7 ms·

I've noticed a lot of young people giving up lately on supporting the economic system. Anyone else seen this?

pjc50 6y ago
It's a lot more visible on social media; I've no idea how well that translates into real life, and whether it also comes with disengagement from voting. On the other hand, the Occupy movement appeared and vanished after the 2008 financial crisis without really leaving lasting traces. We've yet to see what post-COVID politics looks like; the US is bracing for the November election, and the UK facing the end of the Brexit transitional arrangements. An entire generation of young people is going to have a disruption "fossil layer" across their education. If this isn't taken into account and employers expect business as usual, they are going to be really unimpressed.
- adammunich 6y ago
  Occupy definitely didn't vanish. The same people who were protesting then are out protesting now. But now, they're more organized and zealous than before.
throwanem 6y ago
Yes, and why shouldn't they?
- adammunich 6y ago
  I'm just wondering what's going to come next. Nature abhors a vacuum.
  - throwanem 6y ago
    It depends who most successfully manages to direct the energy building up behind the demand for some kind, any kind, of substantive change. Historically, that whole process used to typically take a decade or two, maybe more. But we have social media now, so I give it a couple-three years, tops. Maybe a decade if it peters out again this time like it did in 2011. But I don't think that's very likely. Easy to get the idea that a statue of Lincoln got torn down because protestors are historically illiterate, or there's fascist spoilers in among the crowds, or whatever. No. There are no wrong statues to tear down, because who put those statues up? Rich people. Old people. People who've failed to justify their hold on power. I don't think it's quite too late for them to start to do so. But I do think they're far too stupid to realize and act on the necessity. Being as the only reason I'm not getting fucked the same way - not quite so hard, at the moment, anyway - is the luck of having had 20 more years to work with and a chance to make a start in a somewhat less viciously extractive time, my sympathies lie with those who say that either that power will be justified or it will be taken from those who have it now and placed in other hands. Sure, things could end up worse than they are now. But they could also end up better. If anyone could make a convincing case for how they end up better under the status quo, we would not be here. Hell, Bernie Sanders tried twice, and look what happened to him - not that I think he'd have been able to deliver on his promises, but it would've been smart to have given him the chance to try. Could probably have bought a decade or so that way, I suspect, maybe more. But instead, in 2016 the DNC rigged the primary for a candidate decades past electability who ultimately gave us Trump, and in 2020 the boomers just stomped the babies flat and gave us another possibly senile neoliberal has-been for the general, which he may still contrive to lose despite the Republican revolt against Trump - they've made a lot of ads, but we won't really know how it played out until December or maybe January, and no matter which way it goes it'll be the most questionable US presidential election result in living memory. Maybe ever. Even the AOC/Ilhan Omar crew, the best hope of a better future the status quo ante has so far managed to ante up, has started to get some real side-eye: they still have a solid Twitter game, but in policy terms they're moving toward the center, and people have started to suspect, I think rightly, that DC's capturing them. At this point there is basically no credibility left. So it depends on who manages to direct the energy to make some kind of change. We haven't seen them emerge yet. If history is any guide, we won't see them coming, either. How it plays out in the long run is anyone's guess. How it starts is in large part up to them, whoever they turn out to be.
    - adammunich 6y ago
      I've been talking to a decent number of wealthy people about this subject and sometimes their responses are deafening. I don't think it's malice but rather plain ignorance. It's hard to understand the frustrations of the poor when you live in a fancy house and make tech money. I'll never forget when I was told by one person, "if people are mad that companies are making all this money they should just buy their stock!" Let them eat cake if there ever was a parallel...
      - throwanem 6y ago
        I didn't say they were evil, I said they were stupid. I don't know if power does that, but I've spent enough time working around and for rich people that I sure as hell know money does.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
barney54 6y ago
What does it mean for people to "support the economic system?" I'd like to understand what that means.
- adammunich 6y ago
  Believe in the narrative of careerism, work at companies until you retire, all that. Lots of young folks are saying "it's all a scam", dropping out, buying RVs, vans, moving to farms, etc.
  - joelbluminator 6y ago
    There's also the environmental issue. If you're environmentally conscious you can't work for a lot of companies, commuting becomes a problem etc. I don't know how much of a factor it is but I believe for some people it is.
