Men’s work growing scarce

The March edition of The Atlantic magazine has a long article on how this jobless era will transform America. The cold, hard facts about the depth of the economic freeze are mind-numbing. Politicians raising expectations about job creation risk becoming jobless themselves. There just aren’t enough levers they can pull to quickly restore economic stability. It’s not a liberal problem or a conservative problem. It’s a terrifying problem, especially for men.

Here are six salient points to ponder:

1. Without the federal stimulus, the situation would be worse. But it will soon turn to a trickle, which has many economists quite nervous.

2. The housing bubble masked the economy’s lack of innovation, which has suffered as financiers have looked to make quick money on individual transactions and creative financial vehicles, rather than investing in sustainable, job-creating business innovations. The obsession with quarterly earnings is a symptom of this disease.

3. The economy has lost 10 million jobs. To get back to 5 percent unemployment in two years, job creation would have to double the pace of the 1990s.

4. One in five men ages 25-54 are without a job. About three out of four people laid off were men. Construction and finance are two big areas where men were waylaid. Many manufacturing jobs have already been shipped overseas.

5. Soon, more women than men will have jobs.

6. Unemployed men don’t necessarily do more household chores. Some do even less. The trend of involuntary stay-at-home men is generally bad for families and marriages, because a man’s worth is more heavily attached to employment.

This societal upheaval will translate into a bad year for incumbent politicians, but tossing them out won’t improve the picture much.

Pricey procrastination. A judge has ruled that Washington state is not meeting its paramount duty of financing basic education. This was hardly unexpected, because districts have long been taking local levy money from enrichment programs to cover such basic items as transportation and special education. But while lawmakers were dithering, two big changes took place that reinforce the status quo.

First, both legislative bodies passed a constitutional amendment that makes it easier to pass local levies. Then it was approved by voters. It used to take 60 percent of votes to pass a school levy; now it is a simple majority. Second, voters approved Initiative 960, which requires either a two-thirds approval of tax increases in both legislative houses or voter approval.

So at a time when the state really needed revenue and the burden on local school districts needed to be lifted, the Legislature made it easier to raise local property taxes, and voters made it harder to increase state taxes. Lawmakers will pay for this lack of foresight for years to come. Citizens will understand the ramifications when their favorite noneducation programs are cut.

Coverage sacked. A local couple rooting for health care reform sent me a note that shows the type of problems posed by our current system. The wife is self-employed. The couple count on the husband’s job for health care insurance, but his employer is dropping coverage in March. This thrusts them into the individual market, but the husband, who is 60, has Type 1 diabetes, which means they need a plan that does not cap expenses for diabetic supplies.

They initially found a plan that would cost $1,300 a month. That’s more than the $1,200 the husband takes home. They’ve settled on a high deductible plan, which lowers the monthly premium to $1,050 a month. That’s still nearly 90 cents of every dollar earned just to cover the premium, not counting out-of-pocket expenses.

What would you do?