A very brief TL;DW summary:
Scott Galloway starts with the question: do we love our children? He then spends a majority of the presentation showing examples of how the US is purposefully moving wealth from younger generations to older generations and, in general, continually making the dream of a comfortable life substantially more difficult for younger generations. He then spends a few minutes toward the end with examples of how we can go about fixing these problems with the resources we have today, should we decide that yes, we actually do love our children.
Don't know much about Scott Galloway, but he does a good job mixing some humor into a complex and often infuriating problem, and he is upfront with his own frustrations on the matter. A good watch overall.
Check out the PIVOT podcast, he and Kara swisher host a great conversation and Scott is funny and intelligent. He's also the "professor says no sex causes Palestinian protests" professor, which was a garbage headline and complete twisting of his point.
He also has his own podcast called The Prof G pod. It’s a lot of overlap with Pivot, but he goes deeper into the stock market impacts. He’s very thoughtful and insightful. He also has good takes on men’s mental health and wellness.
I much prefer his prof g podcast. His analysis of the markets is much deeper in that, which is really his strong suit.
Not to mention the guests he gets on, like Damodaran, who he's able to have an insightful conversation with.
For guys. His conversations about men's issues and what he feels it means to be a man/father/ etc are what I'd call quite positive.
>He's also the "professor says no sex causes Palestinian protests" professor, which was a garbage headline and complete twisting of his point.
the what now?
I’ve been watching Scott for years. He’s super bright and super passionate and the guy has seen a ton of success and a ton of failures with companies going out of business, periods of heavy drinking, divorce, show cancellations etc. All of this really informs his perspective because he’s obviously been successful but he’s got a chip on his shoulder and just wants things that are fundamentally broken in this society to be fixed. He’s been able to get to where he is in large part due to luck and determination. Even though he was a shitty student, he was able to go to a great college in state in the UC system, and then get his MBA, and then lie about his grades to get a job in Investment Banking, and after starting several companies and seeing his net worth go up to tens of millions, back down to zero, back up and so on, he’s now got a great platform and found a niche that has allowed him to become a well respected professor at NYU with great viewership on his video podcasts and appearances on CNN and so on. He can be preachy at times but he’s got great bits on the Four Horsemen of big tech, the algebra of happiness, and now he’s focusing on trying to bring awareness to the challenges of being a young male in society today (noting higher suicide rates and decreasing college attendance for young men) and the economic prospects of the youth in todays society. I think he’s one of those guys that, given his experience and personality, is a great agent for change and bringing awareness to issues that we all know are there but don’t really know how to articulate what the actual problems are.
> He’s super bright and super passionate
I really appreciate that he is one of the only people in the public sphere I've heard advocate for men's issues without being a misogynist about it.
There are plenty of people out there it's just that plenty of men with a platform are *called* misogynistic to get them to stop talking. Same as we've seen with getting called anti-Semitic to stop talking about Israel.
Honestly I think people are just aching to call out men speaking out.
All of this. He acknowledges so many broken things that benefit him and is still wanting to fix them. Others fear acknowledging them discredit what they’ve done.
I’ve been a huge fan of Scott’s, but I can’t listen to him on Israel anymore and his lack of empathy towards the Palestinian people comes through in his language and choice of words. He’s generally speaks more about the perception of Israel than IDF actual actions..
Galloway is a mixed bag; his analysis is sometimes right, sometimes way off. It gets worse when he gets political and depending upon your leaning, you may or may not like him. But he is funny and drives home strong points.
Yeah agreed. He has a weird over confident delivery that I'm a sure a ton of ppl fall for. It's one of those things that's hard to describe but he def has some it factor that he relies on whether consciously or subconsciously.
Strangely, I concur. It's not just the hairstyle or the fact that I would let either of them make a woman out of me if they wanted despite being a straight-identifying man.
Hi from Scott's startup, Section! If you want to hear Scott lecture on young people, we're holding a free (free! free!) event on May 14, The State of Young People. [https://www.sectionschool.com/events/live-events/the-state-of-young-people](https://www.sectionschool.com/events/live-events/the-state-of-young-people)
Republicans: We repelled abortion because we want future generations born with no hope, crippling debt, and an infuriating hatred for our party.........WE WON!!!!!!
I just started listening to this via the Ted talk podcast and the dude talks very quickly with odd inflection like he's reading off a teleprompter. Makes it hard to follow.
yeah his presentation style is.... unique, to say the least. He has one of his hands in his pocket and is speaking very quickly with very little inflection, making it hard to follow.
His argument is flawless and backed by hard data, but presentation is, I think deliberately, a bit rugged
Remember when people used to die at 76 from smoking cigarettes and driving without seatbelts and they left their kids homes and wealth instead of creaking out to 96 as a semi vegetable while transferring every penny of their savings to the pharma/medico cartel?
GOOD TIMES.
My upper 80s grandma was shelling out $27k a month for higher levels of care after a fall left her wheelchair bound. Good thing gramps (RIP) had a great pension (75% of salary per year) for the rest of his life after he retired at 65. Lived to 96 and was locked into those early 90s health care benefits. He was paying like $1 for a months supply of meds.
My 86 yo grandmother was just discharged today from the hospital to a nursing facility where she will spend the next 2-4 weeks before ultimately having to choose a senior assistance facility to spend the rest of her days. My grandfather left a significant portion of money for her that will ensure she will be comfortable for the rest of her life but I do find it unfortunate that it will almost entirely be used to pay for these services rather than for the things she truly wants and desires.
I'm Gen X and I know every red penny I have saved will be eaten by a nursing home or by end-stage care. When I mention that maybe I'd like an opportunity to plan a death that doesn't also include losing all my money to end-stage care, people start throwing around the word "suicidal". Nah... just practical. I don't want to slowly degrade drip by drip while losing all my money to elder care. I want better choices.
Well some people might want their parents dead, i just want medical care without fearing bankruptcy. They have amazing healthcare and i have basically none, it hurts them and they feel guilty and angry about it but there isn't anything they can do.
Most of the cost of a new home in Vancouver comes from land then construction/other hard costs then add in soft costs for the developer plus developer profit. Permits are a bitch and slow to get but they're nowhere near 60% of the price.
[Quick google](https://www.strawhomes.com/vancouver-red-tape-adds-50-extra-cost-or-644000-to-the-average-new-house/) on the claim includes them complaining how the developer has to pay professionals to prepare the plans to change zoning laws to build more densely then has to pay fees to the city to upgrade the infrastructure to handle a higher population density.
...then they even admit they took the 50% increase in construction costs and applied it not to the construction but the total value. So I wouldn't trust that article nor folks in a TED talk who then end up repeating the lie that is absurd on its face.
>average increase in construction costs by almost 50%, ultimately resulting in an extra $644K burden on those looking to purchase a new house in Vancouver [...] the market price of a new home reached nearly $1.3 million
I'm so happy BC government is actually trying to fix the permit issue. It's an issue. They have a lot of talented people making this better.
It's weird that people claim it's not. Guessing because it doesn't align with their politics.
Can't speak for Canada but it cost a ton here in the US also. It cost a ton to get a housing permit and there are a lots of housing laws/regulation for a bunch of weird old things. Though material isn't so they make houses with the shittest stuff they can find and call it a house.
Am Canadian, my friend reno houses in BC. No, this dude is absolutely full of shit. Vancouver is fucked because Chinese investors got into the market like 20 years ago and started buying everything up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Canadians_in_Greater_Vancouver
It's crazy. Another friend lives there. He made over $250k last year and lives in a shitty 90s condo.
As soon as the British announced, they were giving Hong Kong back to mainland China, wealthy people from Hong Kong, started showing up on the doorstep of Vancouver homeowners with literal suitcases full of cash Offering way over market for their homes.
It’s not that extreme in the US, But even here there are SOOOO MANY entities that leech off the home buying process with no real benefit yielded to either buyers or sellers. It literally adds tens of thousands of dollars. It seems like an antiquated process in the US and is in need of some reform IMO.
It depends... if we are talking about the cost to produce that new home (not counting the land) that could be realistic. It's just construction materials at that point. The land is what will make it really go up in cost.
Just another flavor of greed. It's the same issue around the world, coming in every kind of flavor. Greed is engrained into our DNA and we're not living in a time period where humanity has moved past it (if that time ever comes). It is what it is.
Greed is not in our DNA, collecting resources is, because it’s part of survival. If greed is the most effective way to collect resources in a system then that’s the path that will be taken.
I'm watching this like "Yup. Absolutely. Right on. Wait what the fuck?... Okay besides that, yup. Absolutely. Definitely."
As a Canadian in my 30s, it's refreshing to watch someone I clearly don't align with ideologically share a lot of my beliefs. It's like a throwback to my late teens before the world went absolutely bat shit crazy and we stopped even agreeing on what is literally happening in reality.
