Huh, pull up the ladder economically, have no safety nets and a brutalist economic system and you’ll still have folks writing pieces communicating surprise at the outcome.
Let's make housing unaffordable, make students be in debt for life just to graduate all while overworking them so they can't even rest properly. Why they don't want to live? *pikachu surprised face*
You also forgot that they also have 100k of government debt per person attached, which they will pay through higher taxes(both principal and interest), and higher social security/medicaid to serve previous gens.
But I think it was not explicit intention, but more side results of some actions to serve some actors(politicians, corps, universities) who heavily profited from these actions.
It turns out modernism is incompatible with humans. Who would have thought that taking humans out of nature and putting them in brick cubes they must constantly work to keep would result in unnatural outcomes and behaviors.
I believe it’s important to not throw out the baby with the bathwater here. My belief is that much of modernism can be made such that people can thrive in it, but this simply hasn’t yet been a goal for the powers that be.
Much of the problems with cities for instance boil down to them being built for cars, not people. Simply replacing roads with greenery-laden paths for biking and walking would make cities much more conducive to mentally healthy citizens.
I don’t really buy this idea that’s been floating around the internet for a while now that humanity must return to thatch hut villages in the woods in order to be able to thrive.
I think we, as Humana, mentally survive a lot better in smaller local groups. Once a certain population density hits, it seens things go wrong much more quickly.
Small local groups can exist in cities, too. That’s not too far off from the concept of a neighborhood, something that is being lost in the sprawl of suburbia and commute-by-car.
While it’s likely we’re best adapted psychologically for small groups, how much of that is universally relevant in a modern context is unclear. A lot of people have left small towns in recent decades due to their often-gossipy social dynamics and the mental toll that can take… speaking from experience, coming from that being “just a number” in a city can be much needed relief.
That's not even mentioning the 8-12 hours a day many people are staring at screens. It's 1/2 - 3/4 of an alternate reality to what humans experienced from 10k BC to 1950
Young generations have prevailed during times of famine, conquest from outside forces, cataclysmic events like volcanos and ice ages, and populating new territories.
Not sure whether distracting is the right word however the internet is likely involved. Constant connectivity and engagement maximizing algorithms ensure they are exposed to the horrors of the world daily. It is difficult to imagine the existential angst this would be creating in their young minds.
I believe this is the "leaded gasoline" of our times. Something we will eventually correct for but at great cost to a generation of young people.
why did you decide they prevailed during those events? There usually was some ruling class(kings, feudals) who were fine while poor were dying in wars and famines regardless they are young or not.
I was thinking about this recently, and came to the conclusion that the generations from WW2 to Gen-X constructed a very tightly-optimized society - with no room for their grandchildren in it. Basically the economy today is a complex system that is overconstrained: there is no way to change it without the whole thing coming down, and yet it was also built for a population level that was less than half what we have now. As a result, all of the excess 1987+ births literally have nowhere to go in the society we have now, and they just float around as disaffected youth or never leave their parents' basement.
Think of all the problems facing young people today, and envision the logical solution for them. Housing: why don't young underhoused people simply pick up a hammer, saw, and some wood and build themselves a house? If you do this in any major metropolitan area today, you will get a stop-work order and a zillion zoning and building code violations. Health care: if somebody is sick, go read a few textbooks and do what they say you should do. If you do this, you'll be arrested for practicing medicine without a license, and the number of residencies (and hence new licenses granted) is strictly capped to keep wages high. Aviation: with how dysfunctional Boeing is, why haven't competitors arisen? Because building a plane is so tightly regulated that a startup that can satisfy the regulations would basically look like Boeing, have roughly the same cost structure, and move as slowly.
The one exception that lucky Millennials got into was tech, which was notoriously unregulated until about 5 years ago. That unregulation meant there was space for new people to enter the industry, and for new firms to take over other parts of the economy. Everybody else has had to fight for the limited new positions that open up in industries whose structure has already been decided.