    - adammunich 6y ago
      Definitely the case for some people but I don't think it's driving force for a large percentage (yet). Maybe a few more droughts and food shortages would change that though.
  - xwdv 6y ago
    The young folk who say this are often ones who were sold on a lie that getting massive student loan debt for a degree from a university was a ticket to the good life and the right thing to do. Unfortunately that’s not really true and they find they wasted a lot of time and money and have no prospects and mounting debt.
    - adammunich 6y ago
      Indeed, so how can the situation be corrected?
      - syshum 6y ago
echelon 6y ago
According to Reddit and Twitter, we're going to tax over half of it back once the Democrats take power. At least this was the rhetoric when Bernie was still in the running. I try explaining non-liquid assets and how selling all of that stock would change control structures and sink the stock price, but it doesn't resonate. A lot of them also hate the stock market outright and don't know (or care) that stocks comprise retirement funds.
- adammunich 6y ago
  Retirement funds are something boomers have. It's a luxury for a lot of young people if they can make it work.
- jusiool 6y ago
  Retirement funds are something a lot of young people expect to never see if current trends of debt and healthcare prices keep up. I'm quite young (<25), we're not stupid and a lot of us understand basic economics, but rhetoric is important in these times because a candidate trying to tax the rich is better than one that doesn't try at all. Future generations will be burned once they realise living like the baby boomers did is unsustainable, hence a lot of us have given up on the economy, whatever that means.
  - SaintGhurka 6y ago
    If the world doesn't end, and it usually doesn't, you'll wish you had put something into your 401k. Please view your own pessimism with a bit of skepticism. Pessimism tends to betray people who buy into it too much. I heard very similar things 30 years ago when I was <25 and in part I bought into it. And buying into it did me damage because none of it came to pass. Society continued to muddled along. It's possible that the system will suffer a disorderly collapse, or maybe it will be uprooted and replaced with something more progressive. Just don't bet your future on either outcome.
- mattacular 6y ago
  Really surprised to hear that you condescending on young people about the stock market and retirement funds (which they tend to feel should never have been tied to the stock market) isn't resonating with em.
cwhiz 6y ago
It’s a pyramid scam that the fed won’t allow to fail. But one day we will run out of money to print, and it will indeed catastrophically fail. Young people are correct to outright reject this. We’re kicking the can down the road so that boomers can have one last hurrah.
- adammunich 6y ago
  So what's next?
- Aunche 6y ago
  The US economy is inflated, but US treasuries are still in high demand and we might as well milk it for what its worth. The US is like the lannister’s of the world in that they’re rich because they always pay their debts (historically, their bonds have been the most stable.) Allowing, the economy to collapse basically denies us this otherwise free money and helps no one, besides those who fill the power vacuum, which could very well be big corporations.
  - adammunich 6y ago
    You raise a /very/ good point. But I worry that it is not working in a way that's favorable to those who rely on cash holdings (most people) for their budgeting and daily goals.
    - rmah 6y ago
      Poor people, sort of by definition, do not have "cash holdings". They tend to live paycheck to paycheck or are in debt. Inflation helps debtors. And wages do tend to rise with inflation, albeit with a delay.
ixvvqktiwl 6y ago
Yes, I include myself in that. The system doesn't work, and it needs to be reconfigured. We've listened to decades of BS from politicians and rich people on TV telling us we just need to work harder, but the truth. The more I learn about the financial system and how it works with government, the more I have become convinced that the whole thing is a scam, robbing the working class in a way that only benefits the very wealthy.
- adammunich 6y ago
  How would you reconfigure it?
  - ixvvqktiwl 6y ago
    Probably the most obvious place to start would be to end programs like QE by the central bank, and replace it with UBI. Instead of giving free money to big banks and high net worth individuals, put that money directly in the hands of consumers and those who need it most. QE can be thought of as a tool to accelerate the wealth transfer from poor to rich. Every time we go through one of these cycles the whole thing speeds up. Additionally, I think we should reconsider the idea of making it easy to acquire debt. An economy based on debt serves only to inflate assets that are easy to acquire debt for (i.e., houses) and prices out everyone who isn't in a position to acquire debt (which is a huge number of people, mostly young and poor people, including myself).
    - adammunich 6y ago