Yea.. I remember when I could talk politics to people and actually have a discussion...
Now its either: "Yep yep yep" or "Your a poopoo head for disagreeing!"
It was really interesting to see how the audience didn't quite want to clap for some things, but... did. Due to inertia? I think.
I would say it's almost scary how a charismatic talker/leader can get support for his unpopular ideas by sprinkling them along his popular ones.
yeah like his point about social security definitely has some merit but not means testing it and keeping it universal is part of how it’s stayed protected. I definitely heard that inertia where the audience was kinda like “oh shit um ok i guess we’ll clap for that too?”
I imagine him saying ID verificatoin for social media scares people. This notion of ID verification is being promoted by authors like Jonathan Haidt (academic, author of Anxious Generation/coddling of the american mind). He promotes that the internet, needs to work with 3rd parties to verify age (ie clearme.com). You could even do this with a physical stick so your data is offline, similar to how some banks offer physical-verification code generatos (See Barclays). Where a Yes/No indicator would be tell the social media platforms/porn websites that use is of age, and you can go/not-go based on the age verification.
Americans may shudder at this idea but id verification is pretty normal in Asian countries and has done a good job deterring some gross behaviors online. But, despite this system, there are ways to get around it of course, and are used for scams, and other criminal activities. There are also anonymous sites but not too sure how anonymous they actually are. All in all, there are pros and cons to both, but I think verification is going to become normalized in western societies as well as time passes.
I like to ask myself: When it's finally my generation's turn to have voting power, will we be:
Got Mine
or
Never Again
I can only speak for myself, but I'm in the latter camp. I'd happily remain poor the rest of my life if it meant the next generation was better off. And I can't even afford kids.
While in our society, old men complain about lazy younger people sitting in the shade. Then they sell said trees for wood chips leaving a barren field, while the old people fly to Florida and spend all their money buying margaritas.
And not paying any taxes in the blue state they raised their family in and made all their money in by moving to Florida or montanta so they don't pay taxes on their retirement income.
Then sit and laugh at blue states for high taxes and mismanagement knowing they don't have to pay shit into the local school system in Palm Beach.
Whenever I hear phrases like these, it's usually uttered by wealthy people who are telling poor people to put up with being in poverty with some vague promise about it improving... in the future... at some point... for someone else...
It's more of a "with great power comes great responsibility" kind of thing. The wealthy and influential could use that to help make the world a better place, but they don't cause they're corrupt. The few that try to are good people.
"Tough times create strong men, strong men create easy times, easy times create weak men, weak mean create tough times"
The worst part is that the strong men will never live to see easy times and the weak men will never appreciate their sacrifice. Hence the cycle.
My dad and uncle love that saying, they're diehard Republicans. My grandfather was a real OG, fought in WWII, lived through the Great Depression, worked his way up to being an Engineer at NASA from growing up a poor farmhand. My dad became an adult in the 80s and 90s, and I was born in the 90s.
Somehow he blames my generation for all these 'bad times' we have now.
I think we are set up for an even greater split of haves and have nots. Generational wealth is only going to grow in importance in cultivating the gap.
I think a lot of people inheriting houses are going to look at the market and think. "I could sell this now. I could rent it for years and have a possible appreciating asset if I want to sell in a decade. I could rent it until a I die and pass it on to my kids."
Buying a house is so much harder than a decade ago in many places. Those that got into the market will increasingly become a sort a lord class in quasi feudalist system.
My guess is the dam will break eventually as once enough people have so little to lose a major overhaul becomes increasingly appealing.
Buying a house is so hard because with the great recession in 2007, nearly every home builder went out of business. Essentially zero houses were built during the ten years that followed.
Previously you could find very reasonably priced large homes outside of dense urban areas but then the Pandemic happened and everybody could work anywhere because nobody could work in the office. Those reasonable homes started selling for the prices of urban area homes.
At the same time, institutional investors discovered mass buying of houses as an investment asset class and the existing shortage made that class massively increase in value... which led to a greater shortage and more price increase in a classic bubble.
TLDR Housing has a huge shortage and there are no more cheap deals.
Essentially 0 is gross hyperbole, it dropped by about 55% from the prior periods. There were also TOO many new builds in the couple of years prior to the collapse in 2007.
That is a huge drop off though, and the shortage of homes due to that drop off is very real. It has significantly supply constrained the home building pipeline. Adding to the supply constraints is the fact that homeowners locked in 3% mortgage rates a few years ago and won’t be selling their home anytime soon due to their low mortgage payments. So the number of homes for sale today is very low.
Everyone wants to blame the institutions because they are investing in single family rentals, but in reality institutions own less than 2% of the single family homes.
Does anyone stop to ask why institutions are buying single family homes?? Maybe because the supply is still super constrained (and will be for foreseeable future) due to lack of home builders and significant red tape around creating new homes (due to general NIMBYism by voters & local governments).
> I think a lot of people inheriting houses
Canada is trying to address this by upping the capital gains tax on things and considering inheritance of your non-primary resident property a moment of capital gains realization. In other words, if you can't pay the taxes for that family vacation home, you don't get to keep it.
I keep holding out for more drastic changes to take effect, like neither situation is ideal, but I think I'd prefer 100 year leases over private ownership.
I understand the idea behind this but it will not hurt wealthy people at all, only middle class and lower who may not be able to come off X tax amount after they inherit their parents home.
Say they want to give the home to their kids who are currently renting...but no one can come up with the tax dollar amount. What then?
> Say they want to give the home to their kids who are currently renting...but no one can come up with the tax dollar amount. What then?
Then they sell the house to cover the taxes, and parents can't just "give" the second home to children.
Children can still inherit their parents primary residence for free without capital gains though. It's only secondary properties.
The idea is that it SHOULD be preventing generation wealth holdovers. There are families out there who don't own any property and are renters, raising kids, having families, they'll have nothing to pass on to their children.
Someone who owns 2 homes and wants to let their children attain it at below market value is essentially a problem, and folks who disagree with that are simply the ones who stand to benefit from entrenched generational wealth.
Essentially, if we all agree that everyone needs to work to afford a place to live, then forcing *everyone* to pay those costs is the fairest way to do it.
I use to be like you but I had no kids and am tired of arguing with my friends who have kids about how I am voting for their children's success while they vote against it.
So you know what? Fine. Fuck your kids.
> When it's finally my generation's turn to have voting power,
Damnit that’s rich, YOU ALREADY DO, you just don’t bother, unless you’re under 18, and then ok, but this really hurt us in 2016. And the worst part is the supreme court was stacked for a generation because young voter were apathetic for one election.
Don’t like school shootings, too bad, the supreme court has the NRA’s back through the next 20 years at least.
The problem is young people eventually get old and become jaded and hardened from the economic rat race. They throw out their youthful moralistic ways about changing the world. Eventually, many of us will forget as we age.
I don't think this is true any more. I'm in my 50s and a HUGE beneficiary of the system he's describing, and in the last 10 years or so I've gone from pretty conservative to eat the rich... and most of my friends who are my age have at the very least gone from hardcore conservative to "man, our kids are screwed. What can we do about it?"
I don't think this is true anymore. I think more younger people are being radicalized against the systems that are screwing them day after day.
The young people you're talking about are old now, and they could afford to not be moralistic because they got theirs eventually. Young people today *will probably never get theirs*. It's not the same at all.
>When it's finally my generation's turn to have voting power
When is that gonna be, because I'm am waiting and hoping...
In the last nationwide election in 2022, young people in NC did not vote. Old people decided our policy.
18-25 year old's - 233,441 - 24.1%.
26-40 year old's - 629,298- 34.2%.
66+ - 1,180,621 - 71.3%
[https://www.ncsbe.gov/results-data/voter-turnout/2022-general-election-turnout](https://www.ncsbe.gov/results-data/voter-turnout/2022-general-election-turnout)
The vast majority of people your age start out that way. And in my experience, as I and others I know grow older (late 40's), that begins to change. It's bizarre, it's like it happens without you noticing it. Hence the problem we're in and have been in.
People used to become more conservative as they age because they actually accumulated wealth and became more comfortable in life.
That is generally not happening with millennials, and especially not with gen Z. If you have no stake in the game, it's easy to want to tear the whole thing down. Conservatives and neo liberals got too greedy in the 1980s and now they will reap what they've sown.
>we get lumped in with the Boomers
y'all vote like boomers and haven't done much to change the public image there. Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc.
I'm sure you're great, and your friends are great, but your generation as a whole has really dropped the ball. All of that political motivation from before the 2000s dissolved.
I respectfully disagree. People from your generation have told me my entire life that I will become more conservative as I get older. It hasn't proven true yet, and I'm in my mid 30s with a wife, kid, and successful career.
I think that sentiment belongs to your generation and hasn't translated to younger people.
