5 ms·
With regard to your first paragraph, I'd agree in part, but to me it appears more like polarisation than decline for the majority. The changes suit some people
by prawn 4y ago
With regard to your first paragraph, I'd agree in part, but to me it appears more like polarisation than decline for the majority. The changes suit some people (owning property while the market rises, as just one example) while not others. To me, it seems like a clear societal improvement for almost everyone creates more reliable prosperity - less fear of crime, dangerous behaviour, risky events, etc.
On the second point, you could obviously time inheriting assets to retire early, but I think there's risk in how it was done so that you didn't jeopardise future generations or lose purpose. There are typically existential risks for family businesses, as an example. It's easy to lose motivation/purpose if you have it easy and get things on a platter. There's exiting the rat race to retire or exiting to be self-employed in some fashion, as one consideration.
- balaji1 4y agoRight, it may not be a decline. But more of humanity is being pulled out of evolutionary stressors and forced into the same artificial stressors. There is clearly not enough incentive to bring a bigger portion of a population towards a [somewhat subjective] better quality of life. This might be the polarization inherent to human nature. So far we have done well to curb and mitigate crime, risky events, etc. Maybe the next phase will be more long-term focused including sustainability, responsible waste management, sensible regulations on fast-food and healthcare, etc. Let owning property while the market rises benefit the few, we cultivate human capital more broadly. We have to be cautious of bloat, red-tape, short-term-thinking spreading to more systems and processes. We have to do something about education systems that seem to face too much inertia and vested interests among other reasons to not witness significant-enough innovation. ^ a few random thoughts in response to your first point
- prawn 4y agoI'd be interested in stats about negative social behaviours (say household burglary, graffiti, etc) and how it relates (or doesn't) to home ownership. Is behaviour significantly different if someone feels a sense of ownership and belonging in a community?
- balaji1 4y agoOwnership and responsibility will be good in general for young folks. If youngsters were expected to be stewards, instead of being innovators and trailblazers and millionaires, it will be easier to belong. Land and home ownership has become harder, financially and psychologically, even for middle class and above. However the negative behaviors you mention is mostly younger people and they will not usually be owning homes by themselves. So your home ownership hunch might apply to the family of such actors; extrapolating, the general social fabric around potential negative actors is the realistic indicator. Which is a much more complex problem.