I think we need to take the breakdown of our economics seriously. It shows right now in the culture around young men, but I'd contend we're in the middle of a very big moment for lots of people on the fringes. (So, we might look at men losing their career in their 50s too, for example.) The basic of US economics was the wild frontier and the assumption was that we'll always need people - and if we don't know what to do with them, they can go out to the frontier and make their own way. What we've been living through is a moment where (combination of arrival of post-Soviet and China into our economic sphere, lot of labour, lot of educated labour) actually we have more people than we know what to do with. And I'd argue we have not faced up to this even remotely. The bad news, I'm not sure we even admit what has happened. The good news, in the medium term the population pendulum seems to be swinging back. We've lived through the big bump, the python has eaten the labour lump and now, slowly we need people more.
I'm a qualitative research moderator. Oftentimes when I'm talking to young people (high school/college level students), I get the sense that maybe there's an issue with there being "too many choices"- Kind of like a paradox of choice.
I'm 40, growing up I had a pretty clear idea of what my life should look like (not that it was the right one, but the expectation was clear)- I will go to school, then college, then get a job at a prestigious company, hopefully stay there for 20+ years....also have a family and then retire.
It didn't go that way exactly, but I see that for younger generations, college is now an option; for those who can, going abroad is an option, the notion of a 9 to 5 job is no longer relevant or appealing, nor is working for a corporation. Marriage is optional, kids are optional. You can do whatever you want, but there aren't enough sources to guide young people navigate through all of these options. And I think this is overwhelming too.
I loved finding this, thank you and greetings from Mexico City :)
Grant, I’m thinking about the Vietnam vets who returned in the 70’s who were forced to re-invent themselves amidst an environment which at best was indifferent to the time they spent offline. They did have an economy which seemed better equipped to absorb young, relatively unskilled men.
Today, we can offer our FTL kids jobs as baristas, uber drivers, and gig workers, all jobs which are best descibed as place-holders.
I think two unlikely things have to happen before this situation changes. We need an economic vision which considers the social benefit of an enterpise as part of its overall value. It’s not so much the amount of profit a business can generate as much as it’s how widely its prosperity is spread. And we need a renewed vision of social responsibility that attempts to engage it’s least privileged with opportunities to earn a living wage, even if undertaking these initiatives is inefficient from a strict cost of getting the job done perspective. Maybe I’m naive, but I think just getting onto the treadmill is often enough and always better than staying home waiting for a cheque in the mail.
As I said, I don’t think either of these things will happen, and I am sad about this. I don’t know what will change the economic status quo. Where’s the incentive for the powerful to change the game? Worse yet there’s little incentive to consider domestic prosperity as a factor in locating manufacturing which is a source of jobs for our FTLs. Secondly, as a society we cling to the notion that success can be achieved by anyone with enough detrmination and it is not the role of the state intervene in this supposedly egalitarian quest.
I think we need to take the breakdown of our economics seriously. It shows right now in the culture around young men, but I'd contend we're in the middle of a very big moment for lots of people on the fringes. (So, we might look at men losing their career in their 50s too, for example.) The basic of US economics was the wild frontier and the assumption was that we'll always need people - and if we don't know what to do with them, they can go out to the frontier and make their own way. What we've been living through is a moment where (combination of arrival of post-Soviet and China into our economic sphere, lot of labour, lot of educated labour) actually we have more people than we know what to do with. And I'd argue we have not faced up to this even remotely. The bad news, I'm not sure we even admit what has happened. The good news, in the medium term the population pendulum seems to be swinging back. We've lived through the big bump, the python has eaten the labour lump and now, slowly we need people more.
I'm a qualitative research moderator. Oftentimes when I'm talking to young people (high school/college level students), I get the sense that maybe there's an issue with there being "too many choices"- Kind of like a paradox of choice.
I'm 40, growing up I had a pretty clear idea of what my life should look like (not that it was the right one, but the expectation was clear)- I will go to school, then college, then get a job at a prestigious company, hopefully stay there for 20+ years....also have a family and then retire.
It didn't go that way exactly, but I see that for younger generations, college is now an option; for those who can, going abroad is an option, the notion of a 9 to 5 job is no longer relevant or appealing, nor is working for a corporation. Marriage is optional, kids are optional. You can do whatever you want, but there aren't enough sources to guide young people navigate through all of these options. And I think this is overwhelming too.
I loved finding this, thank you and greetings from Mexico City :)
Grant, I’m thinking about the Vietnam vets who returned in the 70’s who were forced to re-invent themselves amidst an environment which at best was indifferent to the time they spent offline. They did have an economy which seemed better equipped to absorb young, relatively unskilled men.
Today, we can offer our FTL kids jobs as baristas, uber drivers, and gig workers, all jobs which are best descibed as place-holders.
I think two unlikely things have to happen before this situation changes. We need an economic vision which considers the social benefit of an enterpise as part of its overall value. It’s not so much the amount of profit a business can generate as much as it’s how widely its prosperity is spread. And we need a renewed vision of social responsibility that attempts to engage it’s least privileged with opportunities to earn a living wage, even if undertaking these initiatives is inefficient from a strict cost of getting the job done perspective. Maybe I’m naive, but I think just getting onto the treadmill is often enough and always better than staying home waiting for a cheque in the mail.
As I said, I don’t think either of these things will happen, and I am sad about this. I don’t know what will change the economic status quo. Where’s the incentive for the powerful to change the game? Worse yet there’s little incentive to consider domestic prosperity as a factor in locating manufacturing which is a source of jobs for our FTLs. Secondly, as a society we cling to the notion that success can be achieved by anyone with enough detrmination and it is not the role of the state intervene in this supposedly egalitarian quest.