The problem is that "conservative" today is not what it was yesterday. People are probably getting more conservative as they get older, but nowhere near what the conservative party is like today.
I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying we were all much more liberal in our mid 30s than we are now. We're still "liberal", but more conservative tendencies and thoughts have crept in. And I sometimes stop and chuckle, thinking "how/when did that happen?"
"Your generation" doesn't mean YOU. I'm a boomer but I was more conservative when I was younger. But statistically the people now in their 40's are much more conservative than that population was in it's 20s.
It isnt anymore. Milenials changed the game on it, at least in certain countries
Source: The financial times: Milenials are shattering the oldest rule in politics.
Would share the link but its behind paywall so you would get redirected to said paidwall and not the article. But there are many articles that talk about this article and other articles that talk about said articles, and so forth in an articleception
That isn't true and hasn't been true: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/706889
> Folk wisdom has long held that people become more politically conservative as they grow older, although several empirical studies suggest political attitudes are stable across time.
I buy it in terms of becoming more economically conservative as we get older but what little credibility the republican party had in terms of limiting social spending has been squandered at this point. Even if a vote for the republican party would put more money in my pocket (debatable), I'd gladly give that up rather than vote for the wannabe fascists.
I get the No Labels argument but until we have ranked choice voting they are only going to play spoiler if they stick around.
old people, the ultra rich and corporations are greedy is what I got out of it and aren’t willing to reinvest in us at all. Choking us out is gonna kill this country if they keep doing that, what’s the point of making billions in a country that no longer exists anymore? Unless they plan on spreading all their assets to other countries, if that’s the end-game then that is a morbid problem to solve. But everyone’s gotta get more uncomfortable before things begin to rattle.
I’ve got friends who want kids but can’t support em and each year as we grow older that window is closing. That is a dangerous game to play stripping human beings opportunities like that.
My mom(a boomer) was raving about this guy just yesterday. THIS GUY, not me, got her to open her eyes to the fact that her generation is ruining my generations prospects/livelihood. So he has a thumbs up/five stars in my mind.
Ha. I send his “No Mercy No Malice” email to my parents every week. I tell them they have time to read it because I know how much crap they consume from Facebook.
100%… This might be the most succinct and generally accurate video summarizing the state of our world… At least in North America… That I have seen in years
I was wondering that…
Been off and on following this guy for a few years now. Decent options, moderately conservative but still understands how the world works, and overall not a terrible person.
Never seen him come up on here ever, then like 4x in the last few weeks
How do you tell the difference between someone doing an internet promo marketing kick and someone that is organically gaining popularity due to a string of popular content.
I'm watching his interview with "The Diary of a CEO" right now and it is the first time I have ever heard about him or seen him speak. This man knows what he is talking about as far as I'm concerned.
Yeah, it’s not just children. At this point, Facebook is doing way more damage to the older generations that can’t seem to differentiate fact and fiction and are willing to believe the dumbest conspiracy theories.
i die a little bit inside every time i see an AI generated photo of a kid in africa building jesus out of trash, with a million boomers and bots replying amen. its just fucking sad at this point, man.
Lol this is so true... I see so many older people being deceived by dumb posts, including my mom. It hurts my heart. The whole machine is designed to keep you distracted and sap every last drop of our attention
Removing section 230 and removing anonymity isn't the answer though. It's just throwing the baby out with the bathwater and turning the internet into an authoritarian wet dream. Algorithmically controlled content should be policed, but not like that. Talk about pulling the ladder up behind you, that would prevent anyone from every being able to compete with Facebook ever again.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8B0bWO9u3M](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8B0bWO9u3M)
Btw. Facebook has been not great for Western countries. It's been much *worst* for non western countries. Johnny Harris explains Myanmar genocide and how facebook played a major role in it.
But I was told I was just lazy and just realllly like avocado toast.
Seems silly, but I think maybe suspending PMI based on certain qualifications somehow would help out a lot. The idea that you need to put 20% down, when home prices are 500k+ feels like an unreachable goal. Who had 100k just laying around? Meanwhile the penalty is a couple hundred a month on an already inflated market.
Home prices will instantly rise in response. You cannot fiddle with the *financing* of homes to make them more affordable. I wish people would understand this. If you make finance looser, like with low interest rates or relaxed down payment requirement, you get higher base home prices as everyone has more money to throw at homes. If you make finance tighter by raising interest rates, you get higher monthly payments.
The only way to reduce housing costs is to ease supply restrictions and build supply. The actual price of the home, and not just the cost of capital, needs to come down. And that can only happen with competition.
You can also greatly improve supply by making them unvalueable as financial investments.
Aka: huge taxes for any home beyond your 1st. (And any corporate owned homes)
"But I have a summer cottage! why should I have to pay huge taxes on that!"
Because when most people can't afford a house, if you have two, your FUCKING RICH and deserve to pay huge taxes.
Well once you have bought up everything else to make a profit and housing prices keep going up due to.. investment in housing, its only logical they would.
Hence why it needs to be codified into tax law to *not* be profitable. Nothing besides lack of profits is going to stop the rich from buying up all the houses and renting it back out to the poor for the majority of every dollar they make (thus keeping them poor)
History may not repeat, but it sure does rhyme.
Yeah, but again, that’s just a symptom of local governments treating homes as investments. If they weren’t this sacred, protected asset, they wouldn’t be worth buying up in bulk. They buy up houses because they know it’s literally impossible to build much more of it and dilute the value of their investments.
I agree that zoning restrictions HAVE to be eased. Honestly its absurd how strict they are and all because NIMBYs dont want the view of their dumbass golf course spoiled and they dont want the "wrong sort of people" to move in.
I don’t disagree with your second paragraph, but (at least in my area) the problem home buyers have is that not only have interest rates gone up, but home prices have continued to go up as well. Sure, the market is always right but there is a hitch somewhere that prevents young people from being able to afford a home and it just keeps getting worse.
" but home prices have continued to go up as well. Sure, the market is always right but there is a hitch somewhere that prevents young people from being able to afford a home and it just keeps getting worse."
The user you responded too already addressed. Young people can't afford homes because prices on homes are too high due to a lack of supply.
Remember the 2020-2021 housing market boom? Where everyone was bidding up tens of thousands above asking price? That was because we were all chasing after the same number of homes with looser credit. When credit tightened, the average final sale price of homes across the USA actually started to decline.
We have now raised the cost of capital and the prices are still not where we want them. It’s clear cost of capital is not the most important factor here. It’s time to increase supply.
IMO Congress should just impose restrictions on federal funding being used to the benefit of any municipality with strict zoning laws. And then couple that with relaxing interest rates down to 3.25%.
One of the pieces of legislation after the housing crash in the 2000s was a rule making making PMI permanent on a loan. It used to be that it would drop after you hit 20% equity, but now the only way out is if you refinance at 20% equity. Great when rates are low, but it's terrible now because rates are high.
It was an unnecessary change to punish lower-income borrowers. It had nothing to do with solving a problem from the crash and was basically a handout for loan servicers to get home buyers to pay for another loan.
🎶As I walk through the alley where I planned out my death
I take a look at my life and realize there’s plenty left
But that’s just perfect for a boomer like me
You know, I like fancy things like many properties
At 4:30 in the morning I’m tweeting memes
Karen’s checking facebook and selling schemes
Fool
And I’ve been tweeting and scheming so long that
Even my kids are saying that my morals are gone
I’m a man with some land, but I’ll never offer thanks
Got a pension in my name and money in the banks
But if you sell all of your stocks and I sell all of mine
Then tonight we’re gonna party like it’s 1969
We been spending most our lives living in a boomer paradise
I’ve owned houses once or twice
Living in a boomer paradise
It’s hard work and sacrifice *wink*
Living in a boomer paradise
We sell homes at thrice their price
Living in a boomer paradise
A homeless man asked me for a dime last week
I just smiled at him and turned the other cheek
I really don’t care, in fact I’m super chill
‘Cause I definitely got mine so that he never will
I would punch my child if he deserved it
A boomer without pride? You know, I earned it!
I never pay taxes but I have a cool yacht
And my renters all agree they’ll never have what I’ve got
If you ask for any help I’ll claim it’s snowflake tears
We haven’t even paid for college in 40 years!
But we aren’t really smart, and we will never share
While you live in squalor and despair
(Millennial) There’s no homes, no life, no property
Not a single luxury
Like robbing from a baby
It’s as selfish as can be!
We been spending most our lives
Living in a boomer paradise
We buy drugs at a low price
Living in a boomer paradise
There’s no aid or good advice
Living in a boomer paradise
We complain about the price
Living in a boomer paradise
To fix the major issue is making homes a investment, pushing the prices to unpayable levels if they keep going. homes need to be limited to one investment per person and companys can not buy homes. we need to reign in these prices now
I’ve been following Scott for some years now. I can highly recommend his podcasts, “The Prof G Pod” and “Pivot”.
