3 ms·

>Remember that neither Gen Z nor Millenials have ever witnessed significant economic change that was brought on by direct action of normal people. Did you forg

>Remember that neither Gen Z nor Millenials have ever witnessed significant economic change that was brought on by direct action of normal people. Did you forget about the Great Recession and it’s economic impact? Do you believe it didnt bring significant economic change or is it that it wasn’t brought on by normal people? What exactly defines normal people in this context or better yet, how is that relevant? It’s confusing to me that despite the soaring costs of housing, the hyper competitive job market ( kids compete not just against other Americans but also students from other countries like India and China, where many of those immigrant kids didn’t have the crushing college debt), the shrinking middle class, and general deregulation that has shifted power to the wealthy - despite all these issues, your view point of what affects these kids is based around social media or more specifically, what standard these kids are held to on social media.

sudosteph 7y ago
Of course I remember the great recession - I mentioned Occupy. It was the banks which caused the great recession. The politicians then responded to the needs of the banks, not the people. There were some regulations around lending added to protect banks from themselves, and a small stimulus package that most of my generation didn't even receive. The average person though did not see anything change meaningfully to make their economic situation better. So both the change it brought was insignificant to the working class (aka "normal people"), and the working class had no say over what changes were even discussed (because Occupy was not taken seriously). I agree with you on the importance of all those issues. My point is that we have a large number of young people who are disillusioned with both the current economic situation AND lacking confidence in historic tactics (ie, direct action) that the working class used in the past to improve economic situations (ie, joining a union, going on strike, electing leftist officials). The neo-liberal philosophy that has been sold to Americans for the past few decades teaches people that you are supposed to be able to effect change by choosing with your wallet and advocating by mouth. This too is proving to be ineffectual for meaningful change, but the concept does relate to my greater point: the most powerful currency accessible to this generation is social capital. It accumulates fast and spreads to all corners when it resonates. Social capital is the only reason Trump could become president. It's making and breaking careers (see the rise of "influencers" and streamers), and it's playing out comparitively microscopic level as young people are using modern communication frameworks to define their success in their personal social spheres. I'm not saying this is a good development. It does distract and divide the working class from one-another. But I see why it happened, and don't think it's apathy or selfishness that has caused this way of thinking to become popular. Either the young generation will reject their hyper-connected "always-on" culture, or the older ones will get on board. Until then it will be hard to work together on bigger issues, and I doubt Gen Z can solve those alone.

sudosteph 7y ago

Of course I remember the great recession - I mentioned Occupy. It was the banks which caused the great recession. The politicians then responded to the needs of the banks, not the people. There were some regulations around lending added to protect banks from themselves, and a small stimulus package that most of my generation didn't even receive. The average person though did not see anything change meaningfully to make their economic situation better. So both the change it brought was insignificant to the working class (aka "normal people"), and the working class had no say over what changes were even discussed (because Occupy was not taken seriously). I agree with you on the importance of all those issues. My point is that we have a large number of young people who are disillusioned with both the current economic situation AND lacking confidence in historic tactics (ie, direct action) that the working class used in the past to improve economic situations (ie, joining a union, going on strike, electing leftist officials). The neo-liberal philosophy that has been sold to Americans for the past few decades teaches people that you are supposed to be able to effect change by choosing with your wallet and advocating by mouth. This too is proving to be ineffectual for meaningful change, but the concept does relate to my greater point: the most powerful currency accessible to this generation is social capital. It accumulates fast and spreads to all corners when it resonates. Social capital is the only reason Trump could become president. It's making and breaking careers (see the rise of "influencers" and streamers), and it's playing out comparitively microscopic level as young people are using modern communication frameworks to define their success in their personal social spheres. I'm not saying this is a good development. It does distract and divide the working class from one-another. But I see why it happened, and don't think it's apathy or selfishness that has caused this way of thinking to become popular. Either the young generation will reject their hyper-connected "always-on" culture, or the older ones will get on board. Until then it will be hard to work together on bigger issues, and I doubt Gen Z can solve those alone.