Shareholders filling their pockets while no one else reaps the rewards is a bizar concept no matter how you look at it. They may carry a financial risk but nothing else, while thousands of workers...
Shareholders filling their pockets while no one else reaps the rewards is a bizar concept no matter how you look at it. They may carry a financial risk but nothing else, while thousands of workers risk a lot more.
I think we need to redefine financial risk, because if it were up to me, I'd consider not being able to make my car payment and rent a financial risk, while potentially going from 1.5 billion...
They may carry a financial risk
I think we need to redefine financial risk, because if it were up to me, I'd consider not being able to make my car payment and rent a financial risk, while potentially going from 1.5 billion dollars to 790 million dollars is not a financial risk.
It's really unbelievable how bad we've let "capital for the sake of capital" get. I'm a millennial, and I have my first child on the way, and I'm just terrified for her. I don't know if I'm going...
It's really unbelievable how bad we've let "capital for the sake of capital" get. I'm a millennial, and I have my first child on the way, and I'm just terrified for her. I don't know if I'm going to be able to establish such a life where I can make sure she's comfortable and safe on this planet.
Scratch that, there are a few ways I could make sure of it but they almost all involve disregarding the needs of my fellow humans.
Growth for the sake of growth is called cancer.
I think what you said here also sums up nicely - we're all scared because while we know recovery is possible, the treatment is terrifying and dangerous, and there is ultimately no "cure"
That is what the labor leaders did back in the day. Violence in labor is a old tale, but one that we gave up on and have been given a facade in their narratives to control, allow, and permit...
That is what the labor leaders did back in the day. Violence in labor is a old tale, but one that we gave up on and have been given a facade in their narratives to control, allow, and permit protesting "the right way" (without definition or a malleable one), but honestly we are only counting down from the nine meals away from a revolution still and I'm surprised no one hasn't made a '9 meals til midnight' clock yet.
I just want to note that I was not necessarily saying it either in the support of violence or even going to the extremes posted. Historically, the violence was merely a retort to not feeling like...
I just want to note that I was not necessarily saying it either in the support of violence or even going to the extremes posted.
Historically, the violence was merely a retort to not feeling like they had any power. They didn't appear to often be in the plans in "seizing the means". They wanted a rebalancing of power thorugh unionization and that was being countered.
To me, it has a far more human angle, over a political one, of "you have had my friends and family hurt and killed whether by means of business or by means of mercenaries such as the Pinkertons and this is payback" check out the Homestead Riot and compare it to the modern day and other than the lack of assassination attempt it rings a lot of the same bells.
I'll try to reply more or edit to go through the post later.
We're likely to hit the 1.5c threshold sooner than expected...the future does not look promising. Especially considering nothing will change because of greed.
I don't know if I'm going to be able to establish such a life where I can make sure she's comfortable and safe on this planet.
We're likely to hit the 1.5c threshold sooner than expected...the future does not look promising. Especially considering nothing will change because of greed.
Just want to push back gently on this as someone who works in climate tech - capitalism really sucks at allocating resources, but there are people with money that are funding climate tech stuff...
Just want to push back gently on this as someone who works in climate tech - capitalism really sucks at allocating resources, but there are people with money that are funding climate tech stuff that's doing important work.
While relying on the whims of billionaires is not going to be sufficient to fix things, turns out when you tell people "hey, if we don't act NOW there won't be a future for your grandkids" some of them are living enough in reality + care enough about others that they are willing to help.
We need to do more, and we need to work outside the realm of capitalism because it obviously won't solve the problem sufficiently on its own. But even in just a relatively short time we've gone from 4-5C being likely to 2C being achievable.
While we are going to disproportionately allocate the ill effects of climate change, it's not accurate that NOTHING will change. Certainly not enough though.
Also, most governments will fall over themselves to bail out a billion dollar business and keep them running. On the other hand, if you end up homeless they’ll treat you like the scum of the earth.
Also, most governments will fall over themselves to bail out a billion dollar business and keep them running.
On the other hand, if you end up homeless they’ll treat you like the scum of the earth.
My company has unfortunately shifted to this over the last year or so. Management has straight up lied to us. It's really unfortunate. My mentor and VP whom had been with the company for over 15...
My company has unfortunately shifted to this over the last year or so. Management has straight up lied to us. It's really unfortunate. My mentor and VP whom had been with the company for over 15 years quit with no notice. He just got fed up. I'm getting there as well. I'm now seeing a lot of their moves are very short sighted driven to repair stock price. Outsourcing IT and support, outsourcing key corporate support functions (customer service). Holding back promotions, hiring freezes even when the group was already short staffed. Instead of focusing on consolidating redundant systems, improving processes, doing system implements and roll outs the right way instead of having solutions together because they are cheap.
I've talked with a recruiter about a fully remote role, but it would certainly be a step back. Right now I'm about at the director level. This role, while I could do it easily, would have no staff.
I'm sorry to hear that. Sometimes it seems boomers tend to blame the newer generations for lack of willingness to work and not making it to 40 years at the same company, but when those same...
I'm sorry to hear that. Sometimes it seems boomers tend to blame the newer generations for lack of willingness to work and not making it to 40 years at the same company, but when those same companies aren't stable working places it isn't all that surprising.
I hope you'll be out of troubled waters soon. Big hugs!
At the risk of sounding like a flippant joke, I recently saw a sentence that stuck with me: The company/worker relationship has become more toxic and abusive over the years, and I think younger...
At the risk of sounding like a flippant joke, I recently saw a sentence that stuck with me:
"People don't want to work" is just "People don't want to date nice guys," but for companies.
The company/worker relationship has become more toxic and abusive over the years, and I think younger generations (I'm smack dab in the middle of the Millennial generation) are seeing and responding to this. Hopefully this will lead to a better balancing of power and a healthy relationship a la the post-WWII labor movement, but I'm not 100 percent sure it will, given the structures of economic power and conglomeration at play.
I hear this. The firm I work for has just doubled basically every mid-level leader's work for the next financial year. Bonus was 20% of expected this year (We usually get a good bonus for lower...
I hear this.
The firm I work for has just doubled basically every mid-level leader's work for the next financial year.
Bonus was 20% of expected this year (We usually get a good bonus for lower salary). The CEO however? He's made off with the better part of £110M. It's ridiculous.
Don't get me wrong, it's obvious that the younger generations are anxious about the future and don't have good financial prospects. But this seems to be more boomer scare mongering about young...
Don't get me wrong, it's obvious that the younger generations are anxious about the future and don't have good financial prospects.
But this seems to be more boomer scare mongering about young people being different when they really aren't. A bunch of 50 year old moms are going to read the disassociation and manifesting stuff while completely forgetting how much they loved "The Secret" and ran their life by it for a solid two years.
Yes, we got to fix our economy. No, TikTok trends are not an indicator of the fall of society.
Just wanna point out these boomer moms are like pushing 65 or more now. :) I'm one of those Xennial types pushing 40. The current under 50 crowd is much more sympathetic to the plights of the...
A bunch of 50 year old moms
Just wanna point out these boomer moms are like pushing 65 or more now. :)
I'm one of those Xennial types pushing 40. The current under 50 crowd is much more sympathetic to the plights of the yunguns than the last batch.
I'm approaching late 50's and am very sympathetic to their plight. I have 3 yunguns of my own in various stages of learning about the real world and it's quite eye-opening for all of us despite...
I'm approaching late 50's and am very sympathetic to their plight. I have 3 yunguns of my own in various stages of learning about the real world and it's quite eye-opening for all of us despite expecting it.