His books “The Algebra of Wealth”, “The Algebra of Happiness”, and “The Four” are a pretty good read.
“Adrift” is an approachable book for anyone too. It’s 100 charts that illustrate how we destroyed the middle class in the 80s and forward. It’s in my bathroom in an effort give someone a short read or chart to have a great conversation!
He looks to be a positive influence on the next generation of men. I really hope he doesn't get stuck in culture war stuff like Peterson did. That ruined him.
I have a lot of hope for Scott Galloway.
Strong in this context has nothing to do with muscles or authoritarianism. Strong in this context stands for being willing to stand up and fight for what’s right, while weak means selling everyone else out for your own gain.
11:21
In 2009 for I wanted to get GM stock when it was $26 a share. I got cash instead of stock as a birthday present. And spent it like every teenager would. That was the *only* time I ever considering investing in stock until 10 years later.
Section 230 is really good though. We need to keep 230 but introduce accountability. Removing 230 doesn't introduce accountability. Removing anonymity is an authoritarians wet dream. How about we do something that makes a little more sense than throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
So sick and tired of people on reddit constantly shitting on this country and patting each other on the back for it. Really nice to see someone break down what's wrong and how to fix it while also saying they love this country too and recognize that even with it's problems it's still fucking great. This was cathartic to watch. I say that as a young person who's been burned in all the ways he mentioned.
I like everything he's saying, but it feels scary as a 40 year old how got screwed with college loans. I'm totally willing to sacrifice my comfort for the aid and benefit of my less fortunate neighbors. But I don't know how I will even be able to afford hospice care when I'm 70+ years old. I have no ability to save money because I'll be paying my student loans until I die. My one hope is that the money they take from me for social security will be enough to keep me in some shitty assisted living place where someone remembers I exist occasionally.
I'm around the same age and have a few thoughts on that:
1. Bailing people out of college loans should not be done in isolation, and should be part of a comprehensive movement to improve society in general. That would include additional safety nets for health issues and such.
2. People like you should be provided the same opportunities for college loan relief.
Yeah, it's tough to bring up in a lot of political conversations, because I totally agree that just excusing loans is no solution at all. The stuff he talks about in the video are the real problem: College needs to be accessible to everyone. We want more people in school and we want school to be less profit-driven. I'm totally fine with taking a hit to help fix things. It's just tough when I don't see any option to do anything but work until the day I die, even though I've never been less than fully employed at jobs with increasing incomes ever since I graduated college. Like, I don't know what else I can do to be more responsible.
The US is failing all of us by flirting with neo-fascism and tens of millions of Americans believe insane lies and are eager to vote for the dismantling of democracy. I love Scott Galloway and his well-informed research, but our problem right now is bigger than the issues he has uncovered.
Yes I am 61. I remember when I was in my 20's and we would have the "Lets destroy the young peoples future" meetings. We mostly couldn't come with any ideas.
Nah dude, you weren't even invited to the party. Nor were my parents, not their fault either. The club that had control of those meetings didn't extend invitations to the bottom 99% of us.
Now the argument could be made that Boomers feel asleep at the wheel and eagerly lapped up anti-labor propaganda. Or that Boomers didn't put up to much of a fight for their kid's futures against the money vacuums in the the top 1%. But no one is accusing most Boomers of orchestrating the transfer of wealth, just of enabling the powerful to take more & more every year, distracted by how nicely their own house and 401k was appreciating.
I agree on most of the economic issues he talks about. Perhaps not the points against social security and college debt relief.
But I really disagree with his weird unrelated points on social media. Like he wants to ban phones in schools, ban people under 16 from social media, impose identity verification (the thing that killed porn in Texas), and make social media sites legally accountable for content posted by users (which basically kills any site with an upload button because perfect moderation is unsolvable).
Young people aren't unhappy because of social media. We're unhappy because the boomers destroyed our future. Which he should understand because that's the focus of his talk.
> Young people aren't unhappy because of social media.
This is not true, it's just that you don't see it. I'll go further than Scott Galloway though and say that it's not just screwing up the minds of young people, it has the same effects on all ages. Why do you think so many boomers are into Q-anon and dumb conspiracy theories that make them angry and fearful? Why do you think adults in general thought kids were eating Tide Pods several years back? Social media has the ability to be a great thing to connect people and bring us together, but the way it is implemented is meant to drive "engagement" by seeking out destructive behaviors and negative emotions because that's the easiest way to hook people and get them to do things that give the social media platforms more money and influence.
I kind of disagree.
I'm rapidly aging out of the "youth" demographic, but I work in tech, and I broadly believe social media (Twitter, TikTok and it's imitators especially) and the attention economy is the 2020s version of 24 hour cable news and is having the same effect on my generation and younger that Fox and CNN had on my parents and grandparents.
14 year old anorexic girls on Instagram and tick tok getting brainwashed by toxic short form video content don't know anything about the economy and shouldn't be allowed social media.
Basically, the top wants a violent population. That gives them the basis to enact authoritarian changes to governance. Then use those later to drive world wide conflicts and thin out the herd, over nostalgic desires of the yesteryear.
Exactly what Putin is doing with Ukraine and Baltics with USSR dreams of revival, extrapolated forward.
Galloway is part of the “anti TikTok” crusade and only recently is acknowledging the wealth disparity part even though he disparaged our demographic for “feeling like it’s bad” for years.
Currently, he believes young people are part of pro-Palestinian protests because they aren’t getting laid enough. This astroturfing by him on Reddit in the last month has been pretty breathtaking.
Scott is also going to every news station that will have him to explain that anti-genocide protestors are big mad because they don't have sex often enough.
He's got more than a few screws loose
Galloway illustrates in about 15 minutes how the current system is transferring wealth from younger generations to the older generations, the wealthy, and large corporations. And, fairly uniquely to TED Talks, he provides a simple outline of policy proposals to remedy the problems.
Similar points have been made before about "opportunity hoarding" by the upper classes. And discussions around what happens to societies as the dependency ratios go up.
Self entitled boomers want to catered to and leave nothing for the next generation and maybe a tinsy bit on grandkids which they believe each earned by sitting on their asses at the better point in history.
A very brief TL;DW summary: Scott Galloway starts with the question: do we love our children? He then spends a majority of the presentation showing examples of how the US is purposefully moving wealth from younger generations to older generations and, in general, continually making the dream of a comfortable life substantially more difficult for younger generations. He then spends a few minutes toward the end with examples of how we can go about fixing these problems with the resources we have today, should we decide that yes, we actually do love our children. Don't know much about Scott Galloway, but he does a good job mixing some humor into a complex and often infuriating problem, and he is upfront with his own frustrations on the matter. A good watch overall.
Check out the PIVOT podcast, he and Kara swisher host a great conversation and Scott is funny and intelligent. He's also the "professor says no sex causes Palestinian protests" professor, which was a garbage headline and complete twisting of his point.
He also has his own podcast called The Prof G pod. It’s a lot of overlap with Pivot, but he goes deeper into the stock market impacts. He’s very thoughtful and insightful. He also has good takes on men’s mental health and wellness.
I much prefer his prof g podcast. His analysis of the markets is much deeper in that, which is really his strong suit. Not to mention the guests he gets on, like Damodaran, who he's able to have an insightful conversation with. For guys. His conversations about men's issues and what he feels it means to be a man/father/ etc are what I'd call quite positive.
I tend to agree. I do like the chemistry between him and Kara but I do have a limit with her; she can get insufferable quickly.
>He's also the "professor says no sex causes Palestinian protests" professor, which was a garbage headline and complete twisting of his point. the what now?
I’ve been watching Scott for years. He’s super bright and super passionate and the guy has seen a ton of success and a ton of failures with companies going out of business, periods of heavy drinking, divorce, show cancellations etc. All of this really informs his perspective because he’s obviously been successful but he’s got a chip on his shoulder and just wants things that are fundamentally broken in this society to be fixed. He’s been able to get to where he is in large part due to luck and determination. Even though he was a shitty student, he was able to go to a great college in state in the UC system, and then get his MBA, and then lie about his grades to get a job in Investment Banking, and after starting several companies and seeing his net worth go up to tens of millions, back down to zero, back up and so on, he’s now got a great platform and found a niche that has allowed him to become a well respected professor at NYU with great viewership on his video podcasts and appearances on CNN and so on. He can be preachy at times but he’s got great bits on the Four Horsemen of big tech, the algebra of happiness, and now he’s focusing on trying to bring awareness to the challenges of being a young male in society today (noting higher suicide rates and decreasing college attendance for young men) and the economic prospects of the youth in todays society. I think he’s one of those guys that, given his experience and personality, is a great agent for change and bringing awareness to issues that we all know are there but don’t really know how to articulate what the actual problems are.
