1. While true, lets not ignore the fact that things get really, really, really bad during those periods where empires do collapse, or environmental damage causes ecosystem collapse, etc. etc. I mean, yes, you could argue "Hey, the Black Death killed a 3rd of Europe" and be correct, but I'm not sure what comfort that's supposed to give. Even if you want to argue that the post-war era up until, say, the 80s was an extremely unique period of progress and broad-based social advancement, that still doesn't make me feel any better if we're now in a "reversion to the mean."
2. Advanced technology does make "things collapsing" potentially much more catastrophic than in generations past. I'm not just talking about things like nuclear war, but things like the speed with which modern social media (and regular media) can pit people against each other is very different than, say, the yellow journalism periods of decades past.
As an individual, it doesn't serve you well to exist in a fog of worry among perceived threats. Volatility should be understood as a common facet of life so you can shape your competence to deal with it, rather than assume a static environment that demands alarm with every variation.
And third world countries still have very nice neighborhoods, and very rich people. But everything around gets much worse.
Frankly, I have a “living experience” of a practically instantaneous collapse. January 1, 1992. Prices were “freed”, (hyper)inflation started, people life savings were burned to dust, monthly pensions - at once - begin to cover just about a week of food (and were not paid until 3 months later). Policemen’ salaries became meaningless and the police - in the whole country - started to look for additional ways to feed their families… It all happened pretty fast.
So “inflation” is a trigger word for me since. And you can imagine unease I am watching the US government printing shiploads of money with.
Not sure if it was just operationally unfeasible to move something like a ballistic nuclear weapon, but from what I can gather, it was one of the few things that wasn't sold off en masse after the collapse.
During the 90s there were persistent rumors that some of these had been "lost", but as far as I know these rumors were never substantiated. If in fact these weapons didn't get stolen/sold, we probably have numerous intelligence agencies to thank.
Relative to what it could have been anyway, it was no doubt terrifying for a lot of people.
> the post-war era up until, say, the 80s
And it wasn't just journalism. After WWII many veterans took advantage of the free education offered by the GI Bill. That gave us a lot of highly educated people (with no student loan debt to worry about!) who then went on to use that education to improve things. Couple this with the recent memory of fascism in Europe and The Civil Rights movement and we had sort of a golden era. We were able to live off the fumes of that era until right around the end of the 20th century. You could say that in a sense things are just returning back to a more normal state of affairs and this seems painful because many of us lived through an era that was unusually good.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/184260/educational-attai...
I also wonder how much of that growth is from high school students being told to go to college above all else, and how this graduation increase corresponds to enrollment and graduation from vocational schools.
I do think your point is the big one: people could go into college and come out with knowledge in the so-called soft skills, like philosophy or literature (areas that don't pay well but are vital for a society to understand itself, if nothing else). Why society doesn't value teaching and similar jobs as much as it does other industries is left as a debate for another time.
The number of grads may have gone way up, but I think the education itself had slid down the slippery slope to create too many administrators and bureaucrats.
https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/05/09/310114739/what...
Marketing? Well, we can disagree there — to me marketing is making a science out of “parting fools with their money”, so to speak. It’s always felt fundamentally dishonest and a little dirty. But again, thats me and I am definitely biased.
Now you have automated HR depts and someone is equated with their degree one way or another. It's not really that different from ads for knowledge of particular programming library, when the potential hire clearly could pick it up in a week based on their other experiences.
This isn't all of it of course but I do think people tend to be treated as objects, no more or less than their degrees or certifications to a greater extent than the past. It's the dark side of meritocracy in my opinion, which is a horrendous mislabel.
Sometimes I feel as if we live in a world of formalized stereotyping, where the stereotypes have shifted from race and sex to some extent, to political, employment, and degree stereotypes.
To the extent that our present time is at all unique, I subscribe to Robert Putnam's thesis that much of what we see today can be explained by the drop in social capital in American life over the past several decades. Less socialization means less trust in other Americans or in the government, fewer norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness, and increased polarization. There are various reasons for this, television being a prominent example. Surprisingly, it seems as though these trends were firmly in place well before the internet or 24 hour news came along.
