyses show that many of these men live in households in which another member is drawing disability.
Another stat he cites, which I found compelling, was that Hispanic men of recent immigration status, a group that has much higher rates of workforce participation than American-born men, had significantly different rates of participation in the states of Texas and California. In Cali, workforce participation was lower than in Texas. Mr. Eberstadt believes it is caused by California's higher welfare benefits.
The critics argue that American men dropped from the workforce due to factory jobs heading overseas. In other words, this problem is a "demand side" problem. Mr. Eber argues that it is a "supply side" problem, with men finding enough government help that they don't need to work. His counterpoint to the loss of factory jobs is to point to other OECD countries that also de-industrialized and yet have not suffered the same drop in workforce participation among their male population.
This drop is also not due to women entering the workforce. For example, Japan has a much higher male workforce participation rate, but it also has a higher female participation rate.
In the end, I'm leaning towards Mr. Eberstadt's thesis. For example, there is a spot near me where "homeless" people frequently beg. Over the years, I've realized they work in shifts. And where do they wait for their shift to start? At the McDonald's that's a block away. The one with the HELP WANTED sign out front. But apparently, begging is a better gig.
I'm also struck by the hordes of immigrants from all over the globe that have come across the border seeking work during the Biden administration. Clearly, there is plenty of demand for labor, but many American men can't be bothered. The Biden administration's solution was to advertise to the world that we were open for labor immigrants.
The book isn't even a decade old, but it could already use an update. Still, I found the discussion interesting.
What was super interesting is that there are a couple of short chapters at the end written by critics of Mr. Eberstadt's analysis and a final rebuttal by him. Guess that's the part that stuck with me.
Mr. Eberstadt's point is that American men of prime working age have left the workforce in dramatic fashion: as of about 2015, for every man looking for work, there were THREE not looking for work. What civilization can long survive, with nearly 10 million men not contributing to society in any measurable way?
Where the author differs from is critics is in the CAUSE of this dramatic drop on workforce participation. The author believes it is due to the disincentives to work. While relatively few of these men have managed to qualify for disability, for example, other analyses show that many of these men live in households in which another member is drawing disability.
Another stat he cites, which I found compelling, was that Hispanic men of recent immigration status, a group that has much higher rates of workforce participation than American-born men, had significantly different rates of participation in the states of Texas and California. In Cali, workforce participation was lower than in Texas. Mr. Eberstadt believes it is caused by California's higher welfare benefits.
The critics argue that American men dropped from the workforce due to factory jobs heading overseas. In other words, this problem is a "demand side" problem. Mr. Eber argues that it is a "supply side" problem, with men finding enough government help that they don't need to work. His counterpoint to the loss of factory jobs is to point to other OECD countries that also de-industrialized and yet have not suffered the same drop in workforce participation among their male population.
This drop is also not due to women entering the workforce. For example, Japan has a much higher male workforce participation rate, but it also has a higher female participation rate.
In the end, I'm leaning towards Mr. Eberstadt's thesis. For example, there is a spot near me where "homeless" people frequently beg. Over the years, I've realized they work in shifts. And where do they wait for their shift to start? At the McDonald's that's a block away. The one with the HELP WANTED sign out front. But apparently, begging is a better gig.
I'm also struck by the hordes of immigrants from all over the globe that have come across the border seeking work during the Biden administration. Clearly, there is plenty of demand for labor, but many American men can't be bothered. The Biden administration's solution was to advertise to the world that we were open for labor immigrants.
The book isn't even a decade old, but it could already use an update. Still, I found the discussion interesting.
November 17, 2022
Deer blind read 2022 #3
It was a little text booky for my taste. I get the issue, and I think it will be a global issue before long. But I think this book was a bit of a wasted opportunity because it used a lot of bullet points and statistics but not a ton of solutions or backups to the issues
It was a little text booky for my taste. I get the issue, and I think it will be a global issue before long. But I think this book was a bit of a wasted opportunity because it used a lot of bullet points and statistics but not a ton of solutions or backups to the issues
February 10, 2017
In "Men Without Work", Nicholas Eberstadt roundly documents the ever increasing number of men who have elected to disengage from the American workforce. In this regard he has made "America's Invisible Crisis" less invisible. This is an important starting point and it being his primary aim in this thin volume, he is successful.
Beyond documenting the problem, Eberstadt makes a number of plausible hypotheses as to why labor force participation has plummeted among American men but with less clear documentation. His prescriptions for dealing with the problem is even less fleshed out. This should not, however, be viewed as a failing, but rather an invitation for others to investigate and debate. In fact, Ebersadt kicks off the debate with the publication of two dissenting points of view and a response corresponding to the last three chapters of the book.
Beyond documenting the problem, Eberstadt makes a number of plausible hypotheses as to why labor force participation has plummeted among American men but with less clear documentation. His prescriptions for dealing with the problem is even less fleshed out. This should not, however, be viewed as a failing, but rather an invitation for others to investigate and debate. In fact, Ebersadt kicks off the debate with the publication of two dissenting points of view and a response corresponding to the last three chapters of the book.
February 24, 2018
"The growing incapability of grown men to function as breadwinners cannot help but undermine the American family. It casts those who nature designed to be strong into the role of dependents — on their wives or girlfriends, on their aging parents, or on government welfare." — page 5, Men Without Work: America’s Invisible Crisis.
Could there be a more establishment Republican sentence than that?
Partisanship aside, there’s a serious problem within the American labor force — one that has gotten steadily worse over the past 50 years and has accelerated even further over the past several years. Men who are within their prime working years are not only unemployed, they are completely disengaged from the job market. They are not looking for work and they are not contributing in a significant way to society.
Nicholas Eberstadt examines this problem in his 2016 book “Men Without Work: America’s Invisible Crisis.” Eberstadt is a political economist and, as you can imagine from that opening quote, a very conservative one. To his credit, however, he concludes this book with two critical essays by political economists from the middle and from the left of the political spectrum. All three experts concur: we have a serious, vexing problem on our hands. Opinions diverge on the cause.
Let’s get a sense of the problem from statistics collected by Eberstadt and his research team. Currently, there are roughly 10 million American men who could be and (presumably) should be working, but are not. This worker deficit translates to about 22 percent of men between the ages of 20 and 65 — and, remember, these are not unemployed men who are looking for work … rather these are unemployed men who are not searching for jobs at all.
This isn’t a sudden, new phenomenon. This population of “unworking” men has been growing more or less steadily for the past 50 some-odd years. In the 1960s, about one in every 16 sixteen prime-age American men were completely outside the workforce. Today? One in every six men fit this description. Currently, for every unemployed man who’s looking for a job, there are three more men who are completely off the grid.
Rural and southern states are bearing the brunt of this problem; the seven worst states for “unworking” are West Virginia, Kentucky, New Mexico, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas and Alabama. Globally, this rate of decline is much deeper in the U.S. as compared to other major world economies (however, those countries are also seeing more and more men entering this “unworking” category).
So, what do these unworking men do with their time? Not much. The American Time Use Survey shows that these men spend significantly more time sleeping, socializing and TV-watching than both men who are unemployed-but-searching and employed people of any sex. As a group, these unworkers tend not to devote their abundant of free time to educational pursuits, caretaking or volunteerism.
Tragically, perhaps unsurprisingly, more than 30 percent of these men have reported taking illegal drugs — as opposed to 8 percent of employed men. One imagines the modern scourges of meth and opioid abuse have and will push these numbers even higher.
