You can see this exemplified in the fact that, even as we are mocking people for not going to college, we are lowering academic standards and getting rid of gifted programs: https://www.teachforamerica.org/one-day/opinion/stop-elimina.... It’s magical thinking on all sides.
Since you seem to be a fan of intellectual rigor, can you describe the process by which you arrive at the relative worth of (apparently) social science programs vs. small town social behavior?
Can that method also tell us whether citrus flavors are more valuable than ballet?
Culture, meanwhile, is the organically developed heuristics and norms of communities.
You can measure the relative worth of these things by looking at the functioning of society on various metrics. Unlike say civil engineers, practitioners of *studies and social sciences have demonstrated little ability to come into a community and make live measurably better for everyone. Arguably, as traditional social norms have been eroded, many communities are less healthy than ever—much more so than you’d expect looking at just the economic numbers. Millennials as a generation are the richest ever, yet seem profoundly unhappy and unsatisfied.
That's plain wrong, they have less disposable income and lower net worth than the two generations before them had at the same stage in their life.
Just because stock market grew doesn't mean life of an average Joe improved.
This stuff is complicated so make sure you’re comparing like with like. Even the chart above ignored one critical adjustment: in 1970 just 5% of the population was foreign born, while today its 15%. Millennials are much more likely today to be recent economic migrants, or the children of them, than boomers. That drags the numbers down, but doesn’t imply anything negative about millennials’ economic status. Indeed, those immigrants are experiencing upward economic mobility, and are seeing themselves that way. The dour attitude among millennials seems to be mainly on the native born, who really are doing as well or better than their parents.
At least, they’re doing better economically. Thanks to social changes, they have less agency than their parents did. They have few opportunities to garner authority and respect in their communities. They’re not building families and getting the hope that comes from nurturing the next generation. They have many reasons to be dour. Their parents failed them!
I agree that I don't like the direction we're headed, but hopefully the natural consequences of that direction will encourage people to revisit their ideological assumptions.
I'm not convinced that the rise of China will be so bad. Boomers and neocons want us to think so, but their "arguments" are mostly just paranoia and sentimentality.
You're not convinced that going from "living in the most economically dominant and militarily powerful country in the world" to "not" is going to somehow not be a painful experience?
You can use the "I am not convinced" line for anything. "I am not convinced that being homeless is worse than living in a nice house" but... ok, what would convince you?
Maybe it's good that other groups of people besides Americans and Europeans can make leading contributions to economic growth, science and technology.
Maybe America's dominance is mainly good for the rich and those who like to invade countries on a whim. I don't care about either of those groups.
When UK Parliament wanted Zuk to answer some tough question about his company facilitating electoral fraud, he simply refused to show up. Even first world nations struggle in dealing with American corporation, which often act as if they are above the law.
God forbid you are a developing nation. British American Tabacco has taken poor developing nations to court for trying to ban children from smoking (!!) and got compenation and the law repealed
I am not even mentioning illegal stuff: bribes, threats, drone strikes, strong-arming, etc.
Even the EU was strong armed when it comes to GPS:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2003/dec/08/world.internation...
Those that think that American economic advantage was won in a 'fair game' are super naive
this is what's going to happen to the US, but on much larger scale and worse consequences
The *studies fields are rather small proportion of students. They also cluster mostly in top universities. It is just not true that they would dominated universities.
That one is just paranoia and blaming what you hate anyway.
You get more of what you reward and less of what you don't. It's not always a pleasant truth, but it's a powerful one.