I tend to agree with the Putnam thesis, but I don't think you can lay this all on television. Until the 80s there were really only 3 viable TV/radio networks (CBS, NBC and later, ABC). If you watched the nightly news on any of those networks you got pretty much the same vision of reality. There was more variation in newspapers, but people watched a lot of TV in that era and for the most part they shared a cohesive vision.
"Even though there are only 24 hours in everyone's day, most forms of social and media participation are positively correlated. People who listen to lots of classical music are more likely, not less likely, than others to attend Cubs games. Television is the principal exception to this generalization--the only leisure activity that seems to inhibit participation outside the home. TV watching comes at the expense of nearly every social activity outside the home, especially social gatherings and informal conversations. TV viewers are homebodies."
https://xroads.virginia.edu/~Hyper/DETOC/assoc/putnmtv4.html
Narratives have a very strong early-mover bias.
The OPs point about things starting to crack in the Obama years rings true. For all of his positive points, there is nothing in Obama's resume that suggests he was qualified to be President. He was the first President to be memed into office. The press loved to talk about how adept the campaign was in utilizing the Internet to mobilize and motivate supporters.
Everybody took notice, and now the narrative battle happens online, at Internet speeds. This is a terrible, terrible idea. Unless you're some kind of otherworldly genius, taking in all of the input and coming to a rational opinion weighing all the pros and cons is impossible. So, like a black-box AI algorithm, people come up with opinions based on odd things like who has a more insulting neologism for their opponent, or whatever.
The "collective amnesia" you mention also occurs at Internet speeds. What was major news on Tuesday is fishwrap by Thursday, replaced with something else. There's no value in revisiting it, so whatever narrative gets entrenched is it.
I don't think there's a solution for any of this, short of a CME wiping out everything more technological than a shovel.
So, no, it's not just an old man opening a paper in the morning and claiming that "this country is going to hell". That's not new. THIS is.
I am genuinely surprised by this take on HN, which is very common. Any serious historian will tell you that this is not normal.
The narrative of mass disillusionment is more based on the limits of a historical narrative that must broadly categorize a mass of people as having a unified reaction for the sake of a simplified historical account.
Disillusionment is a persistent experience for people as they grow up. The idea that one period was "more" disillusioned than another isn't a real phenomenon.
Humanity is largely self-grouped by culture. Cultures fundamentally share mythologies, both about themselves and about other cultures, be they rival or friendly.
What we experienced in the '60s and are experiencing right now is a dissolution of the predominant self-mythology in American culture, which was temporarily boosted to a high degree of uniformity first by the advent of mass media, then again by 9/11. That's what's causing the culture war we're all entrenched in, willing or not. American self-mythology is in a period of redefining itself.
As cultural collapses go, mass media (the internet included) has caused these unprecedented waves of disillusionment happening at lightning speed compared to how they happened in the past. Historically it took massive famines to cause the degree of social unrest that modern war photos and videos can incite (as in the Vietnam era).
The speed of communication is unprecedented; as a result, so is the severity of this age-old issue.
No, "they" are not. The few people in the inner political circles of that generation are in charge, same as every other time in history. The normal hardworking people are never in charge.
I remember when in middle school (Gen X here) I thought when our youth generation grows up and gets to be in charge the world will be better, because everyone I knew in school and out was so reasonable and so nice. Surely none of these people will be the corrupt politicians of tomorrow?
And turns out they(we)'re not the corrupt politicians of today. Because none of those regular kids of then are in charge. Who is? The children and grandchildren of the corrupt politicians of back then, groomed from childhood to be the corrupt politicians of today. They weren't in our middle class school of course, so never met any of them.
How to break that cycle? Ideally by voting for people not affiliated with the dominant two parties, but the system is rigged against that succeeding, so I don't know.