I really appreciate this point and I've had similar thoughts. A lot of people nowadays point back to the peak of American civilization post world war II and think or expect that that will continue but like you said it was tightly optimized and I think a flash in the pan mostly from Europe being completely destroyed while the United States remained unscathed causing a massive boon. What I haven't considered are your points about everything being overly regulated to the point that no one can run a business or build their own home without so much BS and red tape that they are guaranteed failure. College was the entry point into success but even that is slowly collapsing. I don't know much about medieval Europe but my basic understanding makes me think that we live in a similar space where you don't really pick your job, you just work for the local Lord who happens to be a corporation that pays you enough to survive.
I don't think it's as big as it used to be, but I think a lot of people bet their hopes and dreams on moonshots such as becoming streamers or athletes but that's just another way to keep everyone placated.
> generations from WW2 to Gen-X constructed a very tightly-optimized society - with no room for their grandchildren in it
Not sure if I agree or disagree. Maybe you can elaborate on this specifically. The rest of your comment seems to agree with my opinion that a ton of red tape killed opportunities previous generations had. This is fundamentally a political issue, not an economic one.
I pick on regulation because it's the most universal example, but the fundamental problem is overconstraint. When a system gets too complex, you can't change any of it without giving up other desirable properties, even if the new properties you're trying to attain are more important than the properties you give up.
In terms of how we build our cities, for example, many of them are designed for a set number of people and then try to optimize quality of life for all those people. You can perhaps accommodate a 10% increase in citizens by building in marginal areas, upzoning parts, crowding, etc. But accommodating a 2x+ increase requires a radical revision of fundamental infrastructure. Your sewer system needs to be dug up and replaced with larger pipes. Your transit system needs to move from single-lane roads to either boulevards or mass public transit. Your educational system needs new schools, which generate new drop-offs, which further increases the strain on the transit system. Some people's property needs to be eminent domained. Some people's views will be blocked. Certainly the character of the city is going to change.
All of this generates political opposition, so it definitely is a political issue in addition to an economic one. Democratic (in the political-system sense, not the political-party sense) voters pass regulations so that it doesn't happen, looking out for their own interests. But the consequence of those regulations is that growth, renewal, and innovation becomes impossible. The system is overconstrained, and cannot adapt to either large growth in population or large environmental changes. Any attempt to re-adapt it to the new realities of the world require that you throw away large portions, because all of the systems are interconnected and tightly optimized.
Agree on basically all accounts. To elaborate a bit on this point:
>Because building a plane is so tightly regulated that a startup that can satisfy the regulations would basically look like Boeing, have roughly the same cost structure, and move as slowly.
Highly capital intensive industries like aerospace are extremely difficult to innovate in. The timeline for return is measured in decades, so you need full commitment from all involved. So it's not just that the regulatory environment is extremely onerous, it's that the aerospace industry itself, like other industries that index extremely high on complex engineering, is already so difficult that no one really wants to try (except Anduril, I guess). This is where everyone brings up Skunkworks and all the innovation that happened back in the 60s and 70s and so on, but I think we can agree that that time period really was different and we were much earlier in the curve, so to speak.
Yes. I pick on regulation because it's the most general instance of this, but the actual problem is overconstraint. When you have too many requirements - when things are too optimized in certain directions - it becomes impossible to add new constraints. Gall's Law kicks in: "A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that worked. A complex system designed from scratch never works and cannot be patched up to make it work. You have to start over with a working simple system."
In aviation, the issue is that we've very tightly optimized along the dimensions of safety, pilot training, and ground operations - to the extent that nearly every detail of the plane is specified, and starting over is cost prohibitive on a systems-level because it requires changes at the airline level - and so when airlines introduce the new constraint of "optimize fuel economy", the only way to satisfy it is to take a 737, bolt on better engines, and compensate for the aerodynamic changes with software. This actually makes the plane less safe (though in unknown ways), because of potential bugs in the software and aerodynamic instability, but the alternative of going back to the drawing board and optimizing for all of these constraints in actual priority order is untenable. Things like pilot training and ground operations are externally imposed by the airlines, safety by regulators, and there is no room to go backward on these dimensions.
