THIS.

"It's the economy, stupid!" - James Carville (political strategist for Bill Clinton)

But with one party quietly intent on making the economic situation worse for 99% of America, and the other party too deep in their ideological narcissism & just plain stupidity to actually care...I doubt that anything is gonna improve.

>But with one party quietly intent on making the economic situation worse for 99% of America, and the other party too deep in their ideological narcissism & just plain stupidity to actually care...I doubt that anything is gonna improve.

lol that none of us can know for sure which party you think is which, since one could reasonably launch both criticisms at either

Making shit worse for the 99% is the only point of bipartisan agreement... where would we be without the oligarchy?

I definitely would not take it that far or call it an "oligarchy", but there is no doubt that neither option seems particularly great or inspiring at the moment.

> none of us can know [...] which party you think is which [...]

That was kinda the point.

On the contrary, I don't think it's the economy... it's your last paragraph. People just don't feel very encouraged to have children in such a toxic culture

The actual root causes are economic but there's a psychological feedback loop at play as well. I lived in Germany for a few years and got culture shocked when I attended a 40th birthday and realised that I was the only parent in attendance. When society gets itself into a situation where not having kids is that normalised, it gets fairly easy to validate the choice not to have one.

Even if they did want a family it might be difficult or impossible to find a partner for lower income men. Western women with degrees and careers aren't exactly fawning over your average forklift driver, and i think a lot of low income men understand this and are just opting to focus on themselves.

Not everyone with low income is blue collar. Some of us make startups.

What's changed are expectations. 50 years ago, as long as you could get a job at a warehouse or restaurant, people would have 1 or 2 children without severe economic anxiety, even if they couldn't afford a house. Today, anxiety is through the roof even among professionals and other high earners whose finances look downright unfathomable to half the population from 50 years ago. If your only prospects are working at a warehouse or restaurant, this makes you all but destitute, and according to the calculus of modern popular culture it would be irresponsible to bear and raise children.

Objectively speaking, it's easier today for even the poorest of households to raise well-educated and healthy children. Traditionally, shelter, food, clothing, and then in the 20th century, education, were all that mattered. In 21st century America, access to all of those things is basically guaranteed, especially for people with children. (Yes, there are people who are unable to navigate the system and fall through the cracks. But those things are available. The people who fall through the cracks today would have had a much worse time of things 50+ years ago, notwithstanding that public programs cannot fully replace the more extensive family relationships that were once more common.)

But because the scope of peer group identification has expanded both geographically (basically, the entire country) and across socio-economic strata, now all of a sudden people are comparing their situation within a much more diverse context that includes many people far wealthier than themselves. And the emphasis has shifted. It's no longer about shelter, food, clothing, and formal education; it's about one's ability to spend quality time with the kids, to afford private schools or exclusive public school districts, tutoring, extracurriculars, etc. The goal posts have shifted.

Even if this were true, we still need to understand what caused such a shift.

Our politics have also nationalized. Remember the old aphorism, "all politics is local"? For the latest decade or two, not only is that not true, but its erstwhile validity might be beyond conception for younger generations.

That doesn't get to the root of things, but the fact that our day-to-day cultural contexts have shifted dramatically is a much broader dynamic. I suppose a cheap answer would be TV, then the Internet, and most especially and recently social media. But that also only begs more questions--what underlying dynamics did those things effect.

The answer is in the post: "now all of a sudden people are comparing their situation within a much more diverse context that includes many people far wealthier than themselves."

Social media.

So what could we do about it then? If that’s truly the whole explanation it is an unsolvable problem

Authoritarian regimes can "solve" it, democracies cannot. By definition, the rights enable the antagonist. Individually, one can actively cultivate mental models to compare oneself only to oneself instead of others and similar mechanisms to operate with emotional health and fortitude. At scale though? Hooboy are we screwed. Spend 60 minutes on TikTok, I rest my case.

Never spend any amount of time on TikTok, except to perhaps laugh at people who don’t understand how narrowly they’ve filtered their reality.

Comparing yourself to other people is useful, not bad. Unless you want to live in fantasy land and never find out what the real world is like

Disagree

Social media is not the real world though, it's heavily curated (which by itself is a problem) and then algorithmically designed to induce strong feelings like hate, fear, resentment etc. because that is what increases engagement.

That's not healthy, and it's a huge reason so many young people are so miserable all the time. They have no other frame of reference in the actual real world.

I agree that having no real world experience is bad, and social media can be dangerous

> Unless you want to live in fantasy land and never find out what the real world is like

I enjoy picturing the fantasy land where a functioning adult genuinely holds the perspective you’re advocating for here. Dystopian Sci Fi is sort of my thing

I am a functional adult who believes this genuinely. Probably more functional than you, since we’re comparing :)

That’s your microcosm sweetheart, compare away. For somebody named “Philosopher” you still seem like you could do well reading The Fountainhead or Meditations. But then again your profile says “stirring the pot” so it’s hard to take anything you say in earnest (:

Look at popular culture in America, not to blame it for the current state of things, but as a mirror into the values of society. In a show as benign a Modern Family every home is easily a multi-million dollar home anywhere in the country. This is the 1% reflected as a normal, average, "modern family."

Even if you are doing really well in America it often doesn't feel like it. It often feels like you need to stretch to live a "normal" life. It often feels like you are barely making it and not only are you barely making it but you are one lost job from losing it all.

This isn't exactly new, and it isn't even exclusive to the United States, but I can't help but feel it is only getting worse.