Why do people think of an entire generation of people as a single minded entity? Might as well say, "women," or "men," or "humans." Did you know the majority of baby boomers weren't hippies? Looking at documentaries of the era, you'd think they were. Many boomers hated hippies. So which boomers are creating these divisions? The hippies or the non-hippies?
>their disillusioned leadership is pushing these divisions ever wider.
This would be much more targeted (and accurate) if you said the current generation of politicians. Last time I checked, I've mostly only had two bad choices for president since I've been voting. The third choice was, "throwing away my vote." Guess who came up with that one? The politicians. When you blame a generation of people, you don't blame the people who actually have the power to make the decisions affecting our lives.
I'm sorry you didn't reap the benefits of the most benevolent time in America's history but plenty of your Boomer counter-parts sure as hell did. I've met enough Boomers that there is nothing wrong with generalizing Boomers as a whole. Just like a huge percentage of my generation totally gave up and resort to 'UNFAIR MEH WON'T TRY NOW'. Am in that camp? No. I don't get upset when people generalize because it doesn't pertain to me as an individual. There is some truth to prejudice
Boomers had an era of prosperity that we will never see again. My in-laws purchased their first home in 1971 for 60,000. That same home is worth 800,000+
The only reason I can even own a home or compete in my late 20's is because I wasn't naïve enough to think that any degree would pay the bills.
You might not like it, but Boomers took their hoard and pulled the ladder up behind them. It is what it is.
And what mechanism did they use to do this exactly?
>I've met enough Boomers that there is nothing wrong with generalizing Boomers as a whole. Just like a huge percentage of my generation totally gave up and resort to 'UNFAIR MEH WON'T TRY NOW'. Am in that camp? No. I don't get upset when people generalize because it doesn't pertain to me as an individual. There is some truth to prejudice
Its an unwillingness to understand the predicament or situation and just blaming it on a group of people. It's pretty common throughout history; a weapon wielded by the powerful.
>I'm sorry you didn't reap the benefits of the most benevolent time in America's history but plenty of your Boomer counter-parts sure as hell did.
I'm not a Boomer.
NIMBYism making it difficult to build enough housing for everyone and inflating housing costs, for example.
All hail the powerful boomers.
You have no perspective, self awareness, nor understanding of economics and history so you blame it on boomers.
The prosperity you talk of included smaller homes, built to different code, with a population of 205 million not 330, at a time with huge unemployment and high interest rates. There are so many factors, but yeah distill it down to BOOMER hate because it works for your simplistic thinking and you have met a representative portion to be able to judge them all.
I grew up in the 80s. EVERYTHING is nicer today, everything. But let's look at your example. Housing. Job stress was super bad in the recession of the 80s. You don't understand what it is like to live in the gloom that was the 80s. Let's talk about the economic part of that gloom. Continuing on the inflation/high interest of the 70s. Every night on the news they talked about how no one would ever have the American dream of owning a home again, what with the combination of high interest rates and no one having jobs because of the recession (unemployment 1980 7.2%, 1981 8.5%, 1982 10.8% 1983 8.3%, 1984 7.3%, 1985 7%).
Man if you could only live in those glorious times when house prices were cheap because nobody had jobs, and those that did have jobs were poorly paid (because of competition for jobs) and their money was quickly worthless because of interest rates/inflation (Inflation of 1979 13.3%, 1980 13.50%, 1981 10.3%). You leave out that homes were cheaper because interest was so high people couldn't afford the price they can with lower interest. 1980 15%, 1985 9.93%.
I remember my boomer parents and the stress in their eyes every day. But yeah, when they were young everything was easy not like your generation's struggle. FU dude. How dare you judge my parents? You don't know them. You don't know their struggles to keep food on the table for me. Just straight up F U dude. You are garbage, thinking you can judge them because you 'met enough Boomers that there is nothing wrong with generalizing Boomers'and because you are to ignorant to understand the factors that created the spread of home prices in the past and today but want to feel like you do.
