I don't believe we have more inequality now than 100 years ago, or anything before that.
- huge increase in labor supply: outsourcing, women entering workforce in large numbers
- productivity wage-gap: http://www.oecd.org/economy/decoupling-of-wages-from-product...
- savings gap between millenials and previous generations: https://www.businessinsider.com/millennials-saving-habits-le...
- white american men's life expectancy dropping, for first time ever: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/life-expectancy-for-american-me...
- cost of housing in major cities increasing dramatically
- opioid epidemic
- obesity epidemic
- unemployment among the young in Europe is stubbornly high.
Qualitatively, you can see nihilism on the rise among the young: https://jeromysonne.com/the-nihilism-of-r-wallstreetbets/
> opioid epidemic, obesity epidemic
Alcohol consumption is down against 1971. The heroin, cocain etc problems are smaller then they used to be. People are less violent overall.
People still live longer. And while they are obese, their life expectancy went up against that time. And some of it is that historical diseases from various malnutritions are down.
Economic standards are dropping for new graduates. But, it is not all bleak everything is worst situation.
This observation is often trotted out, but I'm not sure it's fair. 50 years ago was no picnic, either. We were mired in the Cold War (Vietnam, no less). Nixon was in the White House. There was tons of social unrest (Nixon wrote in his memoirs about the thousands of bomb threats and attempted bombings). Civil rights / racial tensions were extremely high (MLK was assassinated in '68). The 70's were an absolutely terrible economic decade - oil shock and stagflation, anyone?
> huge increase in labor supply: outsourcing, women entering workforce in large numbers
I recall watching a presentation a few years back on this, but sadly I can't find the link. This appears to be a follow-up on the research, though. (From the Brookings Institute -https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https:/...
In 1970, women entered the workforce, so you would have expected productivity to double, so GDP would have doubled, and thusly everyone's standard of living, right?
Instead what happened is all that extra capital drove up costs in housing and healthcare. Credit cards were introduced and the savings rate plummetted. Instead of having tons of extra money, everyone actually wound up in debt instead. (Please note: I'm not blaming women entering the workforce for this phenomenon; it was totally our surrounding economic system)
My high level point is that I think young people back then had a lot of reason to feel precarious and not trust in their institutions to act in their interests. We probably suffered a lot for it then, but we did eventually build our way out of it, for at least a short while, even if it feels like we're essentially further down the economic path now.
Edit: cleaned up typo and link, sorry
But I think it is valid that the parent pointed out that younger generations today feel screwed, that they won't be able to do as well economically or socially as their parents. Many are lonely on the internet, trapped in student loans, and searching for decent jobs. On average they are having to postpone leaving their parents houses, getting married, having kids and buying a house, waiting to do these things until significantly later in life than their parents and grandparents. They've heard about the American Dream and don't feel like they'll have it. And there's a lot of them.
I know that this is not true for everybody, lots of things are better, and it's relative - other people have it worse, etc. But this sentiment is still a thing - a lot of young people feel like they have it worse than their parents and grandparents.
I don't know that debating the details will change their minds.
- There is no such thing as lifetime employment for most fields.
- Outsourcing wiped out a lot of decent jobs in the US. - Automation is wiping out a bunch more.
- College debt is thing, though I fully expect this administration to forgive it.
- Housing is significantly more expensive**.
- All the rich countries are ageing fast.
- Men are going to college much less, and trend is accelerating***.
* Lawyers are a good example. Search engines have wiped out a whole class of entry-level legal work. We certainly don't need as many as we have now, but what well-paying jobs are going to replace them? Finance is going through a similar transition where you just don't need as many people to conduct trades. I feel like I was reading FT a few months ago and several of the major Ibanks were saying they expect to need a third as many employees in the next decade.
**Taipei is a prime example. Taiwanese salaries are super low, yet property is super expensive. Last time I looked, around $100/sqft for condos. People buying investment properties are the obvious culprit, but I don't think there is political will to deprive the government of property taxes and wipe out the savings of older voters, in order to save the young. And lo and behold the birthrate is 0.9 there.
***I think this was on HN a few days ago: https://hechingerreport.org/the-pandemic-is-speeding-up-the-.... You can argue college is a waste of time, and I'm inclined to agree, but I think we can make up a narrative where young men feel there is no hope.
On the contrary, if you don't trust your neighbor, you have no basis for trusting anyone. It's the foundation for any other trust relationships. As for the relationships between classes, that also relies on trust in things larger than classes: trust in the legal and social framework.
I trust my neighbors not to steal my stuff. I don't trust them not to narc on me. If they do narc on my I trust the city to realize that's a dumb use of resources. But I don't trust the state to be so smart.
How often have you heard something along the lines of "I'm not worried my kids will be kidnapped, I'm worried some jerk will call the cops if I let them walk to the park on their own"?
That’s what the poors need; noblesse oblige oligarchy.
What purpose should they serve, ideally? - focus just on investment and profit - improve society ie noblesse oblige - compete for public honor, ie holding high office
I'm not suggesting their is one answer, but given the rich hold such sway over government, I definitely don't think they can sit back and enjoy their high tariff burgundy while we have riots in the streets, first from the left and now the right.
You may trust your neighbor, but that has zero bearing on society at large. Society only works if the different classes trust each other not to screw each other out of existence.
We're seeing this in all the rich countries now- a generation of youngsters are realizing that a middle class existence may not exist for them. Even in Europe, which is more egalitarian, things aren't looking as rosy as they used to be. And of course in poorer countries with high birth rates, we already see turmoil as young angry men realize they are destined for a life of poverty while their government enriches itself.
EDIT: I think the guy who started Huawei said something to the effect of when you are a millionaire, you only care about yourself, but when you are a billionaire, you are all the sudden responsible for a lot of people. I wish that attitude permeated our business schools and boardrooms. The amount of people from top business schools who parrot "Always do the right thing" and then proceed to sell their own grandmother down the street blows my mind.