So, what’s behind this? Eberstadt, perhaps naturally as a conservative, points to the welfare state, calling out by name Lyndon Baines Johnson and his Great Society. Eberstadt cites evidence on the abuse of unemployment insurance (which does appear to be abused more than most social programs). He cites the percentage growth of people relying upon food stamps, Medicaid and other programs within the overall social safety net. Amusingly, Eberstadt claims that the poor and out-of-work benefit more from government largesse than anyone else — ignoring the fact that tax breaks and mortgage interest deductions are substantially greater government handouts disproportionately benefiting the richest Americans. But I digress.
Beyond welfare, Eberstadt spends considerable time — admirably so — discussing the impact of our burgeoning population of men with arrest records, especially felony arrest records. America’s criminal justice system, in and of itself, is a serious problem and one that bears the stain of racism. For example, in 1979 about 15 percent of black men age 30 to 34 without a high school degree had an arrest record. By 2009, that number had exploded to an unfathomable 68 percent! (Note that a high school degree drops that percentage to 21 percent, and a college degree cuts it to 6.6 percent.)
Overall, about 20 million men are current or former felons. And you don’t have to be an economist or sociologist to know that many felons struggle mightily to find steady employment.
How does Eberstadt suggest we fix this problem? By revitalizing American businesses, of course, as any old-school conservative would. And by reducing the incentive to lie down in the social safety net. And through criminal justice reform. But if you blink you’ll miss his solutions — Eberstadt devotes 150 some-odd pages to defining the problem, but just seven pages to solutions.
Enter Henry Olson (a center-right think-tanker) and Jason Bernstein (a liberal economist). Eberstadt includes their critiques of his theories at the end of this book — a very admirable move, if you ask me. Both Henry and Jason are in full agreement with Nicholas that unworking men are a very serious problem for the United States economically and sociologically. Olson, however, makes an brilliant point that Eberstadt’s numbers do nothing to record or access why these men are claiming “unworking” as their status. Indeed, the government agencies asking men about their work status are not asking the question of how or why they claim this status. Without that information, every statistic lobbed up as a cause — welfare, prison, racism — can be waved off as correlation-is-not-causation.
Importantly, Olson and Bernstein address a topic that, shockingly, Bernstein barely mentions: the de-industrialization of America. One clear difference between the United States then (mid-1960s) and now (mid-2010s) is that factory jobs and other jobs that do not require advanced degrees or technical expertise used to be more abundant. Not to mention, they used to pay a living wage. This puts a dent in the hypothesis that laziness is a primary motivator pushing men to leave the workforce altogether. To quote Bernstein’s critique, the data “suggests less [men’s] flight from work and more work’s flight from them.”
Finally, Bernstein takes a harder look at the correlation between the American welfare state and rates of male unemployment and finds that the data does not match as well as Eberstadt suggests. This makes logical sense on a global scale, as male unemployment is much greater a problem in the United States as compared to western European nations, Canada and Japan (which have more robust safety nets).
In short — the more men and women at work in the United States, the lower our rates of poverty and the better our economic outlook. That millions of able-bodied, prime-of-life men are not working, choosing not to work, unable to find work, too drug-addled to work, too depressed to work, or too outclassed to work is, indeed, an enormous problem that will lead to both immediate and long-term economic and social decline. Fixing this problem requires a bi-partisan approach — not unlike the approach that Eberstadt, Olson and Bernstein have demonstrated.
Could there be a more establishment Republican sentence than that?
Partisanship aside, there’s a serious problem within the American labor force — one that has gotten steadily worse over the past 50 years and has accelerated even further over the past several years. Men who are within their prime working years are not only unemployed, they are completely disengaged from the job market. They are not looking for work and they are not contributing in a significant way to society.
Nicholas Eberstadt examines this problem in his 2016 book “Men Without Work: America’s Invisible Crisis.” Eberstadt is a political economist and, as you can imagine from that opening quote, a very conservative one. To his credit, however, he concludes this book with two critical essays by political economists from the middle and from the left of the political spectrum. All three experts concur: we have a serious, vexing problem on our hands. Opinions diverge on the cause.
Let’s get a sense of the problem from statistics collected by Eberstadt and his research team. Currently, there are roughly 10 million American men who could be and (presumably) should be working, but are not. This worker deficit translates to about 22 percent of men between the ages of 20 and 65 — and, remember, these are not unemployed men who are looking for work … rather these are unemployed men who are not searching for jobs at all.
This isn’t a sudden, new phenomenon. This population of “unworking” men has been growing more or less steadily for the past 50 some-odd years. In the 1960s, about one in every 16 sixteen prime-age American men were completely outside the workforce. Today? One in every six men fit this description. Currently, for every unemployed man who’s looking for a job, there are three more men who are completely off the grid.
Rural and southern states are bearing the brunt of this problem; the seven worst states for “unworking” are West Virginia, Kentucky, New Mexico, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas and Alabama. Globally, this rate of decline is much deeper in the U.S. as compared to other major world economies (however, those countries are also seeing more and more men entering this “unworking” category).
So, what do these unworking men do with their time? Not much. The American Time Use Survey shows that these men spend significantly more time sleeping, socializing and TV-watching than both men who are unemployed-but-searching and employed people of any sex. As a group, these unworkers tend not to devote their abundant of free time to educational pursuits, caretaking or volunteerism.
Tragically, perhaps unsurprisingly, more than 30 percent of these men have reported taking illegal drugs — as opposed to 8 percent of employed men. One imagines the modern scourges of meth and opioid abuse have and will push these numbers even higher.
So, what’s behind this? Eberstadt, perhaps naturally as a conservative, points to the welfare state, calling out by name Lyndon Baines Johnson and his Great Society. Eberstadt cites evidence on the abuse of unemployment insurance (which does appear to be abused more than most social programs). He cites the percentage growth of people relying upon food stamps, Medicaid and other programs within the overall social safety net. Amusingly, Eberstadt claims that the poor and out-of-work benefit more from government largesse than anyone else — ignoring the fact that tax breaks and mortgage interest deductions are substantially greater government handouts disproportionately benefiting the richest Americans. But I digress.
Beyond welfare, Eberstadt spends considerable time — admirably so — discussing the impact of our burgeoning population of men with arrest records, especially felony arrest records. America’s criminal justice system, in and of itself, is a serious problem and one that bears the stain of racism. For example, in 1979 about 15 percent of black men age 30 to 34 without a high school degree had an arrest record. By 2009, that number had exploded to an unfathomable 68 percent! (Note that a high school degree drops that percentage to 21 percent, and a college degree cuts it to 6.6 percent.)
Overall, about 20 million men are current or former felons. And you don’t have to be an economist or sociologist to know that many felons struggle mightily to find steady employment.
How does Eberstadt suggest we fix this problem? By revitalizing American businesses, of course, as any old-school conservative would. And by reducing the incentive to lie down in the social safety net. And through criminal justice reform. But if you blink you’ll miss his solutions — Eberstadt devotes 150 some-odd pages to defining the problem, but just seven pages to solutions.
Enter Henry Olson (a center-right think-tanker) and Jason Bernstein (a liberal economist). Eberstadt includes their critiques of his theories at the end of this book — a very admirable move, if you ask me. Both Henry and Jason are in full agreement with Nicholas that unworking men are a very serious problem for the United States economically and sociologically. Olson, however, makes an brilliant point that Eberstadt’s numbers do nothing to record or access why these men are claiming “unworking” as their status. Indeed, the government agencies asking men about their work status are not asking the question of how or why they claim this status. Without that information, every statistic lobbed up as a cause — welfare, prison, racism — can be waved off as correlation-is-not-causation.