Stop being a tool, get some perspective on what you are talking about if you are going to judge people. You don't understand what it is like to live with a horrible economy for basically a decade, but because it depressed housing prices want to act like it was some sort of blessing.What would be the income of someone today, looking to buy the house for $800K?
Average income in 2021 $65,000, well short of the $80,000 to equal 10% of the house. Also, there has been a large increase in other expenses. Most households had a single earner, leaving another adult to generally raise children. That's much rarer today. Two car households, higher utility bills, etc... The evidence is pretty clear that money doesn't go as far today.
https://www.census.gov/library/publications/1972/demo/p60-85...
The boom in housing prices is also a temporary anomaly. That's only half the reason young people can't afford them. The other half is NAFTA and globalization and trade agreements, etc. Those were all done by politicians for corporations. It's easy to blame Boomers because you read an article that did that very thing (it's common in news to stir cross generational resentment). It also lets the politicians off the hook. Remember that next time they say the presidential candidate of whatever party you prefer will actually help you. Unless you are a corporation, that's unlikely.
Baby boom generation started in what, 1946?
In 1946 almost half the houses in the US didn't have full indoor plumbing. That's some era of prosperity to be born into.
I'm not of that generation, but my parents were. My mom and her brother were driving tractors and operating other heavy machinery on a farm when they were still in elementary school. That was how a large part of the baby boomers grew up.
You kids have no idea. Now get off my lawn.
https://www.amazon.com/Days-Rage-Underground-Forgotten-Revol...
We’ve had it comparatively calm and so bombs get noticed.
-- https://time.com/4501670/bombings-of-america-burrough/
That was extreme and unprecedented for America.
I’ve only heard the relentless shit all the younger generations started talking about Boomers at some point.
Which always came as a surprise to me… If we’re going to generalize about people based on generation (bad idea, but…)— I conclude that every generation since the Boomers has been linearly weaker and less competent, in aggregate, than the generation before it. Definitely in the West, but I suspect everywhere. And no, I’m not a Boomer, I’m one of the younger ones.
Counterreaction, a lot of voices claiming to speak for boomers, or boomers themselves, have done plenty to claim "it's just young people messing up". Despite the obvious that they have been the majority voter base for decades, have more wealth as a collective, and because of their age and wealth, tend to have different incentives and opinions than the younger generations having problems to do something as simple as getting a foothold in adult life.
NB: the obvious problem isn't "boomer / old", but the nature of the social game as it is (relatively or perceived zero-sum) and the haves voting against the have nots.
>I conclude that every generation since the Boomers has been linearly weaker and less competent
Weaker and less competent how? I assure you, for every argument you'll find, you can find another argument which would flip the script.
Dude, if you think that is different than any other generation ever well, hopefully when you get older you'll learn about perspective.
The 'Greatest Generation's version of the boomers sent them to WW2 to die by the millions, but poor you, right? Never has a generation been handed such a shit sandwich by the generations before them as the boomers have handed you. Get over yourselves. You aren't so special in the list of generations.
When the boomers had nothing in their youth they created the hippie culture where it didn't matter. Today's hyper consumerist tiktok generation think they have a right to live like the made up people on TikTok do. They aren't boomers, but you know the characters on the TV show Friends could never have lived like that in New York, right? That it was a fake show that portrayed an unrealistic quality life that young people working those jobs didn't actually live, right?
And I’ve been called both in the same day.
Journalism was a tawdry, un-respectable business since its conception, but experienced a brief period of valor around the mid-twentieth century when industry concentration, Cold War ethics and regulation collectively reworked its incentives. The education system has always been in a position of scrutiny since universal education become the norm. Presidents have been the stuff of tabloid gossip since the founding fathers with the media mercilessly opting to promote scandal and controversy over respectability. Our conception of President as moral arbiter is a function of the reworking of journalism mentioned above.
The difference in peoples attitudes reflects an increased diet of emotion inducing media that accelerates fears and expectations, rather than some great pivot in volatility. Yes there are things to worry about but there always are (let's remember the twentieth century had two world wars, the Great Depression, and an even worse pandemic).