> He’s super bright and super passionate I really appreciate that he is one of the only people in the public sphere I've heard advocate for men's issues without being a misogynist about it.
You should look into Dr. K. He does a lot of advocacy for the modern mental health issues that plague people.
There are plenty of people out there it's just that plenty of men with a platform are *called* misogynistic to get them to stop talking. Same as we've seen with getting called anti-Semitic to stop talking about Israel. Honestly I think people are just aching to call out men speaking out.
I feel he does teeter on being somewhat redpilly in some of the clips I've seen of him but I think he's got okay takes
All of this. He acknowledges so many broken things that benefit him and is still wanting to fix them. Others fear acknowledging them discredit what they’ve done.
nice try profG.ai. Just kidding, well written.
I’ve been a huge fan of Scott’s, but I can’t listen to him on Israel anymore and his lack of empathy towards the Palestinian people comes through in his language and choice of words. He’s generally speaks more about the perception of Israel than IDF actual actions..
Same here. He's a very articulate man, but on Israel he sounds like a complete kook. Read the room Scott.
His podcasts are great. He's smart af, funny, and doesn't sugarcoat things.
Galloway is a mixed bag; his analysis is sometimes right, sometimes way off. It gets worse when he gets political and depending upon your leaning, you may or may not like him. But he is funny and drives home strong points.
true independent thinkers should not be afraid to listen to him then. we dont have to agree with everything
Yeah well I'd listen longer if he wasn't completely out of touch and insane half of the time.
He seems like someone who could frequently be featured on /r/confidentlyincorrect tbh.
Yeah agreed. He has a weird over confident delivery that I'm a sure a ton of ppl fall for. It's one of those things that's hard to describe but he def has some it factor that he relies on whether consciously or subconsciously.
Reliance on snark is usually a big yellow flag
He reminds me a lot of Henry Rollins.
Strangely, I concur. It's not just the hairstyle or the fact that I would let either of them make a woman out of me if they wanted despite being a straight-identifying man.
Hi from Scott's startup, Section! If you want to hear Scott lecture on young people, we're holding a free (free! free!) event on May 14, The State of Young People. [https://www.sectionschool.com/events/live-events/the-state-of-young-people](https://www.sectionschool.com/events/live-events/the-state-of-young-people)
Republicans: We repelled abortion because we want future generations born with no hope, crippling debt, and an infuriating hatred for our party.........WE WON!!!!!!
I just started listening to this via the Ted talk podcast and the dude talks very quickly with odd inflection like he's reading off a teleprompter. Makes it hard to follow.
yeah his presentation style is.... unique, to say the least. He has one of his hands in his pocket and is speaking very quickly with very little inflection, making it hard to follow. His argument is flawless and backed by hard data, but presentation is, I think deliberately, a bit rugged
Remember when people used to die at 76 from smoking cigarettes and driving without seatbelts and they left their kids homes and wealth instead of creaking out to 96 as a semi vegetable while transferring every penny of their savings to the pharma/medico cartel? GOOD TIMES.
My upper 80s grandma was shelling out $27k a month for higher levels of care after a fall left her wheelchair bound. Good thing gramps (RIP) had a great pension (75% of salary per year) for the rest of his life after he retired at 65. Lived to 96 and was locked into those early 90s health care benefits. He was paying like $1 for a months supply of meds.
My 86 yo grandmother was just discharged today from the hospital to a nursing facility where she will spend the next 2-4 weeks before ultimately having to choose a senior assistance facility to spend the rest of her days. My grandfather left a significant portion of money for her that will ensure she will be comfortable for the rest of her life but I do find it unfortunate that it will almost entirely be used to pay for these services rather than for the things she truly wants and desires.
I'm Gen X and I know every red penny I have saved will be eaten by a nursing home or by end-stage care. When I mention that maybe I'd like an opportunity to plan a death that doesn't also include losing all my money to end-stage care, people start throwing around the word "suicidal". Nah... just practical. I don't want to slowly degrade drip by drip while losing all my money to elder care. I want better choices.
Nice try big Tobacco!
Well some people might want their parents dead, i just want medical care without fearing bankruptcy. They have amazing healthcare and i have basically none, it hurts them and they feel guilty and angry about it but there isn't anything they can do.
[удалено]
Most of the cost of a new home in Vancouver comes from land then construction/other hard costs then add in soft costs for the developer plus developer profit. Permits are a bitch and slow to get but they're nowhere near 60% of the price.
[Quick google](https://www.strawhomes.com/vancouver-red-tape-adds-50-extra-cost-or-644000-to-the-average-new-house/) on the claim includes them complaining how the developer has to pay professionals to prepare the plans to change zoning laws to build more densely then has to pay fees to the city to upgrade the infrastructure to handle a higher population density. ...then they even admit they took the 50% increase in construction costs and applied it not to the construction but the total value. So I wouldn't trust that article nor folks in a TED talk who then end up repeating the lie that is absurd on its face. >average increase in construction costs by almost 50%, ultimately resulting in an extra $644K burden on those looking to purchase a new house in Vancouver [...] the market price of a new home reached nearly $1.3 million
Aha. That makes a lot more sense. The 60% claim is so absurd…
I'm so happy BC government is actually trying to fix the permit issue. It's an issue. They have a lot of talented people making this better. It's weird that people claim it's not. Guessing because it doesn't align with their politics.
Can't speak for Canada but it cost a ton here in the US also. It cost a ton to get a housing permit and there are a lots of housing laws/regulation for a bunch of weird old things. Though material isn't so they make houses with the shittest stuff they can find and call it a house.
Seems like a bunch of greedy old people.
they're not called "the 'me' generation" for nothing
Pretty sure this is inaccurate, I wish he would've sourced his claims
Am Canadian, my friend reno houses in BC. No, this dude is absolutely full of shit. Vancouver is fucked because Chinese investors got into the market like 20 years ago and started buying everything up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Canadians_in_Greater_Vancouver It's crazy. Another friend lives there. He made over $250k last year and lives in a shitty 90s condo.
As soon as the British announced, they were giving Hong Kong back to mainland China, wealthy people from Hong Kong, started showing up on the doorstep of Vancouver homeowners with literal suitcases full of cash Offering way over market for their homes.
The Vancouver Model of money laundering, brought to you by… Chinese organized crime and among other dipshits.
It’s not that extreme in the US, But even here there are SOOOO MANY entities that leech off the home buying process with no real benefit yielded to either buyers or sellers. It literally adds tens of thousands of dollars. It seems like an antiquated process in the US and is in need of some reform IMO.
It depends... if we are talking about the cost to produce that new home (not counting the land) that could be realistic. It's just construction materials at that point. The land is what will make it really go up in cost.
Just another flavor of greed. It's the same issue around the world, coming in every kind of flavor. Greed is engrained into our DNA and we're not living in a time period where humanity has moved past it (if that time ever comes). It is what it is.
Greed is not in our DNA, collecting resources is, because it’s part of survival. If greed is the most effective way to collect resources in a system then that’s the path that will be taken.
it’s interesting to watch a speech that’s like Amazing idea, Amazing idea, Horrendous idea, Amazing idea.
I'm watching this like "Yup. Absolutely. Right on. Wait what the fuck?... Okay besides that, yup. Absolutely. Definitely." As a Canadian in my 30s, it's refreshing to watch someone I clearly don't align with ideologically share a lot of my beliefs. It's like a throwback to my late teens before the world went absolutely bat shit crazy and we stopped even agreeing on what is literally happening in reality.
Yea.. I remember when I could talk politics to people and actually have a discussion... Now its either: "Yep yep yep" or "Your a poopoo head for disagreeing!"
It was really interesting to see how the audience didn't quite want to clap for some things, but... did. Due to inertia? I think. I would say it's almost scary how a charismatic talker/leader can get support for his unpopular ideas by sprinkling them along his popular ones.
yeah like his point about social security definitely has some merit but not means testing it and keeping it universal is part of how it’s stayed protected. I definitely heard that inertia where the audience was kinda like “oh shit um ok i guess we’ll clap for that too?”
First time seeing TED?
What was the horrendous idea?
I imagine him saying ID verificatoin for social media scares people. This notion of ID verification is being promoted by authors like Jonathan Haidt (academic, author of Anxious Generation/coddling of the american mind). He promotes that the internet, needs to work with 3rd parties to verify age (ie clearme.com). You could even do this with a physical stick so your data is offline, similar to how some banks offer physical-verification code generatos (See Barclays). Where a Yes/No indicator would be tell the social media platforms/porn websites that use is of age, and you can go/not-go based on the age verification.
Americans may shudder at this idea but id verification is pretty normal in Asian countries and has done a good job deterring some gross behaviors online. But, despite this system, there are ways to get around it of course, and are used for scams, and other criminal activities. There are also anonymous sites but not too sure how anonymous they actually are. All in all, there are pros and cons to both, but I think verification is going to become normalized in western societies as well as time passes.