I’m a… Xennial? Graduated shortly after y2k, have years worth of pre-Internet memories, dialed up for years, then hopped on broadband and had a cellphone by my mid-late teens. Is that a Xennial?
I’m a… Xennial? Graduated shortly after y2k, have years worth of pre-Internet memories, dialed up for years, then hopped on broadband and had a cellphone by my mid-late teens. Is that a Xennial?
Oh yea. 'Millenials' spans a birth population from the 1980s until the early 00's. The youngest Millenials are just now graduating college. I'd class it mostly us born-in-80s kids, because we have...
Oh yea. 'Millenials' spans a birth population from the 1980s until the early 00's. The youngest Millenials are just now graduating college.
I'd class it mostly us born-in-80s kids, because we have a bit more of a unique perspective on computers and technology compared to the 90's+ kids. Kids born after 1990ish never really had to deal with ISA cards, or learn DOS you know? By Windows 95/98, DOS was just for troubleshooting and gaming.
Between that and the other cultural shifts that happened since we entered our teens (Columbine, 9/11, death of the landline), I feel I relate to a lot more of my X counterparts than the latest batch of Millenials.
We grew up with our celebrities and musicians as X. The younger Millenials had us, lol.
I think you might be extending the millennial/gen-y timeframe a little bit. There's obviously flexibility, but in all the discussions I've had about this topic, we've worked on the assumption that...
I think you might be extending the millennial/gen-y timeframe a little bit. There's obviously flexibility, but in all the discussions I've had about this topic, we've worked on the assumption that the cutoff for millennials is around 1995-1997. That would put the early aughts firmly in zoomer territory.
I was born is 1994, so that would put me at the very tail end of the millennial generation. Given how quickly the world changed in that time, I almost feel there could be a short, mini generation between Y and Z for people born between 1992 and 1998.
There's always an overlap between generations, eg the "echo boom" of people who are not quite boomers but definitely not gen x either. I feel like some of it has to do with the age of your parents...
There's always an overlap between generations, eg the "echo boom" of people who are not quite boomers but definitely not gen x either. I feel like some of it has to do with the age of your parents too - my parents are younger boomers but had me when they were older - I'm firmly millennial but have a lot in common with gen xers who were raised by people from the same time as my parents.
It's interesting. Of course generational theory isn't going to be the be-all end-all of sociological definition, there are many other factors that impact people and populations... but there are clear delineations between boomers and the generations that have followed.
I'm just rolling with the Wikipedia summaries and mybown personal experiences. It is generally accepted that most Millenals were born in the mid-80s to early 00's. Its just Xennials have more...
I'm just rolling with the Wikipedia summaries and mybown personal experiences.
It is generally accepted that most Millenals were born in the mid-80s to early 00's. Its just Xennials have more overlap with the tail of X in the early 80s, and the late Millenials (after 1998) have that overlap with Z. MillenialZ if you will.
I had to look up the author of this piece because it felt like a rehash of all the stories about millennials that were everywhere in 2010-2013, only this had updated trends from TikTok....
I had to look up the author of this piece because it felt like a rehash of all the stories about millennials that were everywhere in 2010-2013, only this had updated trends from TikTok. Unfortunately, I don't have a LinkedIn so I couldn't follow the hyperlink from her byline, but I came across her medium profile and it looks like she's a self-described 'Genzennial' in her mid-late 20s.
My guess is she is a bit too young to remember the tidal wave of articles that said the exact same thing about millennials. I don't know how else to understand this:
Gen Zers are increasingly looking for ways to prioritize quality of life over financial achievement at all costs. The TikTok trend of “soft life”—and its financial counterpart “soft saving”—is a stark departure from their millennial predecessors’ financial habits, which were rooted in toxic hustle culture and the “Girlboss” era
Wasn't 'work-life balance' the biggest millennial stereotype of the 2010s, or am I experiencing the Mandela effect? Also, if we're going to make sweeping statements about a generation's financial habits based on a few social media buzzwords, couldn't I just say the same thing about Gen Z and point to all the "sigma grindset" 20-somethings that worship Gary Vee?
There was a bit of both. "Hustle culture" wasn't really a think I noticed, rather than just companies trying to market "You need two jobs" as a positive. Millenial culture is seeped in "poverty...
There was a bit of both. "Hustle culture" wasn't really a think I noticed, rather than just companies trying to market "You need two jobs" as a positive.
Millenial culture is seeped in "poverty math." You eat the Avocado Toast now because you need something to bring you joy under the weight of crushing debt. We weren't buying homes in our 20's because we're collectively broke, not because we didn't want homes.
Gen Z is continuing these trends, and I welcome any and all progress towards actually improving work/life balance.
People in their 50s are Gen X. ("The Secret" was also very much an X thing.) Boomers are, I want to say, 65 at a minimum, mostly 70+. They would have been born directly after WWII's end and into...
People in their 50s are Gen X. ("The Secret" was also very much an X thing.)
Boomers are, I want to say, 65 at a minimum, mostly 70+. They would have been born directly after WWII's end and into the 1950s.
The tone of this article feels weirdly negative to me. For example: The wording makes it sound like this is a bad thing. Like Gen Zers are greedy and entitled for not wanting to stick with a shit...
The tone of this article feels weirdly negative to me.
For example:
When it comes to financial wellness, Gen Zers place less emphasis on the financial than on the wellness. Unlike previous generations, they’re unwilling to stick it out at a toxic job or forgo travel and experiences in favor of padding their savings.
The wording makes it sound like this is a bad thing. Like Gen Zers are greedy and entitled for not wanting to stick with a shit job, or poor with finances for enjoying their money rather than saving for a house they'll probably never be able to afford.
We only get one life, and we can't take our money with us when we die. If we can't buy a house with it, then we might as well find something else to spend it on.
GenZ embraces the "soft life" as they prioritize mental well-being and personal growth and fulfillment over financial gain, in stark contrast to previous generations. As society rapidly comes to a...
GenZ embraces the "soft life" as they prioritize mental well-being and personal growth and fulfillment over financial gain, in stark contrast to previous generations. As society rapidly comes to a confrontation with blind capitalism, a system predicated on impossibly unending growth and debt, perhaps we can all learn something already known by the younger generations: that simply meeting our material needs while consciously growing ourselves may be enough for a content existence
*...that simply meeting our material needs..." more and more difficult each day, as evidenced by the growing homelessness crisis and wage/inflation discrepancy
*...that simply meeting our material needs..."
more and more difficult each day, as evidenced by the growing homelessness crisis and wage/inflation discrepancy
I remember seeing these kinds of articles for about as long as I live. The need to put people in neat little cohorts is a bit strange to me. But it always seems to get attention so I guess that's...
I remember seeing these kinds of articles for about as long as I live. The need to put people in neat little cohorts is a bit strange to me. But it always seems to get attention so I guess that's really the point. Apart from that, yeah let's stop killing everything for gains.
Haven’t we been in “late-stage capitalism” since the turn of the 20th century when the term was coined, or at the very least since the 1970s when the term was popularized? Kind of a long late...
Haven’t we been in “late-stage capitalism” since the turn of the 20th century when the term was coined, or at the very least since the 1970s when the term was popularized?
I actually don't like the term at all and thought about editing it out of the headline. It's like end-of-the-world millennialism but for economics. Truth is, the economic system does continue to...
I actually don't like the term at all and thought about editing it out of the headline. It's like end-of-the-world millennialism but for economics. Truth is, the economic system does continue to function for the majority of people and could probably go on like this for another generation or two before facing complete collapse. Yes, that's dire but not as dire as late-stage proponents seem to think.
