If men tend to enter higher paying jobs that are more tied to the business cycle, would it also be true that they would be more impacted by changing technology....and not just thinking of AI here, though that is huge, but also previous technology changes. In my career we needed a lot of actuaries. I imagine AI has significantly cut down on that demand. So not only are fewer hired, that lower demand has a negative wage impact as well.
We do next to nothing to retrain or guide workforce choices as these macro shifts present themselves, we leave the market to work this out. The market does, though it can be brutal. In the interim we create a lot of disaffected, a lot of anger, and there is a huge social price to pay.
Does not feel like anything as simple as a he-recession.
I am a huge fan of markets and allowing people to react to them. It becomes a problem when 1- people don’t realize the market is shifting (information issues) 2- change is hard for reasons beyond choice (stickiness). I think both of those are at play here. We are happy to share the information and increase awareness.
Very insightful! Recently, I’ve seen a lot of analysis on the elimination of “entry level” roles worldwide. The world is clearly changing in many ways, so I really resonated with the mention of adaptability. Young professionals -men and women- must find unique opportunities to get their foot in the door, instead of searching for the perfect job. Notably, that shouldn’t equate to settling for one’s entire career, rather not wasting time on that entry level unicorn. I’m currently on that pursuit and I’m growing my patience when it comes to career momentum. Thanks for sharing!
I like your phrase "entry level unicorn". Leveraging your network to get your foot in the door is super important! If we can look at those opportunities as a piece of the career journey then we can lean into learning in that role for the next door to open. Great piece of advice, Christopher!
Thanks for reading Christopher. Getting that first job is the hardest. If your schedule allows join us for Haile Research Lab. bc 110 on Friday from 11-1230.
Jen, my bad. I spaced out and missed seeing your name :(
In terms of the college degree issue., is there a need at the high school level to adopt the European model or even the Swiss model when it comes to apprenticeships and work based learning.
Hi, Abdullah- Important topic. It needs more research. For example, you write the following: "What employers need, and what students and industry should demand, are workforce-ready skills: critical thinking, leadership, communication, and adaptability." This is what you say that employers need, and it's what they say they need, but I have seen evidence indicating this is not the kind of person they hire. In fact, critical thinking is pretty much last of the skills employers actual select for. The word "critical" is a huge turnoff for corporations -- they want people who uncritically accept the word from the top, with very few exceptions. Leadership is also way down the list. Someone who aspires to be a leader tends to think themselves better than everyone else, which is not a welcome trait -- the people who ascend to the top went to the "right" school, know the "right" people and are liked by them, especially because they do not criticize them or their policies. The other two yes. The MOST IMPORTANT thing about surveys is that they are OFTEN WRONG -- they convey what businessmen WANT YOU TO THINK, not what they actually think. Economists and business researchers should stay out of the business of doing surveys, unless they agree to have senior researchers who are social psychologists -- behavioral economics is cool, but once again, economists in practice don't think about it. You have to follow what they do, not what they say.
Unemployment is a number that covers a multitude of factors. Not all those who are looking for work have the same incentives. Moreover, it is not always a bad thing. It means that people are taking longer looking for work. But why is that? And what is the cost/benefit tradeoff for work? Maybe they want the "perfect job", and their parents, who now have fewer children, are willing to put more resources into helping them find that job. That would imply that more young men would be living with their parents longer, which is a trend that researchers have been wringing their hands about for a couple of decades. It is a reasonably hypothesis. (e.g. https://www.bgsu.edu/ncfmr/resources/data/family-profiles/loo-young-adults-in-the-parental-home-2007-2023-fp-24-02.html). Justin Wolfers' text hints that it is because those guys are hiding in their parents' basements and playing video games, which is funny, but we don't know if it's true -- I know a young man in his thirties for whom this is true, but how often is it true? I don't think anyone has done the work, but it is not my area of expertise (my expertise is in wondering about hypotheses) -- if you see relatively definitive evidence, I'd love to know.
Thank you for sharing this perspective. It’s an important reminder that what employers say they want and what they actually hire for don’t always align. These dynamics are complex and shaped by many factors beyond just education or AI. Thank you for raising your questions here to deepen the discussion!
Nice to meet you, Jeni! Employers are not always the most self-aware people -- they may well firmly believe that they are saying, but what they do may not support it! Surveys are OK when they ask "did you like the service?", but anything more complicated encounters this kind of issue, and often could benefit from other supportive evidence.