If you go to an aviation museum and look at fighter jets from the 1950s, sometimes very high-performing jets, you'll notice that they are much simpler than 4th generation fighters from the 1970s onward. Simple cylindrical airframes, turbojets that are mechanically simple but guzzle fuel, analog avionics, usually straight lines. They also perform worse in several dimensions - they have shit fuel economy, range was short, pilots lack the situational awareness that modern-day ones do, they lack the maneuverability that today's jets have. But the simplicity allowed aerospace engineers to radically optimize in certain dimensions (eg. the SR-71 or U-2) and to try new things, something that doesn't really happen now.
If one were to start from scratch on designing a passenger jet, imagining away the constraints of current airport design, passenger safety rules, everything else ... I do wonder what the planes would look like. Perhaps like B2s, with engines in the rear.
Note that they're targeting a very different market segment from most commercial aviation - they're going for supersonic overseas business travel at a premium price point. Hence, relaxing some constraints. Even then it's taken 10 years to go from seed funding to first flight, and they're still far away from a commercial flight.
It's even worse than that. Are you a decent chef, bartender, or barista? Good luck starting something small. That'll be $10k/mth overhead. Hope the conservative bank approves you.
I've realized this as well and the best solution I can think of is to take capital from the US and deploy it in less "efficient" parts somewhere else in the world. Housing: We're never going be able to change zoning laws to fix the problems. Healthcare: all the boomers and aging gen Z are going to need it and the younger generations are going to pay for it. Either though inflation or taxation. The only way out is to search for new grounds.
They’re aware earlier in life than any prior generation ever that the economy of real stuff works on physical statistics and not the memes, contrived rhetoric of history propagated by word of mouth?
Since the 2000s the decline in religious convictions has removed an obligation to a shared “big picture” sense of agency. Cut us open, no words, just mush and goo being crackled at by field effects. Thousands of years of communal “buzz” in our biology, absence of old routines no longer exists for the younger generations whose parents bailed in the late 90s-00s
The only shared purpose is ameliorate each other’s economic anxiety by making sure there’s enough food and TP on shelves.
The dumb rhetorical games are pointless given modern science. Debate the minutiae all you want about what it means big picture but ground truth is enough food, shelter, and healthcare, social life, is all most people want
Keep in mind “disconnection” here means “from social routines of the recent past.” The recent past was disconnected from its recent past, and so on. We don’t speak Latin anymore. The 1900s only exist as a hallucination for the people who experienced it.
They prayed to God that they could adapt to nature. Today people have no faith to turn to, and the system they are in is an artifical maze meant to keep them distracted. There's no hope in the modern scenario.
I think of as tragically a BBC ase of oversupply. We have more people than we can employ in meaningful tasks that can generate enough to pay for a comfortable life. This is the Malthusian correction in action, and a pretty gentle one at that.
Still sucks to see it consume the lives and souls of my friends.
Gen Zers are not the only people with this problem. Any generation that is hit by economic downturn, the daily dose of new about war and the savage imagery along with the all the various health issues will struggle.
I'm not sure if Gen Z feels they're first to be disillusioned with or be disenchanted with work or school, but it's not a new thing.
I don't think taking digs at a group is really to help without first understanding what their parents were up to.
A lot of parents worry about is hoping their kids will be ok when they're not around anymore. Preparing for that is really the task of what kind of memories and lessons that are left behind. Many of these parents weren't always parented well either.
It seems well established now, or recently that involving kids in household chores from an early age can make a big difference.
While life starts with parents, and no child chooses the family they're born into, and ultimately the generation will have to work with the hand they're dealt, or not.
More and more, I'm wondering about the role of easy dopamine vs dopamine from investment in effort.
> JP Doherty did not want to sign the email. But he knew he didn’t have a choice. His son, Rhys, was scheduled to have strabismus surgery in January, correcting an eye issue that made it difficult for him to walk on his own. The procedure cost $10,000 out of pocket. Doherty discussed the decision with his wife, and while she wanted him to be able to quit, they both knew the kids needed his health insurance.