Don't forget that baby-boomers are starting to die and both Millenials and GenZ stand to inherit the greatest transfer of wealth in history, present generations are merely having to wait longer for opportunities afforded to past generations earlier. The glut of vacant homes once Grandma and Grandpa pass on will be enough to alleviate the housing crisis.
Inequality is heightening and day-to-day living is growing harder, even the coming wealth transfer won't erase that, but we do have time and the opportunity to reform the system if we can really find the collective will for it. Part of that reform though will have to be adjusting to a sustainable culture focused on living to meet means rather than to acquire more
In regards to your second excerpt, that transfer of wealth is increasingly lengthened by advanced medical care as well as lessened by the cost of said medical care, and the (at least in my family)...
In regards to your second excerpt, that transfer of wealth is increasingly lengthened by advanced medical care as well as lessened by the cost of said medical care, and the (at least in my family) popular idea of dying with a penny to your name.
With the rise of reverse mortgages in addition, the odds of a majority of middle class Americans benefiting from a generational transfer of wealth is becoming smaller and smaller, and in the lower class demographics, there is likely still not enough to alleviate the financial situation many are falling into in the past three years, especially with the reintroduction of student loan repayment, of which it's fair to say that the younger, poorer groups are going to be hit hardest by as well.
COVID did its part in removing a portion of the aging population, but any senior who is still alive after the collective cavalier attitude to the severity of the pandemic either has the health or the wealth to continue on, and these patterns of continual loss to an aggregated gain are leaving anyone who stands to benefit with less and less, and putting more strain on those who would be benefiting others with their remaining capabilities.
I really appreciate your inclusion of the necessity of "adjusting to a sustainable culture focused on living to meet means rather than to acquire more" as I watched a lecture recently that also emphasized on an economy of energy and how the abundance of energy for some has created a hedonistic attitude regarding these nonrenewable, non-sustainable privileges for many, and how such a restructuring of one's personal priorities is the only way to be ~less~ affected by the inevitable collapse of the system that relies so much on excess to be sufficient in service.
At some point people will realize that the social contract that keeps them from walking into empty homes and living there, empty homes kept off the market to keep prices high, is only there to...
At some point people will realize that the social contract that keeps them from walking into empty homes and living there, empty homes kept off the market to keep prices high, is only there to keep them in their place. If a social contract binds you but doesn't protect you, why go along with it?
Tipping is such a hard one. I think its going to require collectively hurting entire sectors of people who rely on tips in order to break it. Like federal minimum wage for a waiter is less than $4...
Tipping is such a hard one. I think its going to require collectively hurting entire sectors of people who rely on tips in order to break it.
Like federal minimum wage for a waiter is less than $4 in the USA. If you're not a souless bastard they need tips.
i am all for them getting a real wage like any other job (including benefits). There have been lots of studies how tipping actually hurts servers of color as well (even when serving groups of...
i am all for them getting a real wage like any other job (including benefits). There have been lots of studies how tipping actually hurts servers of color as well (even when serving groups of their own ethnicity).
I just don’t get why it can’t be more transparent and equitable rather than based on customer generosity.
Gen Z here. I feel like you could pluck a few examples and write just about any story pushing any opinion. Of the Gen Zs I know, some are grinding hard in tech jobs saving to buy property, some...
Gen Z here. I feel like you could pluck a few examples and write just about any story pushing any opinion. Of the Gen Zs I know, some are grinding hard in tech jobs saving to buy property, some are just finishing uni and taking trips to Europe to celebrate, some are on welfare complaining about late stage capitalism online, some are working average jobs and focusing on social experiences.
It seems pretty dubious to say that an entire generation is rejecting work, especially now, a time where exactly what job and career path you take has such a huge impact on your quality of life.
Interesting juxtaposition to Gen Z setting their career sights on finance: https://www.cnbc.com/2023/06/28/finance-is-the-no-1-industry-gen-z-wants-to-work-in-says-new-research.html
Every day there seems to be a new ultra specific generational letter in the alphabet that I need to Google. I wonder if there's any usefulness about it, or if splitting people into letters is less...
Every day there seems to be a new ultra specific generational letter in the alphabet that I need to Google. I wonder if there's any usefulness about it, or if splitting people into letters is less helpful than it is misleading.
My impression is that, overall, people seem prone to highlight differences more than similarities in order to achieve a sense of uniqueness. You can see that in the fetishizing of mental diagnosis as well.
There is plenty of usefulness in categorizing generations, especially when we try to understand trends and differences between them through a sociological lens. Yes, we are all human and we have...
There is plenty of usefulness in categorizing generations, especially when we try to understand trends and differences between them through a sociological lens. Yes, we are all human and we have many similarities and looking at generational groups is a broad brush that can sometimes miss nuance, but I don't think many people would say that the upbringing of Gen Z is the same as that of the Baby Boomers. The zeitgeist that we developed in have strong impacts on our beliefs and attitudes!
I should have expressed myself better. Obviously researchers and specialists can find a good use even for the most specific, abstract concepts. I'm talking about the usefulness of these concepts...
I should have expressed myself better.
Obviously researchers and specialists can find a good use even for the most specific, abstract concepts. I'm talking about the usefulness of these concepts in everyday discourse, specially when it becomes a shorthand for division and hate that highlights irrelevant distinctions while ignoring fundamental similarities.
This is true, but I'll give you an example: My aunt and uncle, retired for several years now. My aunt was a K-12 admin, Uncle worked for Navy. Modest salaries, she took off from work until both...
This is true, but I'll give you an example:
My aunt and uncle, retired for several years now. My aunt was a K-12 admin, Uncle worked for Navy. Modest salaries, she took off from work until both her kids entered school (so roughly a decade off). They live in a mildly rural area, with salaries reflective of that.
They have a fully paid-off house and a lakeside vacation home. That they've had for over 30 years. They have trouble comprehending how that isn't even a remotely viable option for people under 40.
The economy was mostly solid from the 1980 till 1999. The boomers had a meteoric rise in wealth, and didn't suffer quite the same level of economic catastrophy every 10ish years the way their kids have, allowing them to build their nest eggs, buy multiple houses, and still recieve pensions. The pensions in particular were mostly phased out by the time I hit the workforce, as part of that terrible transition to 401k's. It was always disheartening to see "If you were hired before 2005, here's your very generous pension plan, otherwise, here's your pithy 401k match." The ladder-pulling was so blatant.
My family built a house from scratch in 1982 ish. Cost them total of $110,000, including land. Putting 20% down for a mortgage was a lot more reasonable when it was $20k, and not $60k like it would be today.
I agree with everything you wrote, but I think there's a need to differentiate between demographic analysis and public discourse. Some people are talking about boomers like they are the ultimate...
I agree with everything you wrote, but I think there's a need to differentiate between demographic analysis and public discourse.
Some people are talking about boomers like they are the ultimate evil. Yes, there are boomers who are to blame for many of the problems we face on this planet. But there are also boomers who do a lot more to mitigate these problems than many young people.
If we start pointing fingers, it is important that we blame individuals, not demographies. Otherwise, witch hunts will happen eventually, and we've all agreed, many times, that we've had enough of those.
No, the biggest villains are the greedy consumers who care more about saving pennies than an honest pay for workers in countries they've never heard of. They care more about washing machines with...
No, the biggest villains are the greedy consumers who care more about saving pennies than an honest pay for workers in countries they've never heard of. They care more about washing machines with internet access than the environmental desasters far, far away that are the result from consumer electronics. They only care about getting the best service at the cost of exploitative working conditions for their neighbors, and when they end up exploited next to their neighbors, they still buy from Amazon.