      Ending QE definitely seems like a step in the right direction. If money is inflated away, what's the point of it really? I don't know enough about UBI to say if it's a good replacement. I am curious to learn more about your reasoning. The debt thing to me seems like a "band aid" on keeping consumption going. If people have no meaningful money saved, then to keep consumption going cheap credit needs to be made available.
    - ivanche 6y ago
      Benefits of UBI would immediately disappear. Landlords would know you have more money and they would raise rents the same day. Car mechanics would know you have more money so they would just charge more. Same with hairdressers, painters, restaurants...
LatteLazy 6y ago
I've seen the opposite. I'm 35, but loads of people I know in their 20s are asking how markets work. I think they've seen markets go down and then 40% and thought "i could have made money on that"...
- adammunich 6y ago
  Are the markets really "working" when the FED is making a habit of bailing them out?
  - dimgl 6y ago
    A lot of cynics on Hacker News tonight.
    - ReptileMan 6y ago
      Still right though. Too big to fail means too big to be allowed to exist. Either there must be stringent regulation with scale in winner takes all fields or some form of serious punishment if the fed is going to be the saviour of last resort. And I don't mean punishing the corporation itself but the top management.
      - adammunich 6y ago
        Seems to me like we're seeing the definition of "moral hazard" incarnate lately.
    - sho 6y ago
      You say cynicism - I say finally recognizing the emperor has no clothes. The fed now buying junk bonds - directly propping up the LBO/PE industry - crossed a fundamental line for me. Not only is the USG propping up its productive corporations - not great, but excusable, in my view - now it's propping up its worst, too. Why is it doing that? Who is in charge and who are they obeying? Uncomfortable questions all around. When the USD loses its reserve status - when, not if, and all the sooner given the fed's recent behaviour - we are going to see some serious shit.
syshum 6y ago
I have noticed a lot of young people do not understand economic systems nor how macro economies work... Anyone else seen this?
- grenoire 6y ago
  I am a recent finance graduate and I can attest to this statement: My friends who are not in finance are absolutely garbage in their understanding of savings, interest, wages, taxes, market dynamics (and other realities, like the fact that you're not going to make it big working at a random fashion retailer's corporate offices, earning only a 4% raise annually). In all fairness, there are just so many people without STEM degrees thinking that they will make 200k a year (in Europe). I'm not saying they can't, but it's honest to God very, very rare, and very, very difficult in their current understanding of labour markets, finance, and investment. However, I would like to say also that I don't think this is a new phenomenon. I also know an even greater amount of older adults who are fooling, instead of educating, themselves.
  - syshum 6y ago
    I agree it is not new. I have long been a critic of of the public education system in the US for its failing to teach basic financial literacy in high school. I would be in a much better position today if I would not have screwed up my early 20's due to my ignorance on those topics. I guess I should have not isolated "young people" more said there is a generally lack of economic education in wider population. My parents who are just now retiring, bought into the US SocSec promise, so they had every little savings... Now me and my siblings are supporting them as we are more economically secure (and more economically successful).
searchableguy 6y ago
I think I am qualified to answer this. It's harder to fool people when you can look at metrics compared to before. Information is widely available so adults can't make up rainbows to make me wage away for something that has no clear chance of a healthy life. Expectations are different for younger generation precisely because human productivity increased many folds but yet we have to grind more or less the same amount of time + spend more time in institutions which are not funded well except for the rich folks. Overall, world is getting better but that doesn't mean it is getting better relative to the effort everyone has put in for majority. I support equal opportunity rather than bandids. The system is rigged and harm some people more than others. We need to find the core problems and fix them but I have no political power. By the time I do, I may become a grumpy old man who thinks people deserve what they got and it's their fault. Education system normalize this. Punishments are applied fairly but students are not equal and don't have the same situation at home or outside school. We need to stop punishing people in ways that only drag them behind. Be it students or petty criminals. Dragging people behind is never a good way to achieve progress and our society is riddled with it. Living is a zero-sum game for many.
- adammunich 6y ago
  I agree, social mobility is extremely important for the progress of a society. Talent is not necessarily distributed to those born with silver spoons.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
scarface74 6y ago
If this is true (which I doubt) you should be able to find some statistic.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

