I expected an article about the actually idle capital class, who really do live entire lives without working (or only working glamorous jobs that are more about contributing to their social status than doing actually necessary work).
Instead it was "the uppity and lazy lower class is now refusing work for poverty wages; we need to saddle men with children and debt or we won't have cheap labor off of which we can profit".
How do you explain that women and foreign-born men in otherwise very similar demographics are participating in the work force by many factors though? I found that very interesting.
I think there are a couple things that mediate these phenomena:
1) a multi-year gap in the CV is generally looked at less suspiciously when the reason is child-rearing or some other positive commitment; you'll have to have an explanation for that gap that doesn't reduce confidence in you as a candidate.
2) There is a selection bias, I presume, with the immigrant comparison.
Not saying these things invalidate the claim, but should be considered before accepting the claim at face value.
BTW, the claim in the article was fairly weak: since women do return to work after child-rearing, then it is possible that an applicant can get hired after a multi-year gap in the CV.
Why should I even give a shit as long as fourth generation land lords are living off of rent checks?
Need more labor? Start by at least disappropraiting the trust funders and petite landlorders of any revenue stream that comes on the back of the working class. We can talk about the rest later.
Instead it was "the uppity and lazy lower class is now refusing work for poverty wages; we need to saddle men with children and debt or we won't have cheap labor off of which we can profit".