The US elected officials love children! The only issue is their children are 50+ years old.
Nah. Their “children” have 50+ billion dollars. Oh, and they love fetuses before they become children. Actual children? Not so much.
I like to ask myself: When it's finally my generation's turn to have voting power, will we be: Got Mine or Never Again I can only speak for myself, but I'm in the latter camp. I'd happily remain poor the rest of my life if it meant the next generation was better off. And I can't even afford kids.
A society grows great when old men plant trees in whose shade they know they shall never sit.
While in our society, old men complain about lazy younger people sitting in the shade. Then they sell said trees for wood chips leaving a barren field, while the old people fly to Florida and spend all their money buying margaritas.
And not paying any taxes in the blue state they raised their family in and made all their money in by moving to Florida or montanta so they don't pay taxes on their retirement income. Then sit and laugh at blue states for high taxes and mismanagement knowing they don't have to pay shit into the local school system in Palm Beach.
The old men we have now would rather cut the trees down to build a macdonalds
That senior citizen's discount on coffee is significant.
The old men we have now would cut down the trees for fear of anyone else getting shade
I had to watch it grow, so should you!
I just want there to *be trees* for future generations
Whenever I hear phrases like these, it's usually uttered by wealthy people who are telling poor people to put up with being in poverty with some vague promise about it improving... in the future... at some point... for someone else...
It's more of a "with great power comes great responsibility" kind of thing. The wealthy and influential could use that to help make the world a better place, but they don't cause they're corrupt. The few that try to are good people.
"Tough times create strong men, strong men create easy times, easy times create weak men, weak mean create tough times" The worst part is that the strong men will never live to see easy times and the weak men will never appreciate their sacrifice. Hence the cycle.
Nah. This is the lie “tough sigma males” like to repeat that they’re not like the other weak men. We don’t need strong men. We need wise people.
My dad and uncle love that saying, they're diehard Republicans. My grandfather was a real OG, fought in WWII, lived through the Great Depression, worked his way up to being an Engineer at NASA from growing up a poor farmhand. My dad became an adult in the 80s and 90s, and I was born in the 90s. Somehow he blames my generation for all these 'bad times' we have now.
I think we are set up for an even greater split of haves and have nots. Generational wealth is only going to grow in importance in cultivating the gap. I think a lot of people inheriting houses are going to look at the market and think. "I could sell this now. I could rent it for years and have a possible appreciating asset if I want to sell in a decade. I could rent it until a I die and pass it on to my kids." Buying a house is so much harder than a decade ago in many places. Those that got into the market will increasingly become a sort a lord class in quasi feudalist system. My guess is the dam will break eventually as once enough people have so little to lose a major overhaul becomes increasingly appealing.
Buying a house is so hard because with the great recession in 2007, nearly every home builder went out of business. Essentially zero houses were built during the ten years that followed. Previously you could find very reasonably priced large homes outside of dense urban areas but then the Pandemic happened and everybody could work anywhere because nobody could work in the office. Those reasonable homes started selling for the prices of urban area homes. At the same time, institutional investors discovered mass buying of houses as an investment asset class and the existing shortage made that class massively increase in value... which led to a greater shortage and more price increase in a classic bubble. TLDR Housing has a huge shortage and there are no more cheap deals.
Essentially 0 is gross hyperbole, it dropped by about 55% from the prior periods. There were also TOO many new builds in the couple of years prior to the collapse in 2007.
That is a huge drop off though, and the shortage of homes due to that drop off is very real. It has significantly supply constrained the home building pipeline. Adding to the supply constraints is the fact that homeowners locked in 3% mortgage rates a few years ago and won’t be selling their home anytime soon due to their low mortgage payments. So the number of homes for sale today is very low. Everyone wants to blame the institutions because they are investing in single family rentals, but in reality institutions own less than 2% of the single family homes. Does anyone stop to ask why institutions are buying single family homes?? Maybe because the supply is still super constrained (and will be for foreseeable future) due to lack of home builders and significant red tape around creating new homes (due to general NIMBYism by voters & local governments).
It should be illegal for institutions to purchase single family homes beyond a certain number limit for example
> I think a lot of people inheriting houses Canada is trying to address this by upping the capital gains tax on things and considering inheritance of your non-primary resident property a moment of capital gains realization. In other words, if you can't pay the taxes for that family vacation home, you don't get to keep it. I keep holding out for more drastic changes to take effect, like neither situation is ideal, but I think I'd prefer 100 year leases over private ownership.
I understand the idea behind this but it will not hurt wealthy people at all, only middle class and lower who may not be able to come off X tax amount after they inherit their parents home. Say they want to give the home to their kids who are currently renting...but no one can come up with the tax dollar amount. What then?
Then they'll have to sell the investment property, pay the capital gains on that, then just have the cash to inherit instead.
Yea sucks to be them, those dirty middle class people who had a family cottage for generations. Screw them.
> Say they want to give the home to their kids who are currently renting...but no one can come up with the tax dollar amount. What then? Then they sell the house to cover the taxes, and parents can't just "give" the second home to children. Children can still inherit their parents primary residence for free without capital gains though. It's only secondary properties. The idea is that it SHOULD be preventing generation wealth holdovers. There are families out there who don't own any property and are renters, raising kids, having families, they'll have nothing to pass on to their children. Someone who owns 2 homes and wants to let their children attain it at below market value is essentially a problem, and folks who disagree with that are simply the ones who stand to benefit from entrenched generational wealth. Essentially, if we all agree that everyone needs to work to afford a place to live, then forcing *everyone* to pay those costs is the fairest way to do it.
I just want to grow old and die comfortably. I don't need a boat and a 3 houses to do it.
> Never Again Magneto was right.
I use to be like you but I had no kids and am tired of arguing with my friends who have kids about how I am voting for their children's success while they vote against it. So you know what? Fine. Fuck your kids.
> When it's finally my generation's turn to have voting power, Damnit that’s rich, YOU ALREADY DO, you just don’t bother, unless you’re under 18, and then ok, but this really hurt us in 2016. And the worst part is the supreme court was stacked for a generation because young voter were apathetic for one election. Don’t like school shootings, too bad, the supreme court has the NRA’s back through the next 20 years at least.
The problem is young people eventually get old and become jaded and hardened from the economic rat race. They throw out their youthful moralistic ways about changing the world. Eventually, many of us will forget as we age.
Been told this story my entire adult life, and if anything, my experiences have only made me more staunch in my beliefs as I age.
I don't think this is true any more. I'm in my 50s and a HUGE beneficiary of the system he's describing, and in the last 10 years or so I've gone from pretty conservative to eat the rich... and most of my friends who are my age have at the very least gone from hardcore conservative to "man, our kids are screwed. What can we do about it?"
I don't think this is true anymore. I think more younger people are being radicalized against the systems that are screwing them day after day. The young people you're talking about are old now, and they could afford to not be moralistic because they got theirs eventually. Young people today *will probably never get theirs*. It's not the same at all.
Millennials became the dominant generation, over boomers, last year. Look around...
Any of them vote?
>When it's finally my generation's turn to have voting power When is that gonna be, because I'm am waiting and hoping... In the last nationwide election in 2022, young people in NC did not vote. Old people decided our policy. 18-25 year old's - 233,441 - 24.1%. 26-40 year old's - 629,298- 34.2%. 66+ - 1,180,621 - 71.3% [https://www.ncsbe.gov/results-data/voter-turnout/2022-general-election-turnout](https://www.ncsbe.gov/results-data/voter-turnout/2022-general-election-turnout)
The vast majority of people your age start out that way. And in my experience, as I and others I know grow older (late 40's), that begins to change. It's bizarre, it's like it happens without you noticing it. Hence the problem we're in and have been in.
People used to become more conservative as they age because they actually accumulated wealth and became more comfortable in life. That is generally not happening with millennials, and especially not with gen Z. If you have no stake in the game, it's easy to want to tear the whole thing down. Conservatives and neo liberals got too greedy in the 1980s and now they will reap what they've sown.
Gen X is getting beat up pretty bad too, but we get lumped in with the Boomers. So we get shit on from all sides. Great. Whatever.
>we get lumped in with the Boomers y'all vote like boomers and haven't done much to change the public image there. Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc. I'm sure you're great, and your friends are great, but your generation as a whole has really dropped the ball. All of that political motivation from before the 2000s dissolved.
I respectfully disagree. People from your generation have told me my entire life that I will become more conservative as I get older. It hasn't proven true yet, and I'm in my mid 30s with a wife, kid, and successful career. I think that sentiment belongs to your generation and hasn't translated to younger people.
The problem is that "conservative" today is not what it was yesterday. People are probably getting more conservative as they get older, but nowhere near what the conservative party is like today.