Importantly, Olson and Bernstein address a topic that, shockingly, Bernstein barely mentions: the de-industrialization of America. One clear difference between the United States then (mid-1960s) and now (mid-2010s) is that factory jobs and other jobs that do not require advanced degrees or technical expertise used to be more abundant. Not to mention, they used to pay a living wage. This puts a dent in the hypothesis that laziness is a primary motivator pushing men to leave the workforce altogether. To quote Bernstein’s critique, the data “suggests less [men’s] flight from work and more work’s flight from them.”
Finally, Bernstein takes a harder look at the correlation between the American welfare state and rates of male unemployment and finds that the data does not match as well as Eberstadt suggests. This makes logical sense on a global scale, as male unemployment is much greater a problem in the United States as compared to western European nations, Canada and Japan (which have more robust safety nets).
In short — the more men and women at work in the United States, the lower our rates of poverty and the better our economic outlook. That millions of able-bodied, prime-of-life men are not working, choosing not to work, unable to find work, too drug-addled to work, too depressed to work, or too outclassed to work is, indeed, an enormous problem that will lead to both immediate and long-term economic and social decline. Fixing this problem requires a bi-partisan approach — not unlike the approach that Eberstadt, Olson and Bernstein have demonstrated.
November 14, 2022
I got this book on the strength of an interview the author did on The Fifth Column podcast. I also had a bunch of Audible tokens expiring that month, so I would up getting it on Audible. This wasn’t ideal for two reasons: 1. I didn’t get the post pandemic follow up edition, so the stats I was hearing was slightly out of date, and 2. There are so many facts and figures in this book and aurally is not the ideal way for me to take them in. I had to pause or rewind several times.
The book gives the general and specific contours of the weirdly hidden phenomenon of so many American men being out of work, a number that keeps on growing. The 2021 government numbers have about 1 in 4 men aged 20-24 and about 1 in 8 men aged 25-24 as “not participating” in the labor force or, hilariously, NILFs. These are men who are have stopped looking for a job and are not counted in the “unemployment rate” for historical reasons.
And these numbers have been steadily increasing for almost 50 years. The only age range with increasing participation in the labor force is 55 and over.
You get to learn what all these NILFS do with their time (mainly get stoned or drunk and do something screen-related all day) and how they support themselves (mainly disability insurance or freeloading off of relatives) and their family status (good news ladies, they are mostly single!). And far from being destitute, their consumer spending puts them in the 2nd and 3rd quintile of Americans.
Then just as the book was winding down, it did something I haven’t experienced before: two of Mr. Eberstadt’s American Enterprise Institute buddies each write a separate critique of his book, which make many valid points. Then Mr. Eberstadt gets the last word with his rebuttal of the two critiques. Amazing! More books should do this. For example, Malcom Gladwell’s dopey books should have legitimate experts that explain the actual facts of whatever topic he is garbling.
Recommended, if you care about this kind of thing. As a NILF (and DILF) myself I was very interested. But buy a written copy and the latest edition.
The book gives the general and specific contours of the weirdly hidden phenomenon of so many American men being out of work, a number that keeps on growing. The 2021 government numbers have about 1 in 4 men aged 20-24 and about 1 in 8 men aged 25-24 as “not participating” in the labor force or, hilariously, NILFs. These are men who are have stopped looking for a job and are not counted in the “unemployment rate” for historical reasons.
And these numbers have been steadily increasing for almost 50 years. The only age range with increasing participation in the labor force is 55 and over.
You get to learn what all these NILFS do with their time (mainly get stoned or drunk and do something screen-related all day) and how they support themselves (mainly disability insurance or freeloading off of relatives) and their family status (good news ladies, they are mostly single!). And far from being destitute, their consumer spending puts them in the 2nd and 3rd quintile of Americans.
Then just as the book was winding down, it did something I haven’t experienced before: two of Mr. Eberstadt’s American Enterprise Institute buddies each write a separate critique of his book, which make many valid points. Then Mr. Eberstadt gets the last word with his rebuttal of the two critiques. Amazing! More books should do this. For example, Malcom Gladwell’s dopey books should have legitimate experts that explain the actual facts of whatever topic he is garbling.
Recommended, if you care about this kind of thing. As a NILF (and DILF) myself I was very interested. But buy a written copy and the latest edition.
July 15, 2018
More than anything, I really enjoyed the scope of this book: 185 (small) pages, rich with charts. Only enough background to explain the data you're looking at and theorize over what it means. $5 at my local bookstore. Perhaps best of all, there are two short essays providing dissenting points of view to this book, penned by the author's colleagues. The author provides a short and civil rebuttal. I really really wish more business or economics books were written like this.
Most of this book is devoted to proving the case that labor force participation for working-age men has dropped steadily since the mid-1960's, amounting to roughly 10 million men today who are not actively looking for work, or, put another way, if 1965 labor force participation rates would hold today, the population of working-age men who are earning a paycheck would be ~10% higher than what we actually see.
Loads of great context:
- The increase in population of men not looking for work has outstripped men's natural population growth
- It's not because they're going to higher education
- Most of these men are not just out of the labor force for a short term, but for years
- Married men, foreign-born men, and men with advanced degrees are far less likely to fall into this cohort
- These men who choose not to work are not spending time doing valuavle unapid work, like volunteering or domestically supporting their families. They spend most of their time at leisure activities. There's some striking tables measuring the disparity in leisure time they have relative to working men and women
- This problem does not exist in any other developed country, or is far less pronounced (including in the PIIGS countries, who perhaps bear this reputation)
- These numbers are not reflected in the unemployment rates, because they exclude people not looking for work
- This drop in male workforce participation has more than been made up for by women
So what are the causes? What can we do about it?
Probably the traditional conservative response is to criticize our social safety net. And while Eberstat does spend a lot of time discussing it's impact, he clearly isn't convinced in that opinion. Instead of going so far at to day this decline has been caused by our growing social safety net, Eberstadt constrains himself to simply point out that disability programs and the like at least clearly financing a lot of this population (with relatives of the non-working men financing the remainder).
Actually, the most interesting evidence Eberstadt brings to bear is the theory that our more aggressive prosecution and punishment policies, which started in the 1980's, has resulted in a swelling population of current and ex-felons (estimated to be ~16 million as of 2004) who have a very hard time finding work, and is a key driver to the continued rate decline.
Seeing that the decline in labor force participation started in the 1960's, and the explosion of felony records didn't really kick off until 20 years later, this phenomenon doesn't explain everything, but if this book makes anything clear, it's that there's no single cause for why we are where we are today.
The dissenting opinions, emphasized that the Eberstadt's "supply-side" arguments (that rates are dropping because men are not looking for work, instead of there not being work available for them) ignore many of the "demand-side" arguments that clearly play a role. Outsourcing low-skilled work to other countries, not having a military draft to drill organizational skills into millions of men, automation, etc. One compelling point made was that labor force participation rates dropped most dramatically during a recession, and never recovered to pre-recession peaks after the recession, suggesting that people lost their jobs in recessions and just kept out of the workforce after that.
A decidedly limited-scope book, but definitely worth the weekend read.
Most of this book is devoted to proving the case that labor force participation for working-age men has dropped steadily since the mid-1960's, amounting to roughly 10 million men today who are not actively looking for work, or, put another way, if 1965 labor force participation rates would hold today, the population of working-age men who are earning a paycheck would be ~10% higher than what we actually see.
