Economists spend a lot of time talking about jobs. Work is not only how people support themselves financially, it can also be the way in which they contribute to society, create unique identities and find meaning in the world. When work disappears or shifts, people can feel as unmoored and confused as Ken in Greta Gerwig’s Barbie, who had one last moment in the spotlight at Sunday night’s Academy Awards, when Ryan Gosling performed the Oscar-nominated song I’m Just Ken.
Gosling lost — to his fellow Barbie nominee Billie Eilish — just as Ken is emotionally lost in Barbieland. Ken’s identity crisis, born from the lack of a clearly defined purpose, mirrors a narrative that has been unfolding for American working-class men for decades. The economy has shifted beneath their feet, leaving many like Ken: struggling with a mix of anger, hurt and confusion.
In the mid-1960s, about one-third of US jobs involved manufacturing and other goods-producing sectors. Men held about 80 percent of those jobs. In the decades since, the number of jobs in the goods-producing sector has been largely stable. At the same time, the service sector has exploded, adding about 100 million jobs.
Illustration: Mountain People
Men still hold 77 percent of jobs in the goods-producing sector. Unfortunately, the US and global economies have moved on — and the shift has happened without the creation of a new narrative for men. So working-class men like Ken are stumbling around a socioeconomic landscape seeking a foothold in a society that seems to have no role for them, largely eschewing the new working-class job opportunities in the service sector.
The result is that job growth has disproportionately gone to women, 92 percent of whom work in services.
However, unlike in Barbieland, in the real world the division is not just between men and women, but between college-educated and working-class men. Men with college and advanced degrees have high labor force participation rates, high marriage rates and high earnings. These elite men have thrived in an economy that evolved to prioritize intellectual prowess.
In Barbie, Ken confronts this contrast when he goes into the real world. He is granted respect and authority from the patriarchy, but once they learn what his skill set is — “beach” — men turn their backs on him. When Ken tells a male executive that the executive is not “doing patriarchy very well,” the response is a knowing smile and reassurance that patriarchy is still being “done well” — it is just better hidden.
The moment reflects the tensions between highly educated and working-class men. The first group continues to give their male colleagues a slight edge in promotions and hiring, and to abandon working-class men, who lack the power or position to leverage the patriarchy to their advantage.
In the real world, working-class men are often seen at the center of attempts to roll back the social clock, perhaps because they have witnessed the biggest losses, both socially and economically. However, making divorce harder, or passing policies to revive the moribund goods-producing sector, cannot solve the problems of men.
Trapping people in marriage is not a good way to make it work. Marriage takes real work — the work of blending identities and narratives. With men struggling to understand their place in society, it is hardly surprising that they are struggling to build a shared vision for a life as a father and a partner.
So how can men move forward when the traditional roles and economic pathways no longer hold the same promise? The answer is to take the advice of Barbie. At the end of the movie, she implores Ken to find himself.
Working-class men now have an opportunity to find their passions and use them to form a new narrative for their life. What does masculinity look like in a society that has little room for physical toughness, sexual prowess, dominance and aggression? Or a society in which emotional vulnerability and connection is central?
The world is on the cusp of another technological wave that might reshape the economic landscape by giving an increasing number of tasks to robots and artificial intelligence. Efforts to protect or revive the US manufacturing sector are like adding more water to a draining bathtub. It would keep the water level higher for a while, but eventually the tub would empty.
In a world in which artificial technology increasingly replaces our work, our humanity would become ever more important. As humans, we have never been more free to make the life and relationships we want. However, unless we update our expectations, we would not be able to take full advantage of these technologies.
The challenges of working-class men today are a problem for all of us — and a warning for all of our futures. Working-class men need a new narrative that allows them to embrace a vision of masculinity that emphasizes their humanity and their relationships. Creating a new role for working-class men in the 21st century would not be easy, but doing so is essential. However, if we can forge a new narrative for men and masculinity, it might just be Kenough.
Betsey Stevenson is a professor of public policy and economics at the University of Michigan. She was on former US president Barack Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers and was chief economist at the US Department of Labor. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
Taiwan’s semiconductor industry gives it a strategic advantage, but that advantage would be threatened as the US seeks to end Taiwan’s monopoly in the industry and as China grows more assertive, analysts said at a security dialogue last week. While the semiconductor industry is Taiwan’s “silicon shield,” its dominance has been seen by some in the US as “a monopoly,” South Korea’s Sungkyunkwan University academic Kwon Seok-joon said at an event held by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. In addition, Taiwan lacks sufficient energy sources and is vulnerable to natural disasters and geopolitical threats from China, he said.
After reading the article by Hideki Nagayama [English version on same page] published in the Liberty Times (sister newspaper of the Taipei Times) on Wednesday, I decided to write this article in hopes of ever so slightly easing my depression. In August, I visited the National Museum of Ethnology in Osaka, Japan, to attend a seminar. While there, I had the chance to look at the museum’s collections. I felt extreme annoyance at seeing that the museum had classified Taiwanese indigenous peoples as part of China’s ethnic minorities. I kept thinking about how I could make this known, but after returning
What value does the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) hold in Taiwan? One might say that it is to defend — or at the very least, maintain — truly “blue” qualities. To be truly “blue” — without impurities, rejecting any “red” influence — is to uphold the ideology consistent with that on which the Republic of China (ROC) was established. The KMT would likely not object to this notion. However, if the current generation of KMT political elites do not understand what it means to be “blue” — or even light blue — their knowledge and bravery are far too lacking
Taipei’s population is estimated to drop below 2.5 million by the end of this month — the only city among the nation’s six special municipalities that has more people moving out than moving in this year. A city that is classified as a special municipality can have three deputy mayors if it has a population of more than 2.5 million people, Article 55 of the Local Government Act (地方制度法) states. To counter the capital’s shrinking population, Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an (蔣萬安) held a cross-departmental population policy committee meeting on Wednesday last week to discuss possible solutions. According to Taipei City Government data, Taipei’s