Opinion | Nicholas Eberstadt’s ‘Men Without Work’ Has an Important Message

Eberstadt portrays in a well-documented manner the “invisible crisis”, the “decline” of America’s adult male labor force. By his calculations, about 10 million American men are of prime working age and aren’t working or looking for work. This “continuing scourge” is, first of all, the national economy Albatross. he said emphatically.

Social damage can be even more severe. What some call the “new misery” comprises a range of medical conditions ranging from substance abuse to gambling addiction to the simple moral stigma of chronic laziness. An AWOL working-age man watches almost six hours of television per day. They read newspapers, participate in volunteer work, and attend church services much less than women and working men.

Those who work in higher education know that the situation is not getting better. The decades-long retreat of men from higher education, like the adult non-worker phenomenon, was largely ignored until recently. The male share has dropped to nearly 40%, belatedly sounding alarm bells in both professional and lay publications.

The problems Eberstadt analyzes are therefore important, and this book is an important contribution. Equally noteworthy, however, is the form the authors have chosen to present their findings and arguments. The new edition devotes about 10% of him at the end of the page to the “dissenting opinion”. Two other eminent scholars have been given the opportunity to critique Eberstadt’s analysis and conclusions, and they do so forcefully but kindly.

Post columnist Henry Olsen argues that Eberstadt puts too much emphasis on the appeal of entitlement programs and downplays deindustrialization and other structural changes in the economy. It also mentions ignoring other possible causative factors, such as reduced military service, where young men have previously learned skills and disciplines that foster productive adult lives.

Jared Bernstein disputes the book’s claim that the decline in male labor force participation is linear and finds a more cyclical pattern. While he agrees that the disability insurance program is currently suffering from rampant abuse, he concludes that Eberstadt has exaggerated its role in causing the crisis.

The book concludes with rebuttal words from the author, presented as thoughtfully and politely as the opponents expressed their criticisms. The reader, or at least this reader, learned more from the give and take than they would have otherwise. He may have thought of these counterarguments himself, but the odds are against it.

The contrast with most of today’s public debates is instructive. First, the authors decided to revisit their original position to see if the pandemic produced evidence of refutation or a change of circumstances. In the words of economist John Maynard Keynes, “When the facts change, I change my mind. What is your occupation?”

Inviting others to challenge this study is a welcome departure from today’s more popular approaches and demonstrates acrimonious certainty, even in scientific debates. . In a purely political conflict, stance is just a repellent. But the pursuit of knowledge is dangerous and unacceptable.

Depressing examples abound, but the most obvious is the accusation of thousands of scientists who suggested that pandemic lockdown policies might prove negative on the net in 2020. They was right. Their perpetrators were wrong. But even if the signatories of the great Barrington Declaration were found to be in error, the accusations they received were highly anti-intellectual and anti-scientific.

Knowledge advances through the collision of ideas. Contrarians are often heralds of new insights. Labels such as “solved” and “consensus” are fundamentalist sticks.

Albert Einstein wrote to scientists, urging them to conduct experiments that might disprove his theories. He found critical input from others essential. When he realized that his Entwolf equation was wrong, he said, “I don’t think I can find the error myself, because my mind is so rutted on this matter.” When other physicists criticized his general theory, he did not dismiss them by saying, “I represent science.” Instead, he replied, “I enjoy controversy.”

You don’t have to enjoy controversy. To understand how important controversy is in finding truth and expanding human understanding. Nicholas Eberstadt’s book and guests against it provided a model worthy of wide imitation. And it’s not just academic work.