Loads of great context:
- The increase in population of men not looking for work has outstripped men's natural population growth
- It's not because they're going to higher education
- Most of these men are not just out of the labor force for a short term, but for years
- Married men, foreign-born men, and men with advanced degrees are far less likely to fall into this cohort
- These men who choose not to work are not spending time doing valuavle unapid work, like volunteering or domestically supporting their families. They spend most of their time at leisure activities. There's some striking tables measuring the disparity in leisure time they have relative to working men and women
- This problem does not exist in any other developed country, or is far less pronounced (including in the PIIGS countries, who perhaps bear this reputation)
- These numbers are not reflected in the unemployment rates, because they exclude people not looking for work
- This drop in male workforce participation has more than been made up for by women
So what are the causes? What can we do about it?
Probably the traditional conservative response is to criticize our social safety net. And while Eberstat does spend a lot of time discussing it's impact, he clearly isn't convinced in that opinion. Instead of going so far at to day this decline has been caused by our growing social safety net, Eberstadt constrains himself to simply point out that disability programs and the like at least clearly financing a lot of this population (with relatives of the non-working men financing the remainder).
Actually, the most interesting evidence Eberstadt brings to bear is the theory that our more aggressive prosecution and punishment policies, which started in the 1980's, has resulted in a swelling population of current and ex-felons (estimated to be ~16 million as of 2004) who have a very hard time finding work, and is a key driver to the continued rate decline.
Seeing that the decline in labor force participation started in the 1960's, and the explosion of felony records didn't really kick off until 20 years later, this phenomenon doesn't explain everything, but if this book makes anything clear, it's that there's no single cause for why we are where we are today.
The dissenting opinions, emphasized that the Eberstadt's "supply-side" arguments (that rates are dropping because men are not looking for work, instead of there not being work available for them) ignore many of the "demand-side" arguments that clearly play a role. Outsourcing low-skilled work to other countries, not having a military draft to drill organizational skills into millions of men, automation, etc. One compelling point made was that labor force participation rates dropped most dramatically during a recession, and never recovered to pre-recession peaks after the recession, suggesting that people lost their jobs in recessions and just kept out of the workforce after that.
A decidedly limited-scope book, but definitely worth the weekend read.
May 9, 2023
I first encountered this work when Eberstadt joined Chris Williamson on the Modern Wisdom podcast (ep 614), which you can find on Youtube.
Although this is a short book, it's densely packed and there's a lot of material here that isn't covered in the online discussions. On balance I think somebody only casually interested in the subject mighth be better off sticking to the podcast, which is significantly easier to digest. I'm involved in looking at ways to increase local work opportunities making use of ex-offender programmes, for example, as discussed in the text), so I was pleased to take the opportunity for a deep dive. It was fascinating to look at some of the root causes and manifestations of worklessness other than "people are lazy". Like many subjects, there's an awful lot more going on under the hood than would first appear, and as Chris pointed out in conversation, the sheer brain-melting pointlessness of a workless life doesn't bode well for globalist dreams of a population on universal basic income.
It's perhaps even more telling that nobody wants to talk about this beyond a couple of Youtube channels. It's almost as if the symptom was the desired outcome all along.
Although this is a short book, it's densely packed and there's a lot of material here that isn't covered in the online discussions. On balance I think somebody only casually interested in the subject mighth be better off sticking to the podcast, which is significantly easier to digest. I'm involved in looking at ways to increase local work opportunities making use of ex-offender programmes, for example, as discussed in the text), so I was pleased to take the opportunity for a deep dive. It was fascinating to look at some of the root causes and manifestations of worklessness other than "people are lazy". Like many subjects, there's an awful lot more going on under the hood than would first appear, and as Chris pointed out in conversation, the sheer brain-melting pointlessness of a workless life doesn't bode well for globalist dreams of a population on universal basic income.
It's perhaps even more telling that nobody wants to talk about this beyond a couple of Youtube channels. It's almost as if the symptom was the desired outcome all along.
January 9, 2018
SHORT ; I liked that the author gives proof of his data. No conclusions in this book. I think this was written for an economist or his peeps in colleges, think tanks etc. and not for general consumption. If it was intended for a general audience then this editor needs to check themselves. What a dry read. Men w/o work doesn't have my reason for not working (actually I have a job, in construction so this generally doesn't apply to me, hence why I am still working.) PC BS! I am tired of working with women especially. Think: Men on Strike: Why Men Are Boycotting Marriage, Fatherhood, and the American Dream - and Why It Matters Paperback – December 9, 2014
by Helen Smith PhD (Author)
by Helen Smith PhD (Author)
January 26, 2017
It is kind of an anti-welfare screed. I had a hard time following some of the statistics, and the tables needed a magnifying glass to identify who the different lines represented because the color coding differences were largely ineffective given the size.
The overall conclusions -- that American welfare programs and incarceration practices and rates have created an army of men without work though -- are effectively argued.
Whether poverty would be less and labor participation and employment more if the welfare programs were better targeted, and how the problems with the American phenomenon of mass incarceration can be handled are matters for debate and discussion.
The overall conclusions -- that American welfare programs and incarceration practices and rates have created an army of men without work though -- are effectively argued.
Whether poverty would be less and labor participation and employment more if the welfare programs were better targeted, and how the problems with the American phenomenon of mass incarceration can be handled are matters for debate and discussion.
April 23, 2017
A bit heavy-handed in its tone and approach, Men Without Work nonetheless conveys the exigency of the seven million middle age males who opt out of the labor force. Work nourishes and provides structure to a life in addition to a livelihood, and the author depicts the importance of work well throughout the book.
June 3, 2017
Not a bad book, but not what I was expecting. I was expecting a focus on conclusions and maybe solutions, but this book is mostly data about the problem, lots and lots of data. A quick read, but shallow in many respects.
December 2, 2022
Let me say, first off, that I didn't mean to download this book. It showed up after I finished listening to Of Boys and Men as suggested reading, and the baby clicked the Audible credit button. That being said, this is a book that gets the heart racing.
When Bertram Russell said something to the extent of civilization is about the ability to feel an emotion when presented with a statistic, it's statistics like this. While unemployment has been oh-so-low for oh-so-long, there are quite a bit of people who have stopped looking for employment. This means that they are not in "labor force participation." Back in my econ-minor days, we called these folk "discouraged workers," because the assumption was that they wanted to find work, but couldn't, so they gave up. If someone is unemployed (seeking work) for a month or so, they can keep at it. If they have been looking for more than a year, they might just give up. But obviously that's not the whole picture. We have to look at "Prime age" labor force participation to rule out folks who are retired. We have to consider those who are attending school to develop their skills before entering the labor force at a higher wage. Also, we have to consider full-time carers, including those looking after small children, and those with unpaid domestic responsibilities like cooking and cleaning.
I'd like to take a moment on that last one for a while, because if you look at a chart of the US's labor force participation for the past hundred years, you'll see a camel's hump. Between, say, 1965 and 1990, you'll see a huge increase of labor force participation as women, previously tasked with domestic responsibilities, entered the work force in ever increasing numbers. Then you see a slumping, slumping, slumping, back to levels of the early-to-mid seventies. So to create a visualization, think of the immortal Dolly Parton classic 9 to 5 from 1980 and realize that there is a lower percentage of people in the paid workforce than back then.
Ladies aren't leaving the workforce in droves, so what's happening? Well, Boomers are getting older, and just as they defined the national Youth Culture in their youth, they are leading out in the Retirement Culture, but that's still not accounting for all the missing workers. Well, then, who is it?
It's men.
It's all kinds of men, college-educated and not (although high school drop-outs lead the way), of all races (although immigrant-born men are far less likely to be out of the workforce and Black men are more likely), and across the country, although there are obviously states and counties with sharp borders that see huge changes in participation.