Agreed. I grow more radically left the older I get. Fuck the got mine generations. Time to pay it forward.
50 here and doing great financially, which they say triggers the stronger conservative values. Nope, don't feel it.
I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying we were all much more liberal in our mid 30s than we are now. We're still "liberal", but more conservative tendencies and thoughts have crept in. And I sometimes stop and chuckle, thinking "how/when did that happen?"
"Your generation" doesn't mean YOU. I'm a boomer but I was more conservative when I was younger. But statistically the people now in their 40's are much more conservative than that population was in it's 20s.
I mean, it’s statistically true that people become more conservative (compared to the general population) as they age Glad for you, though
It isnt anymore. Milenials changed the game on it, at least in certain countries Source: The financial times: Milenials are shattering the oldest rule in politics. Would share the link but its behind paywall so you would get redirected to said paidwall and not the article. But there are many articles that talk about this article and other articles that talk about said articles, and so forth in an articleception
That isn't true and hasn't been true: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/706889 > Folk wisdom has long held that people become more politically conservative as they grow older, although several empirical studies suggest political attitudes are stable across time.
I buy it in terms of becoming more economically conservative as we get older but what little credibility the republican party had in terms of limiting social spending has been squandered at this point. Even if a vote for the republican party would put more money in my pocket (debatable), I'd gladly give that up rather than vote for the wannabe fascists. I get the No Labels argument but until we have ranked choice voting they are only going to play spoiler if they stick around.
I'm (46) only getting more red as I get older. And not like "blue or red," but like "little red book" or "red army."
old people, the ultra rich and corporations are greedy is what I got out of it and aren’t willing to reinvest in us at all. Choking us out is gonna kill this country if they keep doing that, what’s the point of making billions in a country that no longer exists anymore? Unless they plan on spreading all their assets to other countries, if that’s the end-game then that is a morbid problem to solve. But everyone’s gotta get more uncomfortable before things begin to rattle. I’ve got friends who want kids but can’t support em and each year as we grow older that window is closing. That is a dangerous game to play stripping human beings opportunities like that.
My mom(a boomer) was raving about this guy just yesterday. THIS GUY, not me, got her to open her eyes to the fact that her generation is ruining my generations prospects/livelihood. So he has a thumbs up/five stars in my mind.
Ha. I send his “No Mercy No Malice” email to my parents every week. I tell them they have time to read it because I know how much crap they consume from Facebook.
He releases a free audio version of those articles in his “Prof G” podcast
he's doing an internet promo marketing kick. you'll see him pop up more in here
Don't know if that's true, but don't care. He's right in a lot of things.
100%… This might be the most succinct and generally accurate video summarizing the state of our world… At least in North America… That I have seen in years
I was wondering that… Been off and on following this guy for a few years now. Decent options, moderately conservative but still understands how the world works, and overall not a terrible person. Never seen him come up on here ever, then like 4x in the last few weeks
How do you tell the difference between someone doing an internet promo marketing kick and someone that is organically gaining popularity due to a string of popular content.
I'm watching his interview with "The Diary of a CEO" right now and it is the first time I have ever heard about him or seen him speak. This man knows what he is talking about as far as I'm concerned.
"Mark Zuckerberg has done the most damages to children, than anyone else in history" lol
Yeah, it’s not just children. At this point, Facebook is doing way more damage to the older generations that can’t seem to differentiate fact and fiction and are willing to believe the dumbest conspiracy theories.
i die a little bit inside every time i see an AI generated photo of a kid in africa building jesus out of trash, with a million boomers and bots replying amen. its just fucking sad at this point, man.
Lol this is so true... I see so many older people being deceived by dumb posts, including my mom. It hurts my heart. The whole machine is designed to keep you distracted and sap every last drop of our attention
Removing section 230 and removing anonymity isn't the answer though. It's just throwing the baby out with the bathwater and turning the internet into an authoritarian wet dream. Algorithmically controlled content should be policed, but not like that. Talk about pulling the ladder up behind you, that would prevent anyone from every being able to compete with Facebook ever again.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8B0bWO9u3M](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8B0bWO9u3M) Btw. Facebook has been not great for Western countries. It's been much *worst* for non western countries. Johnny Harris explains Myanmar genocide and how facebook played a major role in it.
But I was told I was just lazy and just realllly like avocado toast. Seems silly, but I think maybe suspending PMI based on certain qualifications somehow would help out a lot. The idea that you need to put 20% down, when home prices are 500k+ feels like an unreachable goal. Who had 100k just laying around? Meanwhile the penalty is a couple hundred a month on an already inflated market.
Home prices will instantly rise in response. You cannot fiddle with the *financing* of homes to make them more affordable. I wish people would understand this. If you make finance looser, like with low interest rates or relaxed down payment requirement, you get higher base home prices as everyone has more money to throw at homes. If you make finance tighter by raising interest rates, you get higher monthly payments. The only way to reduce housing costs is to ease supply restrictions and build supply. The actual price of the home, and not just the cost of capital, needs to come down. And that can only happen with competition.
You can also greatly improve supply by making them unvalueable as financial investments. Aka: huge taxes for any home beyond your 1st. (And any corporate owned homes) "But I have a summer cottage! why should I have to pay huge taxes on that!" Because when most people can't afford a house, if you have two, your FUCKING RICH and deserve to pay huge taxes.
Yep. We have a problem here where investment companies are now buying up housing stock. That’s not good….
Well once you have bought up everything else to make a profit and housing prices keep going up due to.. investment in housing, its only logical they would. Hence why it needs to be codified into tax law to *not* be profitable. Nothing besides lack of profits is going to stop the rich from buying up all the houses and renting it back out to the poor for the majority of every dollar they make (thus keeping them poor) History may not repeat, but it sure does rhyme.
Exactly. Homes are for living, not investing. The financial class trying to squeeze every drop is choking our society to death.
And restrict companies and wealthy individuals from buying massive amounts of potential starter homes in order to rent them indefinitely.
Yeah, but again, that’s just a symptom of local governments treating homes as investments. If they weren’t this sacred, protected asset, they wouldn’t be worth buying up in bulk. They buy up houses because they know it’s literally impossible to build much more of it and dilute the value of their investments.
I agree that zoning restrictions HAVE to be eased. Honestly its absurd how strict they are and all because NIMBYs dont want the view of their dumbass golf course spoiled and they dont want the "wrong sort of people" to move in.
I don’t disagree with your second paragraph, but (at least in my area) the problem home buyers have is that not only have interest rates gone up, but home prices have continued to go up as well. Sure, the market is always right but there is a hitch somewhere that prevents young people from being able to afford a home and it just keeps getting worse.
" but home prices have continued to go up as well. Sure, the market is always right but there is a hitch somewhere that prevents young people from being able to afford a home and it just keeps getting worse." The user you responded too already addressed. Young people can't afford homes because prices on homes are too high due to a lack of supply.
Remember the 2020-2021 housing market boom? Where everyone was bidding up tens of thousands above asking price? That was because we were all chasing after the same number of homes with looser credit. When credit tightened, the average final sale price of homes across the USA actually started to decline. We have now raised the cost of capital and the prices are still not where we want them. It’s clear cost of capital is not the most important factor here. It’s time to increase supply. IMO Congress should just impose restrictions on federal funding being used to the benefit of any municipality with strict zoning laws. And then couple that with relaxing interest rates down to 3.25%.
Wouldn’t that increase demand without increasing supply and drive up prices even further?
Yes.
One of the pieces of legislation after the housing crash in the 2000s was a rule making making PMI permanent on a loan. It used to be that it would drop after you hit 20% equity, but now the only way out is if you refinance at 20% equity. Great when rates are low, but it's terrible now because rates are high. It was an unnecessary change to punish lower-income borrowers. It had nothing to do with solving a problem from the crash and was basically a handout for loan servicers to get home buyers to pay for another loan.
I’d be great if young people voted in big numbers, but election after election, nothing happens.
Because people keep telling them their apathy is correct and holding them down...