Or maybe things are a little more complex than goodies vs baddies. Maybe there is no good and evil, just different shades of competitive needs.
I get what you're saying, but I'd say the difference between the two is that one is the organization directly causing most of the harm, and concealing as much of that from consumers as possible....
I get what you're saying, but I'd say the difference between the two is that one is the organization directly causing most of the harm, and concealing as much of that from consumers as possible.
If consumers had more disposable income, they'd be able to choose to spend more to be less unethical. I know that was true of myself...sourcing local was much more expensive than going to Walmart.
I agree there are more shades of grey, but I contend the consumer is more the victim of the company. Especially how companies dedicate entire divisions to customer manipulation marketting.
The organisation who is directly causing the harm is doing it on behalf of the individual who wants to enjoy the result without worrying about how it was achieved. I want to feel good about my new...
The organisation who is directly causing the harm is doing it on behalf of the individual who wants to enjoy the result without worrying about how it was achieved. I want to feel good about my new Nikes. If Nike would advertise how their products are made, people would buy some other brand who doesn't do that.
Poor people don't really matter. Their carbon footprint is tiny. Globally, 10 % of the richest (which almost certainly includes you, even if you are poor by Western standards) emit half of all carbon emissions. There are whole markets exclusively for rich people, and even the middle class with plenty of disposable income prefers consuming more over consuming ethically, and complain about rising food prices while buying a second or third SUV. I'm poor, but nevertheless I can buy fair trade clothes because I buy less of them. Most people prefer buying more clothes instead, which is why fair trade clothing shops are still a tiny niche.
If companies don't produce cheap throwaway crap, they have to find a small niche, which means less customers, less sales and less profit. If people would want a different system, they could vote for politicians who would like to make it illegal for companies to exploit workers and environments, but they don't.
At the ballot box, I am faced with the choice of pro-corporate neoliberals, or pro-corporate neoliberals that also hate women, blacks, and gays. While involvement in the proces to try to affect...
If people would want a different system, they could vote for politicians who would like to make it illegal for companies to exploit workers and environments, but they don't.
At the ballot box, I am faced with the choice of pro-corporate neoliberals, or pro-corporate neoliberals that also hate women, blacks, and gays.
While involvement in the proces to try to affect change is important, it is hard. Especially when you don't have money on your side.
If Nike would advertise how their products are made, people would buy some other brand who doesn't do that.
So maybe, much like smoking, ads for stuff should be punctuated with anticonsumption ads.
Bernie Sanders offered an opportunity for real change and the voters rejected it. Also, the world is bigger then the US. In other countries, voters have had real choice for decades, but...
At the ballot box, I am faced with the choice of pro-corporate neoliberals, or pro-corporate neoliberals that also hate women, blacks, and gays.
Bernie Sanders offered an opportunity for real change and the voters rejected it. Also, the world is bigger then the US. In other countries, voters have had real choice for decades, but conservative and reactionary parties are still very strong.
Also, votes are not the only way to shape politics. The public discourse very much shapes the ideas polticians are pushing.
So maybe, much like smoking, ads for stuff should be punctuated with anticonsumption ads.
For-profit ads should simply be illegal. That would not only mitigate overconsumption but also help to get the internet back from a handful of too-big-to-fail companies.
Except voters that were under 45. Its almost like the old ghouls who benefit the most from neoliberalism don't want other options. Bernie was also not given a fair shake in the area that really...
voters rejected it
Except voters that were under 45. Its almost like the old ghouls who benefit the most from neoliberalism don't want other options. Bernie was also not given a fair shake in the area that really counts: Media coverage.
Go to a grocery store, and you'll find almost every product is owned by a mega Corp. Blaming individuals for this is a bit disingenuous -- individuals don't have a choice. Participation in...
Go to a grocery store, and you'll find almost every product is owned by a mega Corp. Blaming individuals for this is a bit disingenuous -- individuals don't have a choice. Participation in capitalism is compulsory.
That's just not true in my case. Go to any news article about Fairphone and observe how half the comments take their product as an affront because other companies (that don't care about ethics)...
Go to a grocery store, and you'll find almost every product is owned by a mega Corp.
That's just not true in my case.
Go to any news article about Fairphone and observe how half the comments take their product as an affront because other companies (that don't care about ethics) are able to offer slightly more bang for the buck.
Yeah. Also, it's not supported at all, so that dissuades me also. If they ever chose to sell here, I would buy one when my phone dies. I love the idea of modular components, and fair-trade...
Yeah. Also, it's not supported at all, so that dissuades me also. If they ever chose to sell here, I would buy one when my phone dies. I love the idea of modular components, and fair-trade sourcing enough that I would be willing to overlook the sup-par IP rating.
Honestly, I've basically given up on long term. Gonna enjoy my life, gonna do my best to be a good person and help those around me... but I'm not going to plan 5-10 years in advance. Gonna count...
Honestly, I've basically given up on long term. Gonna enjoy my life, gonna do my best to be a good person and help those around me... but I'm not going to plan 5-10 years in advance.
Gonna count myself lucky if I get to actually grow old with a mostly functioning body and mind (I AM at least trying to keep those bits of me healthy...)
People need to have more kids, not less. The global fertility rate is going down, and it will cause huge problems when there's an ever aging population. If you want to be able to retire, you need...
People need to have more kids, not less. The global fertility rate is going down, and it will cause huge problems when there's an ever aging population. If you want to be able to retire, you need a younger population able to support that.
I'll counter with: We have plenty of technology now that props up vast swaths of white-collar beuracracy that isn't going to be needed the same way it was prior. Used to be there would be a...
I'll counter with:
We have plenty of technology now that props up vast swaths of white-collar beuracracy that isn't going to be needed the same way it was prior.
Used to be there would be a secretary for every manager. Nowadays its a lot more common to have a full-office assistant or two and maybe a few dedicated assistants at VP or higher.
Business analytics used to be quite a difficult thing requiring dozens. Now a small team of 5 can pump out and maintain pretty much any report indefinitely.
Servers used to require a tech per few dozen or hundred. Now ratios can easily be managed in the 1000's/1 territory.
Even in the past, retirees don't provide 0 value. They often contribute with hidden labor like childrearing or taking on "menial" jobs to entertain themselves.
There will be a cultural shift, undoubtably, but "nobody will be able to retire without more babies" I see as fearmongering that doesn't look to see how much available labor there is once you free up the massive wasted middlemen like health insurance companies and dropshippers.
The idea of my comment being 'fearmongering' given the fact I'm trying to counter, what I consider, one of the most insane fearmongering points I see bandied about made me chortle. The fact people...
The idea of my comment being 'fearmongering' given the fact I'm trying to counter, what I consider, one of the most insane fearmongering points I see bandied about made me chortle. The fact people have been fearmongered about overpopulation (a lie), into going against probably the most base human instinct of having children, I find abhorrent.
Anyway, to your point, this isn't a tech issue, it's a social issue. Who's physically looking after all these old people if there's no new people?
While I agree that too many beat the overpopulation drum in the name of bigotry, there is something to be said about it. In absence of birth control, disease, and famine, the human population will...
While I agree that too many beat the overpopulation drum in the name of bigotry, there is something to be said about it. In absence of birth control, disease, and famine, the human population will not stabilize, it will grow indefinitely. We're already relying on very unsustainable farming methods to feed the world, letting the population decline gracefully is far better than famine due to crop failures. Especially since the climate is destabilizing.