It's a lot more visible on social media; I've no idea how well that translates into real life, and whether it also comes with disengagement from voting. On the other hand, the Occupy movement appeared and vanished after the 2008 financial crisis without really leaving lasting traces. We've yet to see what post-COVID politics looks like; the US is bracing for the November election, and the UK facing the end of the Brexit transitional arrangements. An entire generation of young people is going to have a disruption "fossil layer" across their education. If this isn't taken into account and employers expect business as usual, they are going to be really unimpressed.

adammunich 6y ago
Occupy definitely didn't vanish. The same people who were protesting then are out protesting now. But now, they're more organized and zealous than before.

throwanem 6y ago

Yes, and why shouldn't they?

adammunich 6y ago
I'm just wondering what's going to come next. Nature abhors a vacuum.
- throwanem 6y ago
  It depends who most successfully manages to direct the energy building up behind the demand for some kind, any kind, of substantive change. Historically, that whole process used to typically take a decade or two, maybe more. But we have social media now, so I give it a couple-three years, tops. Maybe a decade if it peters out again this time like it did in 2011. But I don't think that's very likely. Easy to get the idea that a statue of Lincoln got torn down because protestors are historically illiterate, or there's fascist spoilers in among the crowds, or whatever. No. There are no wrong statues to tear down, because who put those statues up? Rich people. Old people. People who've failed to justify their hold on power. I don't think it's quite too late for them to start to do so. But I do think they're far too stupid to realize and act on the necessity. Being as the only reason I'm not getting fucked the same way - not quite so hard, at the moment, anyway - is the luck of having had 20 more years to work with and a chance to make a start in a somewhat less viciously extractive time, my sympathies lie with those who say that either that power will be justified or it will be taken from those who have it now and placed in other hands. Sure, things could end up worse than they are now. But they could also end up better. If anyone could make a convincing case for how they end up better under the status quo, we would not be here. Hell, Bernie Sanders tried twice, and look what happened to him - not that I think he'd have been able to deliver on his promises, but it would've been smart to have given him the chance to try. Could probably have bought a decade or so that way, I suspect, maybe more. But instead, in 2016 the DNC rigged the primary for a candidate decades past electability who ultimately gave us Trump, and in 2020 the boomers just stomped the babies flat and gave us another possibly senile neoliberal has-been for the general, which he may still contrive to lose despite the Republican revolt against Trump - they've made a lot of ads, but we won't really know how it played out until December or maybe January, and no matter which way it goes it'll be the most questionable US presidential election result in living memory. Maybe ever. Even the AOC/Ilhan Omar crew, the best hope of a better future the status quo ante has so far managed to ante up, has started to get some real side-eye: they still have a solid Twitter game, but in policy terms they're moving toward the center, and people have started to suspect, I think rightly, that DC's capturing them. At this point there is basically no credibility left. So it depends on who manages to direct the energy to make some kind of change. We haven't seen them emerge yet. If history is any guide, we won't see them coming, either. How it plays out in the long run is anyone's guess. How it starts is in large part up to them, whoever they turn out to be.
  - adammunich 6y ago
    I've been talking to a decent number of wealthy people about this subject and sometimes their responses are deafening. I don't think it's malice but rather plain ignorance. It's hard to understand the frustrations of the poor when you live in a fancy house and make tech money. I'll never forget when I was told by one person, "if people are mad that companies are making all this money they should just buy their stock!" Let them eat cake if there ever was a parallel...
    - throwanem 6y ago
      I didn't say they were evil, I said they were stupid. I don't know if power does that, but I've spent enough time working around and for rich people that I sure as hell know money does.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]

barney54 6y ago

What does it mean for people to "support the economic system?" I'd like to understand what that means.