Eberstadt, because Conservative, first points to government benefits, especially disability, which everyone from every political stripe knows is flawed in helping people get back to work even part time without losing timely benefits they need. Eberstadt also focuses on the way our society stigmatizes formerly incarcerated people. If Black men are more likely to be arrested and convicted, they are more likely to be labeled convicts and have a harder time getting a job, leading to them being discouraged workers.
Eberstadt, to his credit, invited other perspectives in his afterwards, but they, also being Conservative, pretty much said--because manufacturing is dying. Unlike in Of Boys and Men , these commentators think it's absurd to think that the kind of man with the skills and temperament to succeed in mining or manufacturing can easily pivot to a service or healthcare economy.
Eberstadt also addresses some of the reasons I might consider for this gap--education, well, it's only like 10% of the prime-age folks who aren't employeed or seeking work, and a lot of men in college are also working full or part time. How about taking a step back and being a stay-at-home dad with the littles? Sure--all 2% of that.
I'm not sure we do know why but I think we should be absolutely freaked out by this. Eberstadt has a tone of bemusement when he states that there has rarely been such low labor force participation without widespread political unrest. I think we need a little more unrest about the topic.
As a full-time employee with two children under the age of five, I could spit nails, when I read the time-use survey data about how these men are turning watching TV into a full-time job (more than seven hours a day) and contribute less to the upkeep and care of the home and children than men working full time. (They also spend less time volunteering with the community.) I want every working woman in America to ponder whether we are being compelled to support these men either directly as our boyfriends/sons/grandsons or indirectly through taxes.
I don't want to demonize these men, because I truly believe (and research seems to bear out) that they would be happier working at least part time, contributing to their communities, and/or taking an active role in the domestic scene. We need to figure out what is going on, and I think it's going to need further research. I'm not convinced of the conservative answers--not entirely at least--so we're going to need to dig deeper into what is keep these men from both domestic and paid labor.
When Bertram Russell said something to the extent of civilization is about the ability to feel an emotion when presented with a statistic, it's statistics like this. While unemployment has been oh-so-low for oh-so-long, there are quite a bit of people who have stopped looking for employment. This means that they are not in "labor force participation." Back in my econ-minor days, we called these folk "discouraged workers," because the assumption was that they wanted to find work, but couldn't, so they gave up. If someone is unemployed (seeking work) for a month or so, they can keep at it. If they have been looking for more than a year, they might just give up. But obviously that's not the whole picture. We have to look at "Prime age" labor force participation to rule out folks who are retired. We have to consider those who are attending school to develop their skills before entering the labor force at a higher wage. Also, we have to consider full-time carers, including those looking after small children, and those with unpaid domestic responsibilities like cooking and cleaning.
I'd like to take a moment on that last one for a while, because if you look at a chart of the US's labor force participation for the past hundred years, you'll see a camel's hump. Between, say, 1965 and 1990, you'll see a huge increase of labor force participation as women, previously tasked with domestic responsibilities, entered the work force in ever increasing numbers. Then you see a slumping, slumping, slumping, back to levels of the early-to-mid seventies. So to create a visualization, think of the immortal Dolly Parton classic 9 to 5 from 1980 and realize that there is a lower percentage of people in the paid workforce than back then.
Ladies aren't leaving the workforce in droves, so what's happening? Well, Boomers are getting older, and just as they defined the national Youth Culture in their youth, they are leading out in the Retirement Culture, but that's still not accounting for all the missing workers. Well, then, who is it?
It's men.
It's all kinds of men, college-educated and not (although high school drop-outs lead the way), of all races (although immigrant-born men are far less likely to be out of the workforce and Black men are more likely), and across the country, although there are obviously states and counties with sharp borders that see huge changes in participation.
Eberstadt, because Conservative, first points to government benefits, especially disability, which everyone from every political stripe knows is flawed in helping people get back to work even part time without losing timely benefits they need. Eberstadt also focuses on the way our society stigmatizes formerly incarcerated people. If Black men are more likely to be arrested and convicted, they are more likely to be labeled convicts and have a harder time getting a job, leading to them being discouraged workers.
Eberstadt, to his credit, invited other perspectives in his afterwards, but they, also being Conservative, pretty much said--because manufacturing is dying. Unlike in Of Boys and Men , these commentators think it's absurd to think that the kind of man with the skills and temperament to succeed in mining or manufacturing can easily pivot to a service or healthcare economy.
Eberstadt also addresses some of the reasons I might consider for this gap--education, well, it's only like 10% of the prime-age folks who aren't employeed or seeking work, and a lot of men in college are also working full or part time. How about taking a step back and being a stay-at-home dad with the littles? Sure--all 2% of that.
I'm not sure we do know why but I think we should be absolutely freaked out by this. Eberstadt has a tone of bemusement when he states that there has rarely been such low labor force participation without widespread political unrest. I think we need a little more unrest about the topic.
As a full-time employee with two children under the age of five, I could spit nails, when I read the time-use survey data about how these men are turning watching TV into a full-time job (more than seven hours a day) and contribute less to the upkeep and care of the home and children than men working full time. (They also spend less time volunteering with the community.) I want every working woman in America to ponder whether we are being compelled to support these men either directly as our boyfriends/sons/grandsons or indirectly through taxes.
I don't want to demonize these men, because I truly believe (and research seems to bear out) that they would be happier working at least part time, contributing to their communities, and/or taking an active role in the domestic scene. We need to figure out what is going on, and I think it's going to need further research. I'm not convinced of the conservative answers--not entirely at least--so we're going to need to dig deeper into what is keep these men from both domestic and paid labor.
August 18, 2023
This book was written in 2016 or so, before the covid employment crashes and the most recent waves of "deaths of despair," but it describes a problem that has gone on for a long time. One of the popular songs this summer is Luke Combs's cover of Tracy Chapman's 1988 hit, Fast Car. The lyrics describe a poor woman coupling with a man in order to leave her deadbeat drunk father and start a new life out of poverty. She succeeds, but the man she picked ends up being a deadbeat drunk who spends more time at the bar with his friends than with his children. The men in the song are of the sort Eberstadt is writing. Someone who could work, who you'd expect to get a job, but for some reason, he just doesn't. Never does.
Most of this book is dull statistics. Married men are more likely to be employed than unmarried men. Hispanics are more likely to be employed than whites or blacks, and foreign-born are more likely to be employed than native-born, regardless of immigration status. Educational attainment is correlated with workforce participation, but not as strongly as marriage. Etc etc etc. There really isn't a huge look as to *why* certain groups have such low work participation, though he does hint at excessive availability of welfare/disability benefits as well as formerly incarcerated males being precluded from a lot of work. It doesn't really explore the evolution of automation and sending jobs overseas, a lot of which are the minimally skilled jobs that men used to hold. Doesn't really explore the male unwillingness to perform certain types of jobs that women stereotypically do other than to say that non-working men do NOT help out with child/family care. It's mainly just a lot of observation and data without analysis. Lots of graphs and charts.
At the end, he does have two people who respond to his book and his lack of solutions as well as his lack of analysis as to the causes, but even they don't go too much into depth. It's tricky because here is a book that observes a problem without looking at the possible causes (automation, globalization, immigration, feminism, welfare programs, snowplow parents creating ineffective sons, social stigmas or lack thereof, etc) and tries to draw meaningful conclusions.
Yes, the boys are in trouble, the data are there to show this, but what do we do about it? The author has few suggestions.