But the point I was making is that we're also not having a babypacolypse where 1 18 year old is gonna be caring for 20 elderlies. We're talking like a 1-3% population decline over decades. So instead of 100 people caring for 95 old people, it'll be 97. It's hardly a crisis.
We could accomodate that level of population decline in the USA merely by axing health insurance companies, and freeing the 2.8 million staff to do useful work instead. All the extra staff that doctors currently need because of needless paperwork to get paid and handle money are also freed up. Not even factoring any advancements in automation, which we could use to lower our workweeks and give everyone more time to be with their elderly families instead of relying on paying someone else to do it.
And by and large, most elderly people don't need babysitters? Most are perfectly capable of doing 95% of what they did in their 50's into their 90's.
This just isn't true. The global birth rate is 2.3 and falling. 2.1 is needed just to keep a stable population. The only thing really keeping it even this high is primarily Africa. US is 1.8, UK...
In absence of birth control, disease, and famine, the human population will not stabilize, it will grow indefinitely
This just isn't true. The global birth rate is 2.3 and falling. 2.1 is needed just to keep a stable population.
The only thing really keeping it even this high is primarily Africa. US is 1.8, UK 1.7, China 1.7, Japan 1.34, and South Korea 0.84.
The reasons appear to be that as countries develop, people stop having as many children. This makes sense as when the child mortality rate drops, which is has been globally for a long time, families don't need to have as many children to ensure some of them survive infancy. Indeed it seems most people prefer either 1 or 2 children - not a sustainable level.
A lot of what keeps the excess propped up is immigration. Most countries seem to be currently de-globalising and becoming more insular, which will only make the problem far worse. Look at South Korea or Japan for great examples of this.
Clearly, downwards trend on growth. Global population is clearly stabilising towards a plateau. Clearly the population will not grow indefinitely.
You make the comment of this process happening over decades, which is true, but we need to start solving the problem now before it's too late. Once population decline starts happening, it quickly becomes a death spiral. For example if the fertility rate is 1, the next generation is half the size of the previous. They would need to have 4 children each family to get back to their parents' population size.
I think you vastly underestimate how much of a problem this is likely to cause globally. As one small recent example, look at France. There were riots because the government wanted to raise the pension age, because of an aging population. There's no way to get around this.
41 million caregivers in the United States of recipients aged 50+. 16% of the population, and trend getting worse.
I guess the conclusion here is the vast majority of these people I see online banging the unsustainable drum are ultimately going to get their wish, we are literally already heading towards population decrease so I don't know why they're constantly banging on about it. The point I'm trying to make from the start is lets not start heading the other way! People need to start having more children now to prevent massive population decline later, which has a whole host of other problems related to it.
If you truly don't want children, then fine that's personal choice. I just feel so horribly bad that there might be people out there who want children, and don't because of this stupid idea I see bandied around online. If you want children, please have children and don't feel bad about it!
Your caregiver link is a bit disengenuous. Those are unpaid caregivers, not part of the workforce. I helped my grandmother-in-law change a lightbulb when I visited. Congratulations according to...
Your caregiver link is a bit disengenuous. Those are unpaid caregivers, not part of the workforce. I helped my grandmother-in-law change a lightbulb when I visited. Congratulations according to the AARP I'm now an upaid caregiver.
And you've ignored most of my points about making up the differences by trimming the waste in the workforce. If we're in dire straits the workforce will shift or the problem will solve itself.
And fundementally, lowering the retirement age might make more sense, counterintuitively. When people are not beholden to the 9-5 workweek (because they have a pension), they can do things that otherwise require highly trained staff:
Care for grandkids
Care for parents (yup still lots of 80+ ou that the 50-60 can help)
Volunteer for their communities.
Take care of their own houses.
I just feel so horribly bad that there might be people out there who want children, and don't because of this stupid idea I see bandied around online.
The real reason people aren't having kids is economic instability and lack of housing. Nobody wants to raise kids when their home is at a whim of a fickle employer and greedy landlord.
I just don't understand how this works, what reality is this based in? Similarly, you mention lowering the retirement age, again not based in reality. You actually mention pensions, which I've...
And you've ignored most of my points about making up the differences by trimming the waste in the workforce. If we're in dire straits the workforce will shift or the problem will solve itself.
I just don't understand how this works, what reality is this based in?
Similarly, you mention lowering the retirement age, again not based in reality. You actually mention pensions, which I've already mentioned as a perfect example in France. They are being forced to increase pension age because of the aging population. In what fantasy land do you live that you think you can lower pension age, and still give people pensions? Where is this money coming from?
Shareholders filling their pockets while no one else reaps the rewards is a bizar concept no matter how you look at it. They may carry a financial risk but nothing else, while thousands of workers risk a lot more.
Growth for the sake of growth is called cancer.
I think we need to redefine financial risk, because if it were up to me, I'd consider not being able to make my car payment and rent a financial risk, while potentially going from 1.5 billion dollars to 790 million dollars is not a financial risk.
I couldn't agree with you more.
It's really unbelievable how bad we've let "capital for the sake of capital" get. I'm a millennial, and I have my first child on the way, and I'm just terrified for her. I don't know if I'm going to be able to establish such a life where I can make sure she's comfortable and safe on this planet.
Scratch that, there are a few ways I could make sure of it but they almost all involve disregarding the needs of my fellow humans.
I think what you said here also sums up nicely - we're all scared because while we know recovery is possible, the treatment is terrifying and dangerous, and there is ultimately no "cure"
That is what the labor leaders did back in the day. Violence in labor is a old tale, but one that we gave up on and have been given a facade in their narratives to control, allow, and permit protesting "the right way" (without definition or a malleable one), but honestly we are only counting down from the nine meals away from a revolution still and I'm surprised no one hasn't made a '9 meals til midnight' clock yet.
I just want to note that I was not necessarily saying it either in the support of violence or even going to the extremes posted.
Historically, the violence was merely a retort to not feeling like they had any power. They didn't appear to often be in the plans in "seizing the means". They wanted a rebalancing of power thorugh unionization and that was being countered.
To me, it has a far more human angle, over a political one, of "you have had my friends and family hurt and killed whether by means of business or by means of mercenaries such as the Pinkertons and this is payback" check out the Homestead Riot and compare it to the modern day and other than the lack of assassination attempt it rings a lot of the same bells.
I'll try to reply more or edit to go through the post later.
We're likely to hit the 1.5c threshold sooner than expected...the future does not look promising. Especially considering nothing will change because of greed.
Just want to push back gently on this as someone who works in climate tech - capitalism really sucks at allocating resources, but there are people with money that are funding climate tech stuff that's doing important work.
While relying on the whims of billionaires is not going to be sufficient to fix things, turns out when you tell people "hey, if we don't act NOW there won't be a future for your grandkids" some of them are living enough in reality + care enough about others that they are willing to help.
We need to do more, and we need to work outside the realm of capitalism because it obviously won't solve the problem sufficiently on its own. But even in just a relatively short time we've gone from 4-5C being likely to 2C being achievable.
While we are going to disproportionately allocate the ill effects of climate change, it's not accurate that NOTHING will change. Certainly not enough though.
Also, most governments will fall over themselves to bail out a billion dollar business and keep them running.
On the other hand, if you end up homeless they’ll treat you like the scum of the earth.
My company has unfortunately shifted to this over the last year or so. Management has straight up lied to us. It's really unfortunate. My mentor and VP whom had been with the company for over 15 years quit with no notice. He just got fed up. I'm getting there as well. I'm now seeing a lot of their moves are very short sighted driven to repair stock price. Outsourcing IT and support, outsourcing key corporate support functions (customer service). Holding back promotions, hiring freezes even when the group was already short staffed. Instead of focusing on consolidating redundant systems, improving processes, doing system implements and roll outs the right way instead of having solutions together because they are cheap.
