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.
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) sits down with US President Donald Trump in Beijing on Thursday next week, Xi is unlikely to demand a dramatic public betrayal of Taiwan. He does not need to. Beijing’s preferred victory is smaller, quieter and in some ways far more dangerous: a subtle shift in American wording that appears technical, but carries major strategic meaning. The ask is simple: replace the longstanding US formulation that Washington “does not support Taiwan independence” with a harder one — that Washington “opposes” Taiwan independence. One word changes; a deterrence structure built over decades begins to shift.
Recently, Taipei’s streets have been plagued by the bizarre sight of rats running rampant and the city government’s countermeasures have devolved into an anti-intellectual farce. The Taipei Parks and Street Lights Office has attempted to eradicate rats by filling their burrows with polyurethane foam, seeming to believe that rats could not simply dig another path out. Meanwhile, as the nation’s capital slowly deteriorates into a rat hive, the Taipei Department of Environmental Protection has proudly pointed to the increase in the number of poisoned rats reported in February and March as a sign of success. When confronted with public concerns over young
Taipei is facing a severe rat infestation, and the city government is reportedly considering large-scale use of rodenticides as its primary control measure. However, this move could trigger an ecological disaster, including mass deaths of birds of prey. In the past, black kites, relatives of eagles, took more than three decades to return to the skies above the Taipei Basin. Taiwan’s black kite population was nearly wiped out by the combined effects of habitat destruction, pesticides and rodenticides. By 1992, fewer than 200 black kites remained on the island. Fortunately, thanks to more than 30 years of collective effort to preserve their remaining
China has long given assurances that it would not interfere in free access to the global commons. As one Ministry of Defense spokesperson put it in 2024, “the Chinese side always respects the freedom of navigation and overflight entitled to countries under international law.” Although these reassurances have always been disingenuous, China’s recent actions display a blatant disregard for these principles. Countries that care about civilian air safety should take note. In April, President Lai Ching-te (賴清德) canceled a planned trip to Eswatini for the 40th anniversary of King Mswati III’s coronation and the 58th anniversary of bilateral diplomatic
RSS