There's 2 classes of people affected here: 1) educated ambitious men who resent having to put on a fast food uniform, and 2) Non-college people who were never considering anything but blue-collar work.
If we restrict the labor pool to non-immigrant Americans, class 1) makes more money while building up their side hustle, while class 2) makes more money for their entire life.
I'm a cosmopolitan and immigrant (to another country, from America) myself. A small amount of immigration connects the world and makes life more interesting. But mass immigration is almost always a bad thing for the native-born.
Spiritual Boomerism is such a catching phrase. I am a late-cohort Boomer myself. I got red-pilled (into recognizing that times had greatly changed) when my sons were in High School. They were going out on dates less frequently than I was at that age. That did not make sense to me, because they were school record winning track athletes, and future Marines and Army officers, and I was EL NERDO at that age (maybe still am). We Boomers must understand how much times have changed before we can hope to give timeless advice.
This will probably go down well here, but it'll go over like a lead balloon elsewhere: a lot of college-educated women are going to have to get over themselves and ditch their snobbery, especially the ones with what might be called "professional" degrees.
No slight to nurses or pharmacy techs--those aren't exactly easy degrees to get--but those degrees signal, in terms of mentality and intellectual curiosity, most of the same traits that being the general manager of a fast-food joint does.
(I say this, by the way, as a man with a master's degree; my dating prospects will not be helped if women take this advice.)
Women are especially sensitive to social signals. Men aren’t immune but since we’re more disposable, breaking from the herd is more necessary to make your mark. I have a theory that women will honor what men honor. May seem unrelated but Antoine de Saint Xupery said that love is not looking at each other but looking in the same direction together. Part of the problem is everyone is looking in the wrong direction.
I kind of want to just say thanks. You addressed the elephant or elephants in the room. Men, especially white men, are and have been actively locked out of a lot as a group. Not entirely obviously but the current incentives are to hire them last after you’re dead certain there are no women or minorities that can take the position. This is a generality but it is somewhat real and has been a growing reality since the 70s (Scott Adams talks about it).
The other elephant in the room, is basically men need to have skin in the game. If a young man believes that a course of action will result in an independent life and an at least average looking woman who treats him with some respect, you’d be surprised how hard he would work.
However white men are the one group who cannot have a support structure. At college and large corporate America, there are programs, groups, networks available to every conceivable minority however there basically cannot be any such thing afforded to white men. The demonization has been complete any attempt to have something of this nature is immediate proof of Nazism in the ideas of the culture, so it’s a non starter, regardless of it not actually being supremacist or anything else, just doing what other groups do.
So, this is why you see an explosion of white men involved in a ton of entrepreneurial enterprises, enterprises that don’t need formal networks or institutional approval. They see the writing on the wall.
Great observations. One thing that I think is likely to happen - and which has not occurred to a lot of the woke - is touched upon in your last paragraph. Denied a traditional path to economic security by working for larger institutions that now prioritize everyone else, young white men will increasingly have to forge new networks and economic relationships. It's a sort of social Darwinism that will attract a lot of talent and *will* build a parallel and dynamic subculture that will succeed in spite of the barriers hostile political and cultural actors have tried to impose.
The woke left looks at whites (particularly men) as a group with an unfairly disproportionate share of cultural and economic influence on society, but ironically they are just birthing a new version of that phenomenon most likely. I also think the increased non-white male voter share for Trump this last election indicates that the desire for meaning, social respect, and opportunity is a pretty broadly shared sentiment by a lot of young men and is a potent force that the right needs to address. If successful I think it will have massive cultural and political implications - good ones.
There is also the issue of the dual income home and how this dilutes the wages of "low class" jobs. A man running a fryer at Panda express would make a lot more in a society where women stayed home and did not work. Wage suppression is huge in our modern economic environment. Furthermore, if women stayed home the entire hospitality and fast food industry would be destroyed. So, all the "low class" jobs would meet their demise with a fruitful and productive American woman.
I agree that if we had mass emigration in America, then many of the menial jobs would be necessarily be filled in by high school and college students. I think this would have a great impact on younger folks and teach the virtue of working hard from a young age.
Basically, I think there are a lot of assumptions going into this entire article. I found it fascinating and thought that many of the points were true but I would want to drive the conversation to the root rather than the fruit. We have so many silly assumptions that prop up places like Panda Express, and if those assumptions are abandoned, then the way that society views jobs like climbing the ladder at Panda Express will be non-existent.
Well said and the irony is we don’t have to force anyone out of anything, just stop artificially propping things up and let nature take its course. Those women who can and want to do certain jobs, no one is stopping them, there have been women in just about every conceivable job far longer than we realize; there were women congress and parliament before women had the vote! We just stop forcing the situation.
Leaving aside the morality of unhealthy fast food restaurants (Panda Express is not a CAVA or Chipolte), the money made from such a position is not worth it for young men with options, especially if they like to read books and are academically inclined. I recall struggling after college to get a job so I took a job with a car rental agency. They soon offered me a management position, but I declined. Soon I had a job in the Senate which I liked a lot even though it paid a fraction of what the management position would have.
I had a colleague who hated school (no college) but had a strong work ethic and loved cars. He ended up doing well in this business. It comes down to what you like and your strengths.
I'd rather drive for Uber than manage a restaurant for what it's worth though.