I've talked with a recruiter about a fully remote role, but it would certainly be a step back. Right now I'm about at the director level. This role, while I could do it easily, would have no staff.
Feeling a bit lost.
I'm sorry to hear that. Sometimes it seems boomers tend to blame the newer generations for lack of willingness to work and not making it to 40 years at the same company, but when those same companies aren't stable working places it isn't all that surprising.
I hope you'll be out of troubled waters soon. Big hugs!
At the risk of sounding like a flippant joke, I recently saw a sentence that stuck with me:
The company/worker relationship has become more toxic and abusive over the years, and I think younger generations (I'm smack dab in the middle of the Millennial generation) are seeing and responding to this. Hopefully this will lead to a better balancing of power and a healthy relationship a la the post-WWII labor movement, but I'm not 100 percent sure it will, given the structures of economic power and conglomeration at play.
I hear this.
The firm I work for has just doubled basically every mid-level leader's work for the next financial year.
Bonus was 20% of expected this year (We usually get a good bonus for lower salary). The CEO however? He's made off with the better part of £110M. It's ridiculous.
Hoo-wee, I'm stealing that one.
Don't get me wrong, it's obvious that the younger generations are anxious about the future and don't have good financial prospects.
But this seems to be more boomer scare mongering about young people being different when they really aren't. A bunch of 50 year old moms are going to read the disassociation and manifesting stuff while completely forgetting how much they loved "The Secret" and ran their life by it for a solid two years.
Yes, we got to fix our economy. No, TikTok trends are not an indicator of the fall of society.
Just wanna point out these boomer moms are like pushing 65 or more now. :)
I'm one of those Xennial types pushing 40. The current under 50 crowd is much more sympathetic to the plights of the yunguns than the last batch.
yeah, 49 gen-xer here. My boomer mother is 67.
55 GenXer here -- my boomer mother is 74.
I'm approaching late 50's and am very sympathetic to their plight. I have 3 yunguns of my own in various stages of learning about the real world and it's quite eye-opening for all of us despite expecting it.
I’m a… Xennial? Graduated shortly after y2k, have years worth of pre-Internet memories, dialed up for years, then hopped on broadband and had a cellphone by my mid-late teens. Is that a Xennial?
Oh yea. 'Millenials' spans a birth population from the 1980s until the early 00's. The youngest Millenials are just now graduating college.
I'd class it mostly us born-in-80s kids, because we have a bit more of a unique perspective on computers and technology compared to the 90's+ kids. Kids born after 1990ish never really had to deal with ISA cards, or learn DOS you know? By Windows 95/98, DOS was just for troubleshooting and gaming.
Between that and the other cultural shifts that happened since we entered our teens (Columbine, 9/11, death of the landline), I feel I relate to a lot more of my X counterparts than the latest batch of Millenials.
We grew up with our celebrities and musicians as X. The younger Millenials had us, lol.
I think you might be extending the millennial/gen-y timeframe a little bit. There's obviously flexibility, but in all the discussions I've had about this topic, we've worked on the assumption that the cutoff for millennials is around 1995-1997. That would put the early aughts firmly in zoomer territory.
I was born is 1994, so that would put me at the very tail end of the millennial generation. Given how quickly the world changed in that time, I almost feel there could be a short, mini generation between Y and Z for people born between 1992 and 1998.
There's always an overlap between generations, eg the "echo boom" of people who are not quite boomers but definitely not gen x either. I feel like some of it has to do with the age of your parents too - my parents are younger boomers but had me when they were older - I'm firmly millennial but have a lot in common with gen xers who were raised by people from the same time as my parents.
It's interesting. Of course generational theory isn't going to be the be-all end-all of sociological definition, there are many other factors that impact people and populations... but there are clear delineations between boomers and the generations that have followed.
I'm just rolling with the Wikipedia summaries and mybown personal experiences.
It is generally accepted that most Millenals were born in the mid-80s to early 00's. Its just Xennials have more overlap with the tail of X in the early 80s, and the late Millenials (after 1998) have that overlap with Z. MillenialZ if you will.
I had to look up the author of this piece because it felt like a rehash of all the stories about millennials that were everywhere in 2010-2013, only this had updated trends from TikTok. Unfortunately, I don't have a LinkedIn so I couldn't follow the hyperlink from her byline, but I came across her medium profile and it looks like she's a self-described 'Genzennial' in her mid-late 20s.
My guess is she is a bit too young to remember the tidal wave of articles that said the exact same thing about millennials. I don't know how else to understand this:
Wasn't 'work-life balance' the biggest millennial stereotype of the 2010s, or am I experiencing the Mandela effect? Also, if we're going to make sweeping statements about a generation's financial habits based on a few social media buzzwords, couldn't I just say the same thing about Gen Z and point to all the "sigma grindset" 20-somethings that worship Gary Vee?
There was a bit of both. "Hustle culture" wasn't really a think I noticed, rather than just companies trying to market "You need two jobs" as a positive.
Millenial culture is seeped in "poverty math." You eat the Avocado Toast now because you need something to bring you joy under the weight of crushing debt. We weren't buying homes in our 20's because we're collectively broke, not because we didn't want homes.
Gen Z is continuing these trends, and I welcome any and all progress towards actually improving work/life balance.
People in their 50s are Gen X. ("The Secret" was also very much an X thing.)
Boomers are, I want to say, 65 at a minimum, mostly 70+. They would have been born directly after WWII's end and into the 1950s.
Millennials are early 80s through mid 90s.
The tone of this article feels weirdly negative to me.
For example:
The wording makes it sound like this is a bad thing. Like Gen Zers are greedy and entitled for not wanting to stick with a shit job, or poor with finances for enjoying their money rather than saving for a house they'll probably never be able to afford.
We only get one life, and we can't take our money with us when we die. If we can't buy a house with it, then we might as well find something else to spend it on.
The article pathologizes a logical response to a bleak financial future.
I read that part as more of a parental concern kind of vibe. Kind of like how it’s good to have dreams, but you can’t eat dreams when you are hungry.
"We've made life unlivable for future generations and for some reason they've started mentally checking out, how weird."
GenZ embraces the "soft life" as they prioritize mental well-being and personal growth and fulfillment over financial gain, in stark contrast to previous generations. As society rapidly comes to a confrontation with blind capitalism, a system predicated on impossibly unending growth and debt, perhaps we can all learn something already known by the younger generations: that simply meeting our material needs while consciously growing ourselves may be enough for a content existence
*...that simply meeting our material needs..."
more and more difficult each day, as evidenced by the growing homelessness crisis and wage/inflation discrepancy
I remember seeing these kinds of articles for about as long as I live. The need to put people in neat little cohorts is a bit strange to me. But it always seems to get attention so I guess that's really the point. Apart from that, yeah let's stop killing everything for gains.
mental well-being doesn't pay the bills unfortunately. In fact it's such an industry now, it likely creates more bills for them if anything.
Haven’t we been in “late-stage capitalism” since the turn of the 20th century when the term was coined, or at the very least since the 1970s when the term was popularized?
Kind of a long late stage huh.
I actually don't like the term at all and thought about editing it out of the headline. It's like end-of-the-world millennialism but for economics. Truth is, the economic system does continue to function for the majority of people and could probably go on like this for another generation or two before facing complete collapse. Yes, that's dire but not as dire as late-stage proponents seem to think.