adammunich 6y ago
Believe in the narrative of careerism, work at companies until you retire, all that. Lots of young folks are saying "it's all a scam", dropping out, buying RVs, vans, moving to farms, etc.
- joelbluminator 6y ago
  There's also the environmental issue. If you're environmentally conscious you can't work for a lot of companies, commuting becomes a problem etc. I don't know how much of a factor it is but I believe for some people it is.
  - adammunich 6y ago
    Definitely the case for some people but I don't think it's driving force for a large percentage (yet). Maybe a few more droughts and food shortages would change that though.
- xwdv 6y ago
  The young folk who say this are often ones who were sold on a lie that getting massive student loan debt for a degree from a university was a ticket to the good life and the right thing to do. Unfortunately that’s not really true and they find they wasted a lot of time and money and have no prospects and mounting debt.
  - adammunich 6y ago
    Indeed, so how can the situation be corrected?
    - syshum 6y ago

echelon 6y ago

According to Reddit and Twitter, we're going to tax over half of it back once the Democrats take power. At least this was the rhetoric when Bernie was still in the running. I try explaining non-liquid assets and how selling all of that stock would change control structures and sink the stock price, but it doesn't resonate. A lot of them also hate the stock market outright and don't know (or care) that stocks comprise retirement funds.

adammunich 6y ago
Retirement funds are something boomers have. It's a luxury for a lot of young people if they can make it work.
jusiool 6y ago
Retirement funds are something a lot of young people expect to never see if current trends of debt and healthcare prices keep up. I'm quite young (<25), we're not stupid and a lot of us understand basic economics, but rhetoric is important in these times because a candidate trying to tax the rich is better than one that doesn't try at all. Future generations will be burned once they realise living like the baby boomers did is unsustainable, hence a lot of us have given up on the economy, whatever that means.
- SaintGhurka 6y ago
  If the world doesn't end, and it usually doesn't, you'll wish you had put something into your 401k. Please view your own pessimism with a bit of skepticism. Pessimism tends to betray people who buy into it too much. I heard very similar things 30 years ago when I was <25 and in part I bought into it. And buying into it did me damage because none of it came to pass. Society continued to muddled along. It's possible that the system will suffer a disorderly collapse, or maybe it will be uprooted and replaced with something more progressive. Just don't bet your future on either outcome.
mattacular 6y ago
Really surprised to hear that you condescending on young people about the stock market and retirement funds (which they tend to feel should never have been tied to the stock market) isn't resonating with em.

cwhiz 6y ago

It’s a pyramid scam that the fed won’t allow to fail. But one day we will run out of money to print, and it will indeed catastrophically fail. Young people are correct to outright reject this. We’re kicking the can down the road so that boomers can have one last hurrah.

adammunich 6y ago
So what's next?
Aunche 6y ago
The US economy is inflated, but US treasuries are still in high demand and we might as well milk it for what its worth. The US is like the lannister’s of the world in that they’re rich because they always pay their debts (historically, their bonds have been the most stable.) Allowing, the economy to collapse basically denies us this otherwise free money and helps no one, besides those who fill the power vacuum, which could very well be big corporations.
- adammunich 6y ago
  You raise a /very/ good point. But I worry that it is not working in a way that's favorable to those who rely on cash holdings (most people) for their budgeting and daily goals.
  - rmah 6y ago
    Poor people, sort of by definition, do not have "cash holdings". They tend to live paycheck to paycheck or are in debt. Inflation helps debtors. And wages do tend to rise with inflation, albeit with a delay.

ixvvqktiwl 6y ago

Yes, I include myself in that. The system doesn't work, and it needs to be reconfigured. We've listened to decades of BS from politicians and rich people on TV telling us we just need to work harder, but the truth. The more I learn about the financial system and how it works with government, the more I have become convinced that the whole thing is a scam, robbing the working class in a way that only benefits the very wealthy.

adammunich 6y ago
How would you reconfigure it?
- ixvvqktiwl 6y ago
  Probably the most obvious place to start would be to end programs like QE by the central bank, and replace it with UBI. Instead of giving free money to big banks and high net worth individuals, put that money directly in the hands of consumers and those who need it most. QE can be thought of as a tool to accelerate the wealth transfer from poor to rich. Every time we go through one of these cycles the whole thing speeds up. Additionally, I think we should reconsider the idea of making it easy to acquire debt. An economy based on debt serves only to inflate assets that are easy to acquire debt for (i.e., houses) and prices out everyone who isn't in a position to acquire debt (which is a huge number of people, mostly young and poor people, including myself).
  - adammunich 6y ago
    Ending QE definitely seems like a step in the right direction. If money is inflated away, what's the point of it really? I don't know enough about UBI to say if it's a good replacement. I am curious to learn more about your reasoning. The debt thing to me seems like a "band aid" on keeping consumption going. If people have no meaningful money saved, then to keep consumption going cheap credit needs to be made available.
  - ivanche 6y ago
    Benefits of UBI would immediately disappear. Landlords would know you have more money and they would raise rents the same day. Car mechanics would know you have more money so they would just charge more. Same with hairdressers, painters, restaurants...