One of the Twitter employees who couldn’t quit. When your kids’ healthcare is literally at the whim of a capricious oligarch, it goes a bit beyond disillusionment if you ask me. And somehow falling birth rates are mysterious to some.
The lack of freedom to be able to quit is an interesting to highlight.
I’m not sure if it’s being said that working to provide for one’s family is a big compromise.
Health coverage is def something to consider, but I’m not sure if it’s in any way new in the last 10-20-30 y. It’s definitely a retention tool as well.
37 comments
[ 3.8 ms ] story [ 102 ms ] threadheh.
But I think it was not explicit intention, but more side results of some actions to serve some actors(politicians, corps, universities) who heavily profited from these actions.
Much of the problems with cities for instance boil down to them being built for cars, not people. Simply replacing roads with greenery-laden paths for biking and walking would make cities much more conducive to mentally healthy citizens.
I don’t really buy this idea that’s been floating around the internet for a while now that humanity must return to thatch hut villages in the woods in order to be able to thrive.
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2024/04/18/reasons-to-be-c...
I wonder what's different?
I believe this is the "leaded gasoline" of our times. Something we will eventually correct for but at great cost to a generation of young people.
Think of all the problems facing young people today, and envision the logical solution for them. Housing: why don't young underhoused people simply pick up a hammer, saw, and some wood and build themselves a house? If you do this in any major metropolitan area today, you will get a stop-work order and a zillion zoning and building code violations. Health care: if somebody is sick, go read a few textbooks and do what they say you should do. If you do this, you'll be arrested for practicing medicine without a license, and the number of residencies (and hence new licenses granted) is strictly capped to keep wages high. Aviation: with how dysfunctional Boeing is, why haven't competitors arisen? Because building a plane is so tightly regulated that a startup that can satisfy the regulations would basically look like Boeing, have roughly the same cost structure, and move as slowly.
The one exception that lucky Millennials got into was tech, which was notoriously unregulated until about 5 years ago. That unregulation meant there was space for new people to enter the industry, and for new firms to take over other parts of the economy. Everybody else has had to fight for the limited new positions that open up in industries whose structure has already been decided.
I don't think it's as big as it used to be, but I think a lot of people bet their hopes and dreams on moonshots such as becoming streamers or athletes but that's just another way to keep everyone placated.
I appreciate your comment
Not sure if I agree or disagree. Maybe you can elaborate on this specifically. The rest of your comment seems to agree with my opinion that a ton of red tape killed opportunities previous generations had. This is fundamentally a political issue, not an economic one.
In terms of how we build our cities, for example, many of them are designed for a set number of people and then try to optimize quality of life for all those people. You can perhaps accommodate a 10% increase in citizens by building in marginal areas, upzoning parts, crowding, etc. But accommodating a 2x+ increase requires a radical revision of fundamental infrastructure. Your sewer system needs to be dug up and replaced with larger pipes. Your transit system needs to move from single-lane roads to either boulevards or mass public transit. Your educational system needs new schools, which generate new drop-offs, which further increases the strain on the transit system. Some people's property needs to be eminent domained. Some people's views will be blocked. Certainly the character of the city is going to change.
All of this generates political opposition, so it definitely is a political issue in addition to an economic one. Democratic (in the political-system sense, not the political-party sense) voters pass regulations so that it doesn't happen, looking out for their own interests. But the consequence of those regulations is that growth, renewal, and innovation becomes impossible. The system is overconstrained, and cannot adapt to either large growth in population or large environmental changes. Any attempt to re-adapt it to the new realities of the world require that you throw away large portions, because all of the systems are interconnected and tightly optimized.
>Because building a plane is so tightly regulated that a startup that can satisfy the regulations would basically look like Boeing, have roughly the same cost structure, and move as slowly.