Most of this book is dull statistics. Married men are more likely to be employed than unmarried men. Hispanics are more likely to be employed than whites or blacks, and foreign-born are more likely to be employed than native-born, regardless of immigration status. Educational attainment is correlated with workforce participation, but not as strongly as marriage. Etc etc etc. There really isn't a huge look as to *why* certain groups have such low work participation, though he does hint at excessive availability of welfare/disability benefits as well as formerly incarcerated males being precluded from a lot of work. It doesn't really explore the evolution of automation and sending jobs overseas, a lot of which are the minimally skilled jobs that men used to hold. Doesn't really explore the male unwillingness to perform certain types of jobs that women stereotypically do other than to say that non-working men do NOT help out with child/family care. It's mainly just a lot of observation and data without analysis. Lots of graphs and charts.
At the end, he does have two people who respond to his book and his lack of solutions as well as his lack of analysis as to the causes, but even they don't go too much into depth. It's tricky because here is a book that observes a problem without looking at the possible causes (automation, globalization, immigration, feminism, welfare programs, snowplow parents creating ineffective sons, social stigmas or lack thereof, etc) and tries to draw meaningful conclusions.
Yes, the boys are in trouble, the data are there to show this, but what do we do about it? The author has few suggestions.
December 21, 2022
So this was written during the Obama era and right before the election of Trump. It is now 2022 after midterms, so a lot has changed and Covid just pushed things to the forefront to show that it isn't just the poor, uneducated, former convicts, etc... as the stats for college entry and college completion for middle class men is falling too. I liked Failure to Launch which touched on this slightly but I felt was helicopter parenting solutions. This is more a political, what should we do. I think the answer would be job guarantee but he didn't go into that at all as we were not where we are today.
He describes the problem quite well with a few too many stats that make you cross your eyes. His reasoning of why the problem exist, the few that he paints, are just some and not the majority. He doesn't go into the low pay and benefits with no security at menial jobs rather than meaningful jobs. No security and benefits won through unions, he doesn't show the correlation of the demise of unions and union busting and the lack of participation in the general work force. I believe if you gave most people a choice between a job that actually values you in pay and benefits vs a minimum govt, payment, whether UBI or disability, they would pick the job. All the value of your job goes to the management and stock owners today. The monopolies of almost every industry makes the pay and benefits stay poor and gets worse. Trying to control inflation with the interest rate just screws over the little guy more as their hard earned money does even less. Time to go live in a camper, or tiny house out in the woods for some, others are drifters in the cities.
I liked that his reasons were countered by other colleagues in the field. This made it more about trying to figure out why this is happening and what might be some of the solutions. I don't think they got there because it is a bigger problem than the book actually states after Covid and is coming more to the forefront, especially in some of the independent news and media. It was worth the read to get the stats that were already going in that direction and not being considered, instead the media reports unemployment figures without truly reporting, people that are not working figures. Really that is what matters as all retirees, children, and stay at home mothers are living off the work/product of others too and there is only so much produced in the middle class and lower classes to go around.
He describes the problem quite well with a few too many stats that make you cross your eyes. His reasoning of why the problem exist, the few that he paints, are just some and not the majority. He doesn't go into the low pay and benefits with no security at menial jobs rather than meaningful jobs. No security and benefits won through unions, he doesn't show the correlation of the demise of unions and union busting and the lack of participation in the general work force. I believe if you gave most people a choice between a job that actually values you in pay and benefits vs a minimum govt, payment, whether UBI or disability, they would pick the job. All the value of your job goes to the management and stock owners today. The monopolies of almost every industry makes the pay and benefits stay poor and gets worse. Trying to control inflation with the interest rate just screws over the little guy more as their hard earned money does even less. Time to go live in a camper, or tiny house out in the woods for some, others are drifters in the cities.
I liked that his reasons were countered by other colleagues in the field. This made it more about trying to figure out why this is happening and what might be some of the solutions. I don't think they got there because it is a bigger problem than the book actually states after Covid and is coming more to the forefront, especially in some of the independent news and media. It was worth the read to get the stats that were already going in that direction and not being considered, instead the media reports unemployment figures without truly reporting, people that are not working figures. Really that is what matters as all retirees, children, and stay at home mothers are living off the work/product of others too and there is only so much produced in the middle class and lower classes to go around.
April 4, 2025
Eberstadt's book was published back in 2016 then, in 2022, a revised edition was put forward after the pandemic. Essentially, there are two things worth commenting on, the message, and the book itself.
In terms of the message, Eberstadt essentially sets out to expose a population of American's (between the ages of 25 - 54) who have essentially dropped out of the job market. They are not working, not studying, and not looking to do either—it is unclear why.
This population is shrouded in the economic figures and frequently not even counted among unemployment numbers for a range of administrative and very dull reasons. What is concerning, is that this population has been opting out of work at an increasing rate, since the 1960s. After the pandemic, it has gotten worse.
Even during economic boom times, this population is leaving the workforce. Many rely on disability benefits, live with family of receive other forms of support. Most of them live lives of isolation, heavy screen time, and declining physical and mental health.
Whats weirder is that there doesn't seem to be a solid explanation or a single variable, but more a collection of things. Eberstadt seems to think what is really going on is not a consequence of globalisation and automation (which is cited as one possible solution—the loss of manufacturing jobs after the war) but instead, a deeper cultural shift in attitude toward work, responsibility and civic engagement.
At the end, there is a lot of talk of this population essentially being poorly incentivised. This is when the book starts to feel like the work more of a conservative think tank. The rough colour of this painting goes something like "if you pay people to do nothing, people will be lazy." Its essentially an argument against universal basic income. Make of that what you will.
But in terms of a book, the problem is, its bone dry. the message is scary, but I honestly kept tuning out. It reads like the descriptive statistics section of an academic paper. Its just numbers, constantly, and stats, with few interpretations. Its scary, but a tough book to read and enjoy.
In terms of the message, Eberstadt essentially sets out to expose a population of American's (between the ages of 25 - 54) who have essentially dropped out of the job market. They are not working, not studying, and not looking to do either—it is unclear why.
This population is shrouded in the economic figures and frequently not even counted among unemployment numbers for a range of administrative and very dull reasons. What is concerning, is that this population has been opting out of work at an increasing rate, since the 1960s. After the pandemic, it has gotten worse.
Even during economic boom times, this population is leaving the workforce. Many rely on disability benefits, live with family of receive other forms of support. Most of them live lives of isolation, heavy screen time, and declining physical and mental health.
Whats weirder is that there doesn't seem to be a solid explanation or a single variable, but more a collection of things. Eberstadt seems to think what is really going on is not a consequence of globalisation and automation (which is cited as one possible solution—the loss of manufacturing jobs after the war) but instead, a deeper cultural shift in attitude toward work, responsibility and civic engagement.
At the end, there is a lot of talk of this population essentially being poorly incentivised. This is when the book starts to feel like the work more of a conservative think tank. The rough colour of this painting goes something like "if you pay people to do nothing, people will be lazy." Its essentially an argument against universal basic income. Make of that what you will.
But in terms of a book, the problem is, its bone dry. the message is scary, but I honestly kept tuning out. It reads like the descriptive statistics section of an academic paper. Its just numbers, constantly, and stats, with few interpretations. Its scary, but a tough book to read and enjoy.
January 4, 2021
This is a sharp and intelligent study of an odd but important facet of US unemployment data - the increasing number of individuals, largely men, who are not employed in the workforce, but who are also not actively searching for employment in the workforce. This number has been growing substantially since the mid-1960s to the point where, compared with data from when the trend began, there are now tens of millions of individuals who are not in the workforce, are not earning any substantial income, and are not doing much else as well. This trend has not received much attention since its beginning so we do not really know that much about it. Still, Eberstadt convincingly documents the dimensions of this development and suggests that the consequences of such a development are bad for the individuals involved and for the economy taken more broadly.