There's 2 classes of people affected here: 1) educated ambitious men who resent having to put on a fast food uniform, and 2) Non-college people who were never considering anything but blue-collar work.
If we restrict the labor pool to non-immigrant Americans, class 1) makes more money while building up their side hustle, while class 2) makes more money for their entire life.
I'm a cosmopolitan and immigrant (to another country, from America) myself. A small amount of immigration connects the world and makes life more interesting. But mass immigration is almost always a bad thing for the native-born.
Excellent stuff, Aaron. Good explanation of the situation. Thank you for this!
Spiritual Boomerism is such a catching phrase. I am a late-cohort Boomer myself. I got red-pilled (into recognizing that times had greatly changed) when my sons were in High School. They were going out on dates less frequently than I was at that age. That did not make sense to me, because they were school record winning track athletes, and future Marines and Army officers, and I was EL NERDO at that age (maybe still am). We Boomers must understand how much times have changed before we can hope to give timeless advice.
This will probably go down well here, but it'll go over like a lead balloon elsewhere: a lot of college-educated women are going to have to get over themselves and ditch their snobbery, especially the ones with what might be called "professional" degrees.
No slight to nurses or pharmacy techs--those aren't exactly easy degrees to get--but those degrees signal, in terms of mentality and intellectual curiosity, most of the same traits that being the general manager of a fast-food joint does.
(I say this, by the way, as a man with a master's degree; my dating prospects will not be helped if women take this advice.)
Women are especially sensitive to social signals. Men aren’t immune but since we’re more disposable, breaking from the herd is more necessary to make your mark. I have a theory that women will honor what men honor. May seem unrelated but Antoine de Saint Xupery said that love is not looking at each other but looking in the same direction together. Part of the problem is everyone is looking in the wrong direction.
I kind of want to just say thanks. You addressed the elephant or elephants in the room. Men, especially white men, are and have been actively locked out of a lot as a group. Not entirely obviously but the current incentives are to hire them last after you’re dead certain there are no women or minorities that can take the position. This is a generality but it is somewhat real and has been a growing reality since the 70s (Scott Adams talks about it).
The other elephant in the room, is basically men need to have skin in the game. If a young man believes that a course of action will result in an independent life and an at least average looking woman who treats him with some respect, you’d be surprised how hard he would work.
However white men are the one group who cannot have a support structure. At college and large corporate America, there are programs, groups, networks available to every conceivable minority however there basically cannot be any such thing afforded to white men. The demonization has been complete any attempt to have something of this nature is immediate proof of Nazism in the ideas of the culture, so it’s a non starter, regardless of it not actually being supremacist or anything else, just doing what other groups do.
So, this is why you see an explosion of white men involved in a ton of entrepreneurial enterprises, enterprises that don’t need formal networks or institutional approval. They see the writing on the wall.
Great observations. One thing that I think is likely to happen - and which has not occurred to a lot of the woke - is touched upon in your last paragraph. Denied a traditional path to economic security by working for larger institutions that now prioritize everyone else, young white men will increasingly have to forge new networks and economic relationships. It's a sort of social Darwinism that will attract a lot of talent and *will* build a parallel and dynamic subculture that will succeed in spite of the barriers hostile political and cultural actors have tried to impose.
The woke left looks at whites (particularly men) as a group with an unfairly disproportionate share of cultural and economic influence on society, but ironically they are just birthing a new version of that phenomenon most likely. I also think the increased non-white male voter share for Trump this last election indicates that the desire for meaning, social respect, and opportunity is a pretty broadly shared sentiment by a lot of young men and is a potent force that the right needs to address. If successful I think it will have massive cultural and political implications - good ones.
There is also the issue of the dual income home and how this dilutes the wages of "low class" jobs. A man running a fryer at Panda express would make a lot more in a society where women stayed home and did not work. Wage suppression is huge in our modern economic environment. Furthermore, if women stayed home the entire hospitality and fast food industry would be destroyed. So, all the "low class" jobs would meet their demise with a fruitful and productive American woman.
I agree that if we had mass emigration in America, then many of the menial jobs would be necessarily be filled in by high school and college students. I think this would have a great impact on younger folks and teach the virtue of working hard from a young age.
Basically, I think there are a lot of assumptions going into this entire article. I found it fascinating and thought that many of the points were true but I would want to drive the conversation to the root rather than the fruit. We have so many silly assumptions that prop up places like Panda Express, and if those assumptions are abandoned, then the way that society views jobs like climbing the ladder at Panda Express will be non-existent.
Well said and the irony is we don’t have to force anyone out of anything, just stop artificially propping things up and let nature take its course. Those women who can and want to do certain jobs, no one is stopping them, there have been women in just about every conceivable job far longer than we realize; there were women congress and parliament before women had the vote! We just stop forcing the situation.
Leaving aside the morality of unhealthy fast food restaurants (Panda Express is not a CAVA or Chipolte), the money made from such a position is not worth it for young men with options, especially if they like to read books and are academically inclined. I recall struggling after college to get a job so I took a job with a car rental agency. They soon offered me a management position, but I declined. Soon I had a job in the Senate which I liked a lot even though it paid a fraction of what the management position would have.
I had a colleague who hated school (no college) but had a strong work ethic and loved cars. He ended up doing well in this business. It comes down to what you like and your strengths.
I'd rather drive for Uber than manage a restaurant for what it's worth though.
Excellent commentary--will reference in this week's Roundtable episode.