LatteLazy 6y ago

I've seen the opposite. I'm 35, but loads of people I know in their 20s are asking how markets work. I think they've seen markets go down and then 40% and thought "i could have made money on that"...

adammunich 6y ago
Are the markets really "working" when the FED is making a habit of bailing them out?
- dimgl 6y ago
  A lot of cynics on Hacker News tonight.
  - ReptileMan 6y ago
    Still right though. Too big to fail means too big to be allowed to exist. Either there must be stringent regulation with scale in winner takes all fields or some form of serious punishment if the fed is going to be the saviour of last resort. And I don't mean punishing the corporation itself but the top management.
    - adammunich 6y ago
      Seems to me like we're seeing the definition of "moral hazard" incarnate lately.
  - sho 6y ago
    You say cynicism - I say finally recognizing the emperor has no clothes. The fed now buying junk bonds - directly propping up the LBO/PE industry - crossed a fundamental line for me. Not only is the USG propping up its productive corporations - not great, but excusable, in my view - now it's propping up its worst, too. Why is it doing that? Who is in charge and who are they obeying? Uncomfortable questions all around. When the USD loses its reserve status - when, not if, and all the sooner given the fed's recent behaviour - we are going to see some serious shit.

syshum 6y ago

I have noticed a lot of young people do not understand economic systems nor how macro economies work... Anyone else seen this?

grenoire 6y ago
I am a recent finance graduate and I can attest to this statement: My friends who are not in finance are absolutely garbage in their understanding of savings, interest, wages, taxes, market dynamics (and other realities, like the fact that you're not going to make it big working at a random fashion retailer's corporate offices, earning only a 4% raise annually). In all fairness, there are just so many people without STEM degrees thinking that they will make 200k a year (in Europe). I'm not saying they can't, but it's honest to God very, very rare, and very, very difficult in their current understanding of labour markets, finance, and investment. However, I would like to say also that I don't think this is a new phenomenon. I also know an even greater amount of older adults who are fooling, instead of educating, themselves.
- syshum 6y ago
  I agree it is not new. I have long been a critic of of the public education system in the US for its failing to teach basic financial literacy in high school. I would be in a much better position today if I would not have screwed up my early 20's due to my ignorance on those topics. I guess I should have not isolated "young people" more said there is a generally lack of economic education in wider population. My parents who are just now retiring, bought into the US SocSec promise, so they had every little savings... Now me and my siblings are supporting them as we are more economically secure (and more economically successful).

searchableguy 6y ago

I think I am qualified to answer this. It's harder to fool people when you can look at metrics compared to before. Information is widely available so adults can't make up rainbows to make me wage away for something that has no clear chance of a healthy life. Expectations are different for younger generation precisely because human productivity increased many folds but yet we have to grind more or less the same amount of time + spend more time in institutions which are not funded well except for the rich folks. Overall, world is getting better but that doesn't mean it is getting better relative to the effort everyone has put in for majority. I support equal opportunity rather than bandids. The system is rigged and harm some people more than others. We need to find the core problems and fix them but I have no political power. By the time I do, I may become a grumpy old man who thinks people deserve what they got and it's their fault. Education system normalize this. Punishments are applied fairly but students are not equal and don't have the same situation at home or outside school. We need to stop punishing people in ways that only drag them behind. Be it students or petty criminals. Dragging people behind is never a good way to achieve progress and our society is riddled with it. Living is a zero-sum game for many.

adammunich 6y ago
I agree, social mobility is extremely important for the progress of a society. Talent is not necessarily distributed to those born with silver spoons.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

scarface74 6y ago

If this is true (which I doubt) you should be able to find some statistic.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]