What is going on? There are lots of supply side and demand side factors at work that those who are curious should read this short book. How to interpret the “men without work” crisis will depend on one’s place on the political spectrum and more conservative analysts do not have a monopoly on considering these sorts of issues. There is much for the Biden Administration to consider. The author does have a “what to do” chapter but its point is to raise issues rather than peddle policy options.
This is a solid piece of analysis that should be appreciated by those in both parties. The writing is crisp and it presents a careful analysis of the data issues. This is nearly the opposite of policy analyses that start with a few examples or a personal memoir and then try to build policy. This is more of an examination of the data with some hints about how to think critically and constructively about what to do. I hope this sort of analysis catches the attention of decision makers in the new administration. It is long overdue.
What is going on? There are lots of supply side and demand side factors at work that those who are curious should read this short book. How to interpret the “men without work” crisis will depend on one’s place on the political spectrum and more conservative analysts do not have a monopoly on considering these sorts of issues. There is much for the Biden Administration to consider. The author does have a “what to do” chapter but its point is to raise issues rather than peddle policy options.
This is a solid piece of analysis that should be appreciated by those in both parties. The writing is crisp and it presents a careful analysis of the data issues. This is nearly the opposite of policy analyses that start with a few examples or a personal memoir and then try to build policy. This is more of an examination of the data with some hints about how to think critically and constructively about what to do. I hope this sort of analysis catches the attention of decision makers in the new administration. It is long overdue.
July 19, 2017
The points in this little book are so alarming, that I re-read the book to better understand them. (I have also raised my review to 5-Stars.) On my first read, I did not fully comprehend an astonishing point the author makes (p.180):
"...For every prime-age man who is out of a job and looking for one there are three others who are neither working or looking for work."
What--this can't be! At first, I thought I had misunderstood the author--but I had not. Even after adjusting for men taking training, there are 2.5 men not looking for work for every one who is. The author points out the astonishing change in work demographics as a "revolutionary change in male attitudes toward work and dependence in postwar America."
I happened to see this little tome at my local library. I found MEN WITHOUT WORK to be a well-written book, which calls attention to an alarming problem in America. The author's charts are very helpful, although the acronyms were a little consuing for me at times.
I especially liked the latter part of the book, where two different perspectives are offered--one from a conservative, and one from a progressive.
**REASONS TO READ THIS BOOK**
+ Well-written & well-argued
+ The author writes in an even-handed, charitable way.
+ Helpful charts illustrate the key points
+ Inclusion of differing views at end
**REASONS TO SKIP THIS BOOK**
- Just a small amount of time given to the critique from Bernstein.
- I would have liked to see a more robust discussion of the points mentioned in the "opposing view" sections.
So all in all, I found MEN WITHOUT WORK to be a solid introduction to this topic. It's not an exhaustive work, but lays out the main points well. Prior to reading this book, I had no idea of the amazing change in work demographics.
See also my review on bassoantor.com/blog/work
"...For every prime-age man who is out of a job and looking for one there are three others who are neither working or looking for work."
What--this can't be! At first, I thought I had misunderstood the author--but I had not. Even after adjusting for men taking training, there are 2.5 men not looking for work for every one who is. The author points out the astonishing change in work demographics as a "revolutionary change in male attitudes toward work and dependence in postwar America."
I happened to see this little tome at my local library. I found MEN WITHOUT WORK to be a well-written book, which calls attention to an alarming problem in America. The author's charts are very helpful, although the acronyms were a little consuing for me at times.
I especially liked the latter part of the book, where two different perspectives are offered--one from a conservative, and one from a progressive.
**REASONS TO READ THIS BOOK**
+ Well-written & well-argued
+ The author writes in an even-handed, charitable way.
+ Helpful charts illustrate the key points
+ Inclusion of differing views at end
**REASONS TO SKIP THIS BOOK**
- Just a small amount of time given to the critique from Bernstein.
- I would have liked to see a more robust discussion of the points mentioned in the "opposing view" sections.
So all in all, I found MEN WITHOUT WORK to be a solid introduction to this topic. It's not an exhaustive work, but lays out the main points well. Prior to reading this book, I had no idea of the amazing change in work demographics.
See also my review on bassoantor.com/blog/work
July 11, 2024
I was really looking forward to this book because, as a millennial woman, I can tell you that the men my age are very Not Okay. Many of them (including a family member!) don't have jobs or if they do, are very unambitious and seem completely uninterested in moving up and earning more money. So, I picked up this book to find out why.
Unfortunately, though this book has reams of data about how a greater proportion of men of prime working age (which I think is defined as 25-54) aren't working, there isn't much of an explanation of why. The only explanation offered is a weak one: the increase in incarceration rates since the 1970s and 1980s, which, if you ask me, doesn't give the full picture. (I could rant here about my former disgusting neighbor, an ex-convict, who was (and still is!) given many chances by society, yet continues his antisocial behavior... but that would be a long digression.)
The author ignores the elephants in the room: video games and online porn. That's the problem, if you ask me. I'd love to see more work done on why so many men are voluntarily not working. If you're looking for the root causes behind the situation, this book probably won't satisfy you. If you want a lot of charts, graphs, and data showing there is a crisis of men not working—well, this book is for you.
It's also an extremely dry read, which is part of the reason for my rating. It was tough to get through. Thank goodness it was so short.
Also, I did enjoy the bit about these non-working men living off the generosity of their relatives. That's exactly what my relative is doing: living with his father (and his child!) at the age of twenty-nine. His only "job" is driving for Uber. He is a prime example of the demographic explored in this book, and it's not pretty.
Unfortunately, though this book has reams of data about how a greater proportion of men of prime working age (which I think is defined as 25-54) aren't working, there isn't much of an explanation of why. The only explanation offered is a weak one: the increase in incarceration rates since the 1970s and 1980s, which, if you ask me, doesn't give the full picture. (I could rant here about my former disgusting neighbor, an ex-convict, who was (and still is!) given many chances by society, yet continues his antisocial behavior... but that would be a long digression.)
The author ignores the elephants in the room: video games and online porn. That's the problem, if you ask me. I'd love to see more work done on why so many men are voluntarily not working. If you're looking for the root causes behind the situation, this book probably won't satisfy you. If you want a lot of charts, graphs, and data showing there is a crisis of men not working—well, this book is for you.
It's also an extremely dry read, which is part of the reason for my rating. It was tough to get through. Thank goodness it was so short.
Also, I did enjoy the bit about these non-working men living off the generosity of their relatives. That's exactly what my relative is doing: living with his father (and his child!) at the age of twenty-nine. His only "job" is driving for Uber. He is a prime example of the demographic explored in this book, and it's not pretty.
June 18, 2017
This is a quick and very interesting read--documenting the decline in men's prime-age labor force participation. I was quite mixed on the book--I thought it was too dismissive of demand-side arguments, and arguing from a biased point of view (especially around the efficacy of social programs) in parts--until I got to the second part.
This section has something I've never seen before, and which I thought was incredibly redeeming--the author invites two people with opposing viewpoints to write a chapter characterizing how they interpret the same evidence. In several instances, one of these responses highlights the issues I had with the first part of the book, which I think (not because they're my points!) ultimately makes the book a much more compelling read...that the author is trying to engage meaningfully around an important issue rather than to advocate for his viewpoint.
Two points not raised in the counter-arguments that I'd quibble with:
--the rise in women's labor force participation could be a cause of the decline in men's...that the labor market is becoming more competitive, at the expense of low-skilled employees
--the author struggles to reconcile the US's longer working week and lower labor force participation, whereas this makes complete sense to me...that the bar for entering the labor force is higher here, and therefore not worth it for more people
Overall, a great read both on the merits (although I do agree more so with the responses than the author) and also because of this approach to inviting counterarguments. I hope to see more authors do this.