Don't forget that baby-boomers are starting to die and both Millenials and GenZ stand to inherit the greatest transfer of wealth in history, present generations are merely having to wait longer for opportunities afforded to past generations earlier. The glut of vacant homes once Grandma and Grandpa pass on will be enough to alleviate the housing crisis.
Inequality is heightening and day-to-day living is growing harder, even the coming wealth transfer won't erase that, but we do have time and the opportunity to reform the system if we can really find the collective will for it. Part of that reform though will have to be adjusting to a sustainable culture focused on living to meet means rather than to acquire more
In regards to your second excerpt, that transfer of wealth is increasingly lengthened by advanced medical care as well as lessened by the cost of said medical care, and the (at least in my family) popular idea of dying with a penny to your name.
With the rise of reverse mortgages in addition, the odds of a majority of middle class Americans benefiting from a generational transfer of wealth is becoming smaller and smaller, and in the lower class demographics, there is likely still not enough to alleviate the financial situation many are falling into in the past three years, especially with the reintroduction of student loan repayment, of which it's fair to say that the younger, poorer groups are going to be hit hardest by as well.
COVID did its part in removing a portion of the aging population, but any senior who is still alive after the collective cavalier attitude to the severity of the pandemic either has the health or the wealth to continue on, and these patterns of continual loss to an aggregated gain are leaving anyone who stands to benefit with less and less, and putting more strain on those who would be benefiting others with their remaining capabilities.
I really appreciate your inclusion of the necessity of "adjusting to a sustainable culture focused on living to meet means rather than to acquire more" as I watched a lecture recently that also emphasized on an economy of energy and how the abundance of energy for some has created a hedonistic attitude regarding these nonrenewable, non-sustainable privileges for many, and how such a restructuring of one's personal priorities is the only way to be ~less~ affected by the inevitable collapse of the system that relies so much on excess to be sufficient in service.
I fear that all of these surplus houses will be snapped up by investors and kept off the market or turned into rentals.
At some point people will realize that the social contract that keeps them from walking into empty homes and living there, empty homes kept off the market to keep prices high, is only there to keep them in their place. If a social contract binds you but doesn't protect you, why go along with it?
Tipping and rental properties are two reckonings i think are coming in the next ten years.
Both are out of control.
Tipping is such a hard one. I think its going to require collectively hurting entire sectors of people who rely on tips in order to break it.
Like federal minimum wage for a waiter is less than $4 in the USA. If you're not a souless bastard they need tips.
i am all for them getting a real wage like any other job (including benefits). There have been lots of studies how tipping actually hurts servers of color as well (even when serving groups of their own ethnicity).
I just don’t get why it can’t be more transparent and equitable rather than based on customer generosity.
Gen Z here. I feel like you could pluck a few examples and write just about any story pushing any opinion. Of the Gen Zs I know, some are grinding hard in tech jobs saving to buy property, some are just finishing uni and taking trips to Europe to celebrate, some are on welfare complaining about late stage capitalism online, some are working average jobs and focusing on social experiences.
It seems pretty dubious to say that an entire generation is rejecting work, especially now, a time where exactly what job and career path you take has such a huge impact on your quality of life.
Interesting juxtaposition to Gen Z setting their career sights on finance: https://www.cnbc.com/2023/06/28/finance-is-the-no-1-industry-gen-z-wants-to-work-in-says-new-research.html
Every day there seems to be a new ultra specific generational letter in the alphabet that I need to Google. I wonder if there's any usefulness about it, or if splitting people into letters is less helpful than it is misleading.
My impression is that, overall, people seem prone to highlight differences more than similarities in order to achieve a sense of uniqueness. You can see that in the fetishizing of mental diagnosis as well.
There is plenty of usefulness in categorizing generations, especially when we try to understand trends and differences between them through a sociological lens. Yes, we are all human and we have many similarities and looking at generational groups is a broad brush that can sometimes miss nuance, but I don't think many people would say that the upbringing of Gen Z is the same as that of the Baby Boomers. The zeitgeist that we developed in have strong impacts on our beliefs and attitudes!
If you want to read more about generational studies, Pew Research put out a pretty good article exploring the concept.
I should have expressed myself better.
Obviously researchers and specialists can find a good use even for the most specific, abstract concepts. I'm talking about the usefulness of these concepts in everyday discourse, specially when it becomes a shorthand for division and hate that highlights irrelevant distinctions while ignoring fundamental similarities.
This is true, but I'll give you an example:
My aunt and uncle, retired for several years now. My aunt was a K-12 admin, Uncle worked for Navy. Modest salaries, she took off from work until both her kids entered school (so roughly a decade off). They live in a mildly rural area, with salaries reflective of that.
They have a fully paid-off house and a lakeside vacation home. That they've had for over 30 years. They have trouble comprehending how that isn't even a remotely viable option for people under 40.
The economy was mostly solid from the 1980 till 1999. The boomers had a meteoric rise in wealth, and didn't suffer quite the same level of economic catastrophy every 10ish years the way their kids have, allowing them to build their nest eggs, buy multiple houses, and still recieve pensions. The pensions in particular were mostly phased out by the time I hit the workforce, as part of that terrible transition to 401k's. It was always disheartening to see "If you were hired before 2005, here's your very generous pension plan, otherwise, here's your pithy 401k match." The ladder-pulling was so blatant.
My family built a house from scratch in 1982 ish. Cost them total of $110,000, including land. Putting 20% down for a mortgage was a lot more reasonable when it was $20k, and not $60k like it would be today.
I agree with everything you wrote, but I think there's a need to differentiate between demographic analysis and public discourse.
Some people are talking about boomers like they are the ultimate evil. Yes, there are boomers who are to blame for many of the problems we face on this planet. But there are also boomers who do a lot more to mitigate these problems than many young people.
If we start pointing fingers, it is important that we blame individuals, not demographies. Otherwise, witch hunts will happen eventually, and we've all agreed, many times, that we've had enough of those.
The biggest villains are the capitalist corporations who exploit everything in the name of neverending, all-consuming growth.
No, the biggest villains are the greedy consumers who care more about saving pennies than an honest pay for workers in countries they've never heard of. They care more about washing machines with internet access than the environmental desasters far, far away that are the result from consumer electronics. They only care about getting the best service at the cost of exploitative working conditions for their neighbors, and when they end up exploited next to their neighbors, they still buy from Amazon.
Or maybe things are a little more complex than goodies vs baddies. Maybe there is no good and evil, just different shades of competitive needs.
I get what you're saying, but I'd say the difference between the two is that one is the organization directly causing most of the harm, and concealing as much of that from consumers as possible.
If consumers had more disposable income, they'd be able to choose to spend more to be less unethical. I know that was true of myself...sourcing local was much more expensive than going to Walmart.
I agree there are more shades of grey, but I contend the consumer is more the victim of the company. Especially how companies dedicate entire divisions to
customer manipulationmarketting.The organisation who is directly causing the harm is doing it on behalf of the individual who wants to enjoy the result without worrying about how it was achieved. I want to feel good about my new Nikes. If Nike would advertise how their products are made, people would buy some other brand who doesn't do that.
Poor people don't really matter. Their carbon footprint is tiny. Globally, 10 % of the richest (which almost certainly includes you, even if you are poor by Western standards) emit half of all carbon emissions. There are whole markets exclusively for rich people, and even the middle class with plenty of disposable income prefers consuming more over consuming ethically, and complain about rising food prices while buying a second or third SUV. I'm poor, but nevertheless I can buy fair trade clothes because I buy less of them. Most people prefer buying more clothes instead, which is why fair trade clothing shops are still a tiny niche.
