Much older men benefited from completely different demographics and economics. I will not go way back to the shortage of men because of wars, but the front end boomer men and the ones a little older than them had a huge group to dip down into. Men tend to marry women at least two years younger and the boom in Canada peaked in the late 50s/early 60s. Also,
boys are weaker at birth but modern hospitals have reduced the infant mortality rate for boys. The men born at the end of the baby boom(our boom went a bit longer than the U.S. I go to 1966 but some go to 1965) were not only competing for a small group of women but their earnings were falling because of the secular shift to a service based economy starting in the early 1980s(which coincided with a massive recession and the highest unemployment since the depression). At the same time, women were racing ahead in school and getting the union jobs still remaining(government jobs) after the outsourcing/automation of factories and the mechanization of resource extraction. Some men are making more cash than ever within the polarized service based economy(extremes with hamburger flippers and call centre employees on one side and lawyers and software engineers on the other) but not enough to satisfy women or make up for the overall decline.
This is an excellent analysis, Jeff2.
A couple of things are going to be very interesting to watch in American politics and economics the next few years.
A great number of current American policies will likely prove detrimental in the female versus male never ending somewhat friendly skirmish.
The one most reported on is the reduction in high-paying government administrative jobs often filled by educated women. They do indeed have a union aspect as you indicated. This is being coupled with the tarriff-induced attempt to bring heavy manufacturing back to the U.S., which will theoretically benefit men.
But a less reported on thing to consider is food affordability and availability.
It is simply a basic fact that Single Life is much easier to survive in now than it was decades ago because you spend a smaller portion of your income on food now compared to back then. It is less expensive to feed two people on a “per person” basis than it is to feed one person. And there didn’t used to be as many restaurants to help accomplish that result by feeding many people at once.
One of my favorite American government leaders was Earl Butz, who promoted policies that has helped the world feed 8 Billion people (a feat once considered impossible as indicated in a previous post), and he spoke, although somewhat ineloquently, about the importance of comfortable shoes, a warm place to take a shit, and a tight vagina into which to ejaculate.
Funny and combative to the end, they wheeled him to an interview in King Corn, a documentary about High Fructose Corn Syrup, and the old bastard knew the inflation adjusted cost of a cheeseburger over the years and its percentage of a typical family income.
Earl Butz, 1909-2008
www.smh.com.au
Food inflation is already high, and could get worse with Trump deporting so many immigrants who work in Agriculture, and RFK Jr. interfering with the components of the food chain.
I hope it doesn’t happen obviously, but food affordability could drive marriages up between the higher percentage of those hopelessly romantic single men mentioned in the article and those many single women the article says are not looking for romance, or to do cooking for two. I suppose some of those men would have an Earl Butz approved tight vagina into which to ejaculate, at least for a while - until the divorces occur after people realize you can’t feed 8 Billion people with healthy food and grass-fed cows, and things go back to the way they were.