Highly capital intensive industries like aerospace are extremely difficult to innovate in. The timeline for return is measured in decades, so you need full commitment from all involved. So it's not just that the regulatory environment is extremely onerous, it's that the aerospace industry itself, like other industries that index extremely high on complex engineering, is already so difficult that no one really wants to try (except Anduril, I guess). This is where everyone brings up Skunkworks and all the innovation that happened back in the 60s and 70s and so on, but I think we can agree that that time period really was different and we were much earlier in the curve, so to speak.
In aviation, the issue is that we've very tightly optimized along the dimensions of safety, pilot training, and ground operations - to the extent that nearly every detail of the plane is specified, and starting over is cost prohibitive on a systems-level because it requires changes at the airline level - and so when airlines introduce the new constraint of "optimize fuel economy", the only way to satisfy it is to take a 737, bolt on better engines, and compensate for the aerodynamic changes with software. This actually makes the plane less safe (though in unknown ways), because of potential bugs in the software and aerodynamic instability, but the alternative of going back to the drawing board and optimizing for all of these constraints in actual priority order is untenable. Things like pilot training and ground operations are externally imposed by the airlines, safety by regulators, and there is no room to go backward on these dimensions.
If you go to an aviation museum and look at fighter jets from the 1950s, sometimes very high-performing jets, you'll notice that they are much simpler than 4th generation fighters from the 1970s onward. Simple cylindrical airframes, turbojets that are mechanically simple but guzzle fuel, analog avionics, usually straight lines. They also perform worse in several dimensions - they have shit fuel economy, range was short, pilots lack the situational awareness that modern-day ones do, they lack the maneuverability that today's jets have. But the simplicity allowed aerospace engineers to radically optimize in certain dimensions (eg. the SR-71 or U-2) and to try new things, something that doesn't really happen now.
https://boomsupersonic.com/xb-1
Note that they're targeting a very different market segment from most commercial aviation - they're going for supersonic overseas business travel at a premium price point. Hence, relaxing some constraints. Even then it's taken 10 years to go from seed funding to first flight, and they're still far away from a commercial flight.
Since the 2000s the decline in religious convictions has removed an obligation to a shared “big picture” sense of agency. Cut us open, no words, just mush and goo being crackled at by field effects. Thousands of years of communal “buzz” in our biology, absence of old routines no longer exists for the younger generations whose parents bailed in the late 90s-00s
The only shared purpose is ameliorate each other’s economic anxiety by making sure there’s enough food and TP on shelves.
The dumb rhetorical games are pointless given modern science. Debate the minutiae all you want about what it means big picture but ground truth is enough food, shelter, and healthcare, social life, is all most people want
Keep in mind “disconnection” here means “from social routines of the recent past.” The recent past was disconnected from its recent past, and so on. We don’t speak Latin anymore. The 1900s only exist as a hallucination for the people who experienced it.
In all of those scenarios you mentioned, simply working more and harder contributes to the solution.
Still sucks to see it consume the lives and souls of my friends.
As time goes on I'm realizing all that will happen is the people who happen to life.
I don't think taking digs at a group is really to help without first understanding what their parents were up to.
A lot of parents worry about is hoping their kids will be ok when they're not around anymore. Preparing for that is really the task of what kind of memories and lessons that are left behind. Many of these parents weren't always parented well either.
It seems well established now, or recently that involving kids in household chores from an early age can make a big difference.
While life starts with parents, and no child chooses the family they're born into, and ultimately the generation will have to work with the hand they're dealt, or not.
More and more, I'm wondering about the role of easy dopamine vs dopamine from investment in effort.
One of the Twitter employees who couldn’t quit. When your kids’ healthcare is literally at the whim of a capricious oligarch, it goes a bit beyond disillusionment if you ask me. And somehow falling birth rates are mysterious to some.
I’m not sure if it’s being said that working to provide for one’s family is a big compromise.
Health coverage is def something to consider, but I’m not sure if it’s in any way new in the last 10-20-30 y. It’s definitely a retention tool as well.