Great post! One could argue from the angle of labor market economics. Women has always went towards more service relayed fields including Healthcare. Over the last few decades we have seen the economy shifting to a more service based industry. That and many women chose not to go into roles such as software development where they received a lot of push back and resistance when efforts to help young ladies develop skills were met with fierce resistance. Now male dominant industries like software and tech are shedding workers because of efficiencies and service industries like Healthcare and hospitality continue to boom . I agree with you points. There are some serious underlying issues and it is troubling fir everyone not just younger college educated men.
Thank you! I really appreciate this perspective. This imbalance creates ripple effects for everyone, not just younger men. And, just like Jadrian points out below, society plays a significant role in shaping where young people are “pushed” or guided. For decades, efforts have been made to steer women into STEM, while other equally vital fields like healthcare and education haven’t seen the same push to attract men.
The bigger issue, to me, is workforce sustainability. If we fail to diversify who enters these critical fields, we risk long-term shortages that affect the entire labor market and the leadership pipeline down the road.
At what point do we start making a bigger push in secondary schools to get young men interested in healthcare and education as future careers? That sector has been red hot for decades, but I don't feel like we've seen the same push to get men into those fields as we did with getting women into engineering and computer science.
Yes, I agree Jadrian! We absolutely need this! It’s not just about balance; it’s about sustainability. Diversifying who sees themselves in these careers is critical for both equity and workforce readiness. Representation matters; if young men don’t see role models thriving in these fields, they’re far less likely to picture themselves there. Shifting that narrative is essential to building a stronger, more resilient workforce pipeline.
Thinking about this too in terms of the rush to the trades we are seeing. The one positive is that we could see people finding more careers in construction and infrastructure where there is a lot of need. As things continue to shift, I wouldn't be surprised if a WPA-like initiative emerged if young male unemployment spikes.
Yes, it is another pendulum swing. Markets often influence career choice, but given the time gap between market conditions, actions, and skill development, by the time everyone reacts, the market has overcorrected.
If men tend to enter higher paying jobs that are more tied to the business cycle, would it also be true that they would be more impacted by changing technology....and not just thinking of AI here, though that is huge, but also previous technology changes. In my career we needed a lot of actuaries. I imagine AI has significantly cut down on that demand. So not only are fewer hired, that lower demand has a negative wage impact as well.
We do next to nothing to retrain or guide workforce choices as these macro shifts present themselves, we leave the market to work this out. The market does, though it can be brutal. In the interim we create a lot of disaffected, a lot of anger, and there is a huge social price to pay.
Does not feel like anything as simple as a he-recession.
Thought provoking post! thanks!
I am a huge fan of markets and allowing people to react to them. It becomes a problem when 1- people don’t realize the market is shifting (information issues) 2- change is hard for reasons beyond choice (stickiness). I think both of those are at play here. We are happy to share the information and increase awareness.
This is why I am a fan of transferable power skills!
Very insightful! Recently, I’ve seen a lot of analysis on the elimination of “entry level” roles worldwide. The world is clearly changing in many ways, so I really resonated with the mention of adaptability. Young professionals -men and women- must find unique opportunities to get their foot in the door, instead of searching for the perfect job. Notably, that shouldn’t equate to settling for one’s entire career, rather not wasting time on that entry level unicorn. I’m currently on that pursuit and I’m growing my patience when it comes to career momentum. Thanks for sharing!
I like your phrase "entry level unicorn". Leveraging your network to get your foot in the door is super important! If we can look at those opportunities as a piece of the career journey then we can lean into learning in that role for the next door to open. Great piece of advice, Christopher!
Thanks for reading Christopher. Getting that first job is the hardest. If your schedule allows join us for Haile Research Lab. bc 110 on Friday from 11-1230.
Great post. Can be a great example of a long run AS curve shift. Abdullah..do you see any correction to this by itself. Or is the issue too entenched
Jen, my bad. I spaced out and missed seeing your name :(
In terms of the college degree issue., is there a need at the high school level to adopt the European model or even the Swiss model when it comes to apprenticeships and work based learning.
I think there is room to scan what other economies are doing and localizing it to add (not fit) to our economy and culture. Great point!
We need a stronger pipeline between education and employment. That includes curriculum design and mentorship programs.