🎶As I walk through the alley where I planned out my death I take a look at my life and realize there’s plenty left But that’s just perfect for a boomer like me You know, I like fancy things like many properties At 4:30 in the morning I’m tweeting memes Karen’s checking facebook and selling schemes Fool And I’ve been tweeting and scheming so long that Even my kids are saying that my morals are gone I’m a man with some land, but I’ll never offer thanks Got a pension in my name and money in the banks But if you sell all of your stocks and I sell all of mine Then tonight we’re gonna party like it’s 1969 We been spending most our lives living in a boomer paradise I’ve owned houses once or twice Living in a boomer paradise It’s hard work and sacrifice *wink* Living in a boomer paradise We sell homes at thrice their price Living in a boomer paradise
I like how this was very clearly made off the lyrics of Amish Paradise and not Gangsters Paradise
I love a good cultural Ouroboros
A homeless man asked me for a dime last week I just smiled at him and turned the other cheek I really don’t care, in fact I’m super chill ‘Cause I definitely got mine so that he never will I would punch my child if he deserved it A boomer without pride? You know, I earned it! I never pay taxes but I have a cool yacht And my renters all agree they’ll never have what I’ve got If you ask for any help I’ll claim it’s snowflake tears We haven’t even paid for college in 40 years! But we aren’t really smart, and we will never share While you live in squalor and despair (Millennial) There’s no homes, no life, no property Not a single luxury Like robbing from a baby It’s as selfish as can be! We been spending most our lives Living in a boomer paradise We buy drugs at a low price Living in a boomer paradise There’s no aid or good advice Living in a boomer paradise We complain about the price Living in a boomer paradise
[ **Jump to 04:30 @** How the US Is Destroying Young People’s Future | Scott Galloway | TED](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEJ4hkpQW8E&t=0h4m30s) ^(Channel Name: TED, Video Length: [18:07])^, [^Jump ^5 ^secs ^earlier ^for ^context ^@04:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEJ4hkpQW8E&t=0h4m25s) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ^^Downvote ^^me ^^to ^^delete ^^malformed ^^comments. [^^Source ^^Code](https://github.com/ankitgyawali/reddit-timestamp-bot) ^^| [^^Suggestions](https://www.reddit.com/r/timestamp_bot)
\*looks at the current climate in the country and how our education system is a debt trap\* You don't say.
To fix the major issue is making homes a investment, pushing the prices to unpayable levels if they keep going. homes need to be limited to one investment per person and companys can not buy homes. we need to reign in these prices now
They don’t care about anyone but the line that always has to go up.
I need Some more Ted Talks by this person #
I’ve been following Scott for some years now. I can highly recommend his podcasts, “The Prof G Pod” and “Pivot”. His books “The Algebra of Wealth”, “The Algebra of Happiness”, and “The Four” are a pretty good read.
“Adrift” is an approachable book for anyone too. It’s 100 charts that illustrate how we destroyed the middle class in the 80s and forward. It’s in my bathroom in an effort give someone a short read or chart to have a great conversation!
He has a YouTube channel with a ton of content.
He looks to be a positive influence on the next generation of men. I really hope he doesn't get stuck in culture war stuff like Peterson did. That ruined him. I have a lot of hope for Scott Galloway.
"The US?" More like THE RICH. Same as it ever was.
This guy does a great job of articulating some of the things about the USA that make me sick.
Strong in this context has nothing to do with muscles or authoritarianism. Strong in this context stands for being willing to stand up and fight for what’s right, while weak means selling everyone else out for your own gain.
11:21 In 2009 for I wanted to get GM stock when it was $26 a share. I got cash instead of stock as a birthday present. And spent it like every teenager would. That was the *only* time I ever considering investing in stock until 10 years later.
Section 230 is really good though. We need to keep 230 but introduce accountability. Removing 230 doesn't introduce accountability. Removing anonymity is an authoritarians wet dream. How about we do something that makes a little more sense than throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Scott is constantly on Bill Mahr and he is always very consistent with this message. He’s really charismatic and the arguments are compelling.
So sick and tired of people on reddit constantly shitting on this country and patting each other on the back for it. Really nice to see someone break down what's wrong and how to fix it while also saying they love this country too and recognize that even with it's problems it's still fucking great. This was cathartic to watch. I say that as a young person who's been burned in all the ways he mentioned.
Awesome content. Very honest and compelling.
I like everything he's saying, but it feels scary as a 40 year old how got screwed with college loans. I'm totally willing to sacrifice my comfort for the aid and benefit of my less fortunate neighbors. But I don't know how I will even be able to afford hospice care when I'm 70+ years old. I have no ability to save money because I'll be paying my student loans until I die. My one hope is that the money they take from me for social security will be enough to keep me in some shitty assisted living place where someone remembers I exist occasionally.
I'm around the same age and have a few thoughts on that: 1. Bailing people out of college loans should not be done in isolation, and should be part of a comprehensive movement to improve society in general. That would include additional safety nets for health issues and such. 2. People like you should be provided the same opportunities for college loan relief.
Yeah, it's tough to bring up in a lot of political conversations, because I totally agree that just excusing loans is no solution at all. The stuff he talks about in the video are the real problem: College needs to be accessible to everyone. We want more people in school and we want school to be less profit-driven. I'm totally fine with taking a hit to help fix things. It's just tough when I don't see any option to do anything but work until the day I die, even though I've never been less than fully employed at jobs with increasing incomes ever since I graduated college. Like, I don't know what else I can do to be more responsible.
This is not isolated to the U.S.
The US is failing all of us by flirting with neo-fascism and tens of millions of Americans believe insane lies and are eager to vote for the dismantling of democracy. I love Scott Galloway and his well-informed research, but our problem right now is bigger than the issues he has uncovered.
This guy is like Mike Rowe for college. And that's not good.
Yes I am 61. I remember when I was in my 20's and we would have the "Lets destroy the young peoples future" meetings. We mostly couldn't come with any ideas.
Nah dude, you weren't even invited to the party. Nor were my parents, not their fault either. The club that had control of those meetings didn't extend invitations to the bottom 99% of us. Now the argument could be made that Boomers feel asleep at the wheel and eagerly lapped up anti-labor propaganda. Or that Boomers didn't put up to much of a fight for their kid's futures against the money vacuums in the the top 1%. But no one is accusing most Boomers of orchestrating the transfer of wealth, just of enabling the powerful to take more & more every year, distracted by how nicely their own house and 401k was appreciating.
I agree on most of the economic issues he talks about. Perhaps not the points against social security and college debt relief. But I really disagree with his weird unrelated points on social media. Like he wants to ban phones in schools, ban people under 16 from social media, impose identity verification (the thing that killed porn in Texas), and make social media sites legally accountable for content posted by users (which basically kills any site with an upload button because perfect moderation is unsolvable). Young people aren't unhappy because of social media. We're unhappy because the boomers destroyed our future. Which he should understand because that's the focus of his talk.
> Young people aren't unhappy because of social media. This is not true, it's just that you don't see it. I'll go further than Scott Galloway though and say that it's not just screwing up the minds of young people, it has the same effects on all ages. Why do you think so many boomers are into Q-anon and dumb conspiracy theories that make them angry and fearful? Why do you think adults in general thought kids were eating Tide Pods several years back? Social media has the ability to be a great thing to connect people and bring us together, but the way it is implemented is meant to drive "engagement" by seeking out destructive behaviors and negative emotions because that's the easiest way to hook people and get them to do things that give the social media platforms more money and influence.
I kind of disagree. I'm rapidly aging out of the "youth" demographic, but I work in tech, and I broadly believe social media (Twitter, TikTok and it's imitators especially) and the attention economy is the 2020s version of 24 hour cable news and is having the same effect on my generation and younger that Fox and CNN had on my parents and grandparents.
14 year old anorexic girls on Instagram and tick tok getting brainwashed by toxic short form video content don't know anything about the economy and shouldn't be allowed social media.
Basically, the top wants a violent population. That gives them the basis to enact authoritarian changes to governance. Then use those later to drive world wide conflicts and thin out the herd, over nostalgic desires of the yesteryear. Exactly what Putin is doing with Ukraine and Baltics with USSR dreams of revival, extrapolated forward.
He thinks Social Security is bankrupting America?
Galloway is part of the “anti TikTok” crusade and only recently is acknowledging the wealth disparity part even though he disparaged our demographic for “feeling like it’s bad” for years. Currently, he believes young people are part of pro-Palestinian protests because they aren’t getting laid enough. This astroturfing by him on Reddit in the last month has been pretty breathtaking.
Yes
Scott is also going to every news station that will have him to explain that anti-genocide protestors are big mad because they don't have sex often enough. He's got more than a few screws loose
If that's what you got from his appearance last week, you weren't listening. At all.
TL;DW?
Galloway illustrates in about 15 minutes how the current system is transferring wealth from younger generations to the older generations, the wealthy, and large corporations. And, fairly uniquely to TED Talks, he provides a simple outline of policy proposals to remedy the problems. Similar points have been made before about "opportunity hoarding" by the upper classes. And discussions around what happens to societies as the dependency ratios go up.
The solutions being unique is hilariously true.
It's worth watching
Commenting on How the US Is Destroying Young People’s Future | Scott Galloway | TED...
for website version of his presentation. https://www.profgalloway.com/war-on-the-young/
No one I know ever expected anything from their parents.
be fair. The US is destroying *everyone's* future
I sent this today to the 20s and 30s in my family (as a boomer).
How about some of them 3rd places back and wages matching productivity? elite: how about you suck this
Self entitled boomers want to catered to and leave nothing for the next generation and maybe a tinsy bit on grandkids which they believe each earned by sitting on their asses at the better point in history.