If companies don't produce cheap throwaway crap, they have to find a small niche, which means less customers, less sales and less profit. If people would want a different system, they could vote for politicians who would like to make it illegal for companies to exploit workers and environments, but they don't.
At the ballot box, I am faced with the choice of pro-corporate neoliberals, or pro-corporate neoliberals that also hate women, blacks, and gays.
While involvement in the proces to try to affect change is important, it is hard. Especially when you don't have money on your side.
So maybe, much like smoking, ads for stuff should be punctuated with anticonsumption ads.
Bernie Sanders offered an opportunity for real change and the voters rejected it. Also, the world is bigger then the US. In other countries, voters have had real choice for decades, but conservative and reactionary parties are still very strong.
Also, votes are not the only way to shape politics. The public discourse very much shapes the ideas polticians are pushing.
For-profit ads should simply be illegal. That would not only mitigate overconsumption but also help to get the internet back from a handful of too-big-to-fail companies.
Except voters that were under 45. Its almost like the old ghouls who benefit the most from neoliberalism don't want other options. Bernie was also not given a fair shake in the area that really counts: Media coverage.
Go to a grocery store, and you'll find almost every product is owned by a mega Corp. Blaming individuals for this is a bit disingenuous -- individuals don't have a choice. Participation in capitalism is compulsory.
That's just not true in my case.
Go to any news article about Fairphone and observe how half the comments take their product as an affront because other companies (that don't care about ethics) are able to offer slightly more bang for the buck.
I wish I could buy a fairphone. They don't offer their product where I live.
Sorry to hear that. I assume you have already searched for resellers and refurbishers?
Yeah. Also, it's not supported at all, so that dissuades me also. If they ever chose to sell here, I would buy one when my phone dies. I love the idea of modular components, and fair-trade sourcing enough that I would be willing to overlook the sup-par IP rating.
Honestly, I've basically given up on long term. Gonna enjoy my life, gonna do my best to be a good person and help those around me... but I'm not going to plan 5-10 years in advance.
Gonna count myself lucky if I get to actually grow old with a mostly functioning body and mind (I AM at least trying to keep those bits of me healthy...)
People need to have more kids, not less. The global fertility rate is going down, and it will cause huge problems when there's an ever aging population. If you want to be able to retire, you need a younger population able to support that.
I'll counter with:
We have plenty of technology now that props up vast swaths of white-collar beuracracy that isn't going to be needed the same way it was prior.
Used to be there would be a secretary for every manager. Nowadays its a lot more common to have a full-office assistant or two and maybe a few dedicated assistants at VP or higher.
Business analytics used to be quite a difficult thing requiring dozens. Now a small team of 5 can pump out and maintain pretty much any report indefinitely.
Servers used to require a tech per few dozen or hundred. Now ratios can easily be managed in the 1000's/1 territory.
Even in the past, retirees don't provide 0 value. They often contribute with hidden labor like childrearing or taking on "menial" jobs to entertain themselves.
There will be a cultural shift, undoubtably, but "nobody will be able to retire without more babies" I see as fearmongering that doesn't look to see how much available labor there is once you free up the massive wasted middlemen like health insurance companies and dropshippers.
The idea of my comment being 'fearmongering' given the fact I'm trying to counter, what I consider, one of the most insane fearmongering points I see bandied about made me chortle. The fact people have been fearmongered about overpopulation (a lie), into going against probably the most base human instinct of having children, I find abhorrent.
Anyway, to your point, this isn't a tech issue, it's a social issue. Who's physically looking after all these old people if there's no new people?
While I agree that too many beat the overpopulation drum in the name of bigotry, there is something to be said about it. In absence of birth control, disease, and famine, the human population will not stabilize, it will grow indefinitely. We're already relying on very unsustainable farming methods to feed the world, letting the population decline gracefully is far better than famine due to crop failures. Especially since the climate is destabilizing.
But the point I was making is that we're also not having a babypacolypse where 1 18 year old is gonna be caring for 20 elderlies. We're talking like a 1-3% population decline over decades. So instead of 100 people caring for 95 old people, it'll be 97. It's hardly a crisis.
We could accomodate that level of population decline in the USA merely by axing health insurance companies, and freeing the 2.8 million staff to do useful work instead. All the extra staff that doctors currently need because of needless paperwork to get paid and handle money are also freed up. Not even factoring any advancements in automation, which we could use to lower our workweeks and give everyone more time to be with their elderly families instead of relying on paying someone else to do it.
And by and large, most elderly people don't need babysitters? Most are perfectly capable of doing 95% of what they did in their 50's into their 90's.
This just isn't true. The global birth rate is 2.3 and falling. 2.1 is needed just to keep a stable population.
The only thing really keeping it even this high is primarily Africa. US is 1.8, UK 1.7, China 1.7, Japan 1.34, and South Korea 0.84.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependencies_by_total_fertility_rate
The reasons appear to be that as countries develop, people stop having as many children. This makes sense as when the child mortality rate drops, which is has been globally for a long time, families don't need to have as many children to ensure some of them survive infancy. Indeed it seems most people prefer either 1 or 2 children - not a sustainable level.
A lot of what keeps the excess propped up is immigration. Most countries seem to be currently de-globalising and becoming more insular, which will only make the problem far worse. Look at South Korea or Japan for great examples of this.
https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/
Clearly, downwards trend on growth. Global population is clearly stabilising towards a plateau. Clearly the population will not grow indefinitely.
You make the comment of this process happening over decades, which is true, but we need to start solving the problem now before it's too late. Once population decline starts happening, it quickly becomes a death spiral. For example if the fertility rate is 1, the next generation is half the size of the previous. They would need to have 4 children each family to get back to their parents' population size.
I think you vastly underestimate how much of a problem this is likely to cause globally. As one small recent example, look at France. There were riots because the government wanted to raise the pension age, because of an aging population. There's no way to get around this.
https://www.aarp.org/ppi/info-2020/caregiving-in-the-united-states.html
41 million caregivers in the United States of recipients aged 50+. 16% of the population, and trend getting worse.
I guess the conclusion here is the vast majority of these people I see online banging the unsustainable drum are ultimately going to get their wish, we are literally already heading towards population decrease so I don't know why they're constantly banging on about it. The point I'm trying to make from the start is lets not start heading the other way! People need to start having more children now to prevent massive population decline later, which has a whole host of other problems related to it.
If you truly don't want children, then fine that's personal choice. I just feel so horribly bad that there might be people out there who want children, and don't because of this stupid idea I see bandied around online. If you want children, please have children and don't feel bad about it!
Your caregiver link is a bit disengenuous. Those are unpaid caregivers, not part of the workforce. I helped my grandmother-in-law change a lightbulb when I visited. Congratulations according to the AARP I'm now an upaid caregiver.
And you've ignored most of my points about making up the differences by trimming the waste in the workforce. If we're in dire straits the workforce will shift or the problem will solve itself.
And fundementally, lowering the retirement age might make more sense, counterintuitively. When people are not beholden to the 9-5 workweek (because they have a pension), they can do things that otherwise require highly trained staff:
The real reason people aren't having kids is economic instability and lack of housing. Nobody wants to raise kids when their home is at a whim of a fickle employer and greedy landlord.
I just don't understand how this works, what reality is this based in?
Similarly, you mention lowering the retirement age, again not based in reality. You actually mention pensions, which I've already mentioned as a perfect example in France. They are being forced to increase pension age because of the aging population. In what fantasy land do you live that you think you can lower pension age, and still give people pensions? Where is this money coming from?