Hi, Abdullah- Important topic. It needs more research. For example, you write the following: "What employers need, and what students and industry should demand, are workforce-ready skills: critical thinking, leadership, communication, and adaptability." This is what you say that employers need, and it's what they say they need, but I have seen evidence indicating this is not the kind of person they hire. In fact, critical thinking is pretty much last of the skills employers actual select for. The word "critical" is a huge turnoff for corporations -- they want people who uncritically accept the word from the top, with very few exceptions. Leadership is also way down the list. Someone who aspires to be a leader tends to think themselves better than everyone else, which is not a welcome trait -- the people who ascend to the top went to the "right" school, know the "right" people and are liked by them, especially because they do not criticize them or their policies. The other two yes. The MOST IMPORTANT thing about surveys is that they are OFTEN WRONG -- they convey what businessmen WANT YOU TO THINK, not what they actually think. Economists and business researchers should stay out of the business of doing surveys, unless they agree to have senior researchers who are social psychologists -- behavioral economics is cool, but once again, economists in practice don't think about it. You have to follow what they do, not what they say.
Unemployment is a number that covers a multitude of factors. Not all those who are looking for work have the same incentives. Moreover, it is not always a bad thing. It means that people are taking longer looking for work. But why is that? And what is the cost/benefit tradeoff for work? Maybe they want the "perfect job", and their parents, who now have fewer children, are willing to put more resources into helping them find that job. That would imply that more young men would be living with their parents longer, which is a trend that researchers have been wringing their hands about for a couple of decades. It is a reasonably hypothesis. (e.g. https://www.bgsu.edu/ncfmr/resources/data/family-profiles/loo-young-adults-in-the-parental-home-2007-2023-fp-24-02.html). Justin Wolfers' text hints that it is because those guys are hiding in their parents' basements and playing video games, which is funny, but we don't know if it's true -- I know a young man in his thirties for whom this is true, but how often is it true? I don't think anyone has done the work, but it is not my area of expertise (my expertise is in wondering about hypotheses) -- if you see relatively definitive evidence, I'd love to know.
Thank you for sharing this perspective. It’s an important reminder that what employers say they want and what they actually hire for don’t always align. These dynamics are complex and shaped by many factors beyond just education or AI. Thank you for raising your questions here to deepen the discussion!
Nice to meet you, Jeni! Employers are not always the most self-aware people -- they may well firmly believe that they are saying, but what they do may not support it! Surveys are OK when they ask "did you like the service?", but anything more complicated encounters this kind of issue, and often could benefit from other supportive evidence.
Great to meet you here too!
Great post! One could argue from the angle of labor market economics. Women has always went towards more service relayed fields including Healthcare. Over the last few decades we have seen the economy shifting to a more service based industry. That and many women chose not to go into roles such as software development where they received a lot of push back and resistance when efforts to help young ladies develop skills were met with fierce resistance. Now male dominant industries like software and tech are shedding workers because of efficiencies and service industries like Healthcare and hospitality continue to boom . I agree with you points. There are some serious underlying issues and it is troubling fir everyone not just younger college educated men.
Thank you! I really appreciate this perspective. This imbalance creates ripple effects for everyone, not just younger men. And, just like Jadrian points out below, society plays a significant role in shaping where young people are “pushed” or guided. For decades, efforts have been made to steer women into STEM, while other equally vital fields like healthcare and education haven’t seen the same push to attract men.
The bigger issue, to me, is workforce sustainability. If we fail to diversify who enters these critical fields, we risk long-term shortages that affect the entire labor market and the leadership pipeline down the road.
At what point do we start making a bigger push in secondary schools to get young men interested in healthcare and education as future careers? That sector has been red hot for decades, but I don't feel like we've seen the same push to get men into those fields as we did with getting women into engineering and computer science.
Yes, I agree Jadrian! We absolutely need this! It’s not just about balance; it’s about sustainability. Diversifying who sees themselves in these careers is critical for both equity and workforce readiness. Representation matters; if young men don’t see role models thriving in these fields, they’re far less likely to picture themselves there. Shifting that narrative is essential to building a stronger, more resilient workforce pipeline.
Thinking about this too in terms of the rush to the trades we are seeing. The one positive is that we could see people finding more careers in construction and infrastructure where there is a lot of need. As things continue to shift, I wouldn't be surprised if a WPA-like initiative emerged if young male unemployment spikes.
Yes, it is another pendulum swing. Markets often influence career choice, but given the time gap between market conditions, actions, and skill development, by the time everyone reacts, the market has overcorrected.