This section has something I've never seen before, and which I thought was incredibly redeeming--the author invites two people with opposing viewpoints to write a chapter characterizing how they interpret the same evidence. In several instances, one of these responses highlights the issues I had with the first part of the book, which I think (not because they're my points!) ultimately makes the book a much more compelling read...that the author is trying to engage meaningfully around an important issue rather than to advocate for his viewpoint.
Two points not raised in the counter-arguments that I'd quibble with:
--the rise in women's labor force participation could be a cause of the decline in men's...that the labor market is becoming more competitive, at the expense of low-skilled employees
--the author struggles to reconcile the US's longer working week and lower labor force participation, whereas this makes complete sense to me...that the bar for entering the labor force is higher here, and therefore not worth it for more people
Overall, a great read both on the merits (although I do agree more so with the responses than the author) and also because of this approach to inviting counterarguments. I hope to see more authors do this.
October 15, 2018
This book was an eye opener. The number of working age men who are not looking for work. The work rate for American men aged 25-54 - is actually slightly lower now (as of 2015) than it was in 1940. Nearly 1 in 6 prime working age men has no paid work - nearly 1 in 8 is out of the work force entirely - neither working or even looking for work. Mr. Eberstadt spends the majority of this brief work outlining the numbers and the data. He highlights as the reasons why - demand factors, supply factors and institutional factors. He does not quibble about which of these is more dire - instead, it is the relative importance of these factors that is paramount. He points to the issues involving our disability programs. He makes a compelling argument that hte large and growing population of male ex-prisoners is a significant and generally unappreciated component of today's men-without-work problem. It makes for a depressing read. I did enjoy the last chapters most, where he had two dissenters take issue with his approach, data, or conclusions... and then closes with his response. Respectful dissent followed by respectful argument and/or clarification. Recommended for those who wish to delve deeper into this boiling hot-button issue - or for those who enjoy a bit of economic analysis and interpretation (guilty). Recommended.
January 22, 2021
This is a review of employment, education, and incarceration statistics over the last 30+ years that reveals a dramatic drop in employment amongst prime age men in the United States. Many don't work, and in that group, many many aren't looking for work, either.
The title tells all, and the implications are dramatic. How can a society function if many of its prime citizens are disengaged, disconnected, disinclined, even, to re-enter the ranks of those who do our nation's work? What causes men to live on fixed incomes, on the kindness of strangers and family/friends/women? What implications might there be for children of families where the men do not participate in work?...and, along with withdrawing from work, many have withdrawn from community/religious/civic life as well. What happens when they spend their lives "hanging out," and/or "watching tv/playing video games"?
He spends a bit of time conjecturing on both cause and culture, on the assumptions and implications of this walkaway by men, and, at the end, he outlines some possible steps to consider to solve this problem. He also includes responses by two academics who analyze and respond, both to his analyses and his suggestions, providing a wide ranging basis for serious conversation and policy development.
The title tells all, and the implications are dramatic. How can a society function if many of its prime citizens are disengaged, disconnected, disinclined, even, to re-enter the ranks of those who do our nation's work? What causes men to live on fixed incomes, on the kindness of strangers and family/friends/women? What implications might there be for children of families where the men do not participate in work?...and, along with withdrawing from work, many have withdrawn from community/religious/civic life as well. What happens when they spend their lives "hanging out," and/or "watching tv/playing video games"?
He spends a bit of time conjecturing on both cause and culture, on the assumptions and implications of this walkaway by men, and, at the end, he outlines some possible steps to consider to solve this problem. He also includes responses by two academics who analyze and respond, both to his analyses and his suggestions, providing a wide ranging basis for serious conversation and policy development.
July 20, 2024
One critical determinant to being in the US workforce today, seems to be wanting to be there in the first place.
I read the 2017 original (there is also a post-pandemic 2022 edition) because that's the copy my library has. Eberstadt takes the reader through the data on men who aren't working and discusses historical aspects of why this might be, how people think about it, and what to do about it. For example, he talks about free time and how just because you have it, doesn't mean you'll use it well. He then talks about the different between leisure and idleness.
Leisure is the basis of culture.
What are we doing with our free time today? Are those activities furthering good character and our society? Or are we using our free time to our detriment? These are some of the questions the books asks and mostly allows you to answer for yourself.
How time is allocated is not wholly immaterial to the character formation of individuals or the balance of vice and virtue in a society.
Eberstadt then goes on to look at what data we have on how men today make use of their free time.
This is a short, easy read and I found the questions asked interesting.
I read the 2017 original (there is also a post-pandemic 2022 edition) because that's the copy my library has. Eberstadt takes the reader through the data on men who aren't working and discusses historical aspects of why this might be, how people think about it, and what to do about it. For example, he talks about free time and how just because you have it, doesn't mean you'll use it well. He then talks about the different between leisure and idleness.
Leisure is the basis of culture.
What are we doing with our free time today? Are those activities furthering good character and our society? Or are we using our free time to our detriment? These are some of the questions the books asks and mostly allows you to answer for yourself.
How time is allocated is not wholly immaterial to the character formation of individuals or the balance of vice and virtue in a society.
Eberstadt then goes on to look at what data we have on how men today make use of their free time.
This is a short, easy read and I found the questions asked interesting.
August 3, 2017
Written as a wake-up call to address the issue of a growing number of American men between 25 and 54 who are not working or looking for work. The number in the US is greater than in other industrialized countries and has been growing steadily since WWII. He brings out toward the end that there is a relationship in the US between the number of men outside the work force and the exceptionally large numbers of men who have been imprisoned since the 1980s, given the difficulties of felons in obtaining work, especially as most of these felons are poorly educated and impoverished. He also points to disability payments and other monetary social programs as enabling this behavior. It is a very short book, a bit dry but full of charts and graphs that illustrate the economic data. It also includes the comments of two other policy analysts and his response to their critiques.
June 19, 2021
- While widely known amongst policy makers as well as Econ sphere, it's rather unknown within the outside community: which is that while increasing amount of women joined workforce, there are also increasingly amount of men who left workforce. Such phenomenon isn't uniquely American, but rather also occurs in other nations
- Statistics can "lie": often, the number that is being recorded might not be what it meant to the public. "Employment rate" might not be the same definition as what many people think it means
- Greater women in the workforce mediated many of the shortcomings of men
- There are actually more American men without work than many European countries (France, Spain etc). The US in this department only trails by Italy
- On the other hand, working American are working more than ever. In addition, American working women are working significantly more
- Statistics can "lie": often, the number that is being recorded might not be what it meant to the public. "Employment rate" might not be the same definition as what many people think it means
- Greater women in the workforce mediated many of the shortcomings of men
- There are actually more American men without work than many European countries (France, Spain etc). The US in this department only trails by Italy
- On the other hand, working American are working more than ever. In addition, American working women are working significantly more
October 13, 2017
Men Without Work documents the problem of the discouraged male worker not measured in unemployment numbers. While the problem has been long lamented by economists, it remains largely misunderstood or invisible as the title suggests. While highlighting the problem, it is not forgiving of the male discouraged worker himself (who statistically spends more time watching tv and claims a disproportionate amount of income from claiming disability or from cohabiting women). While long on jargon and short on policy, this is not book to be neglected, despite some of the heavier acronym laden chapters. Having listened to this in audio format, I’d recommend reading the text to fully appreciate a full command of the sheer breadth of this problem (and even some of the glaring gaps in measuring this).
Displaying 1 - 30 of 78 reviews