How the US Is Destroying Young People’s Future | Scott Galloway | TED

As a homeowner I get to deduct mortgage interest in taxes. As a renter I don't. If a corporation decides to own commercial interest. Principal + interest + taxes. + maintenance. Everything other than profits gets to be deducted. Renters don't. Trump cutting corporate income tax from 31 to 21% flat made the wealth jump up to the top. Then Biden came and pumped 5 Trillion in the economy with huge PPP payouts to corporations whose owners were already wealthy. Wealth begets wealth. Rich get Richer. The current 20-30 somethings are the first generate in the entire history of this nation to build less wealth than their parents at the same age. The only people in Seattle and SF making it at 20-30 is if they work at BigTech getting $500k in total combined comp. Everyone else is fucked. Even if Powell holds the interest rates high, congress continues to spend in trillions. More on it this video Canada, UK, Australia, NZ aren't that much better. The housing pressure is very real. We must really hate our kids. If the economy won't crush them, global warming will slowly crush their grand kids. I respect every couple who decide not to have kids. It's a sane financial choice in current economic conditions.

1. Social media's objective function is engagement. Outrage and like buttons are highly engaging. 2. Tribalism + scale + time = two "us vs them" groups. Politically, FPTP voting mathematically implies spoilage; the Ron Paul example doesn't extol some virtue. 3. People are furious due to these (utterly preventable) things: this video

"Old age and treachery will always beat youth and exuberance." (David Mamet) this video I don't think it is intentional, but the consequences are certainly quantifiable. Everyone thinks the asymmetry of power structures is unfair... right up until perspectives shift when they take on the same roles... link Have a great day, =3

The follow up with Rat Utopia addressed several of the issues with the mouse study. More interesting was the final follow up selective-breeding study with "The Beautiful Ones". As Dr. Calhoun wanted to determine if the cognitive decline would persist in successive generations even when placed in a new unconstrained exploitation phase setting again. The process was not reversible, and remained degenerative in offspring. Accordingly, I found this work greatly affected how I processed neuroscience material, and viewed violent behavior. We must respect the little creatures that warned us of humanities possible future. So far, many communities seem to be following a familiar concerning trend: this video Have a wonderful day, and stay curious about the world... =3

The bimodal distribution of student entrance performance correlating to stratified fiscal castes has been observed for sometime: "Outliers: The Story of Success" ( Malcolm Gladwell, 2011 ) i.e. the curriculum lesson plans naturally evolve to exclude individuals that don't need introductory lessons, because they are on average 3 years ahead of their peers by the time they enter undergraduate programs. The kids that need to "catch-up" in introductory Math/English material are no longer failed/held-back a year in some municipalities, but rather given a remedial curriculum over the summer. If those kids parents can afford to put them through an early tutorial program, than excluding the "poor kids" from a seat at the more lucrative faculties is rather guaranteed. this video Mind you explaining to privileged kids why they _get_to_ attend additional instruction can be difficult. As social media normalizes lack of impulse control, and rewards group-think biases. Our little ingrates think they can con/hack their way through life, as some fool on the web is telling them to take the easy path. Some university kids that rely on student visa programs to access the US immigration process, will get desperate and try to outright cheat their way through a Bachelor of science degree. The real scandal is some folks get 50% of the final problems from $18.74 USD gray market course manuals out of HK, as many institutions must structure their exams this way for credit-transfer compatibility. The myth

Demographics had to change and belief systems had to develop for Mamdani to win the NYC primary. Huge turn out, 12 point victory over Cuomo. Democratic socialist policy platform. This is the future as young people remain economically disadvantaged and old folks with their beliefs and wealth to protect age out. Young people aren't going to get more conservative because they don't have something to lose economically as older cohorts might have had. If workers are not seeing improvements in life over time, why would their viewpoint change? I agree a minority of workers might change their mind when they luck into favorable economic and labor circumstances, but luck will not find the majority, and when it comes to voting, a majority matters. How the US Is Destroying Young People’s Future | Scott Galloway | TED - this video Part 2: Scott Galloway’s Viral TED Talk on How the Old Are Stealing from the Young - link Millennials are shattering the oldest rule in politics: Western conservatives are at risk from generations of voters who are no longer moving to the right as they age - link | link

I don't follow your terminology or your reasoning. What you want to call "The Symbolic Sovereign" boils down to a (reasonably) independent judiciary/Supreme Court/High Court + (optionally) a constitutional monarch or ceremonial president, which the US does not have as a separate office (that gap gets filled by other nonprofits, watchdogs, civic bodies, activists like Leonard Leo, media organizations, churches, commentators like Jon Stewart, interest groups, lobbyists, authors). Couldn't we just call that "rule of law + an independent civil society + media"? But the US Supreme Court is(/used to be) credible not because it rarely took action, but because justices and their rulings (and the appointment process) were non-partisan. Pre-Citizens United (2010), anyway. Post-2013 the US now has unlimited untraceable dark money in politics, amplified by social media to inject influence into the political process. I think that renders it utterly irrelevant now whether a country has a popular referendum process (or else uses the executive or legislature to change things). Clearly this leaked into other countries. At least a-decade-and-a-half ago. If you have enough money you can now pervert/coopt any of these. The details are irrelevant (unless you're doing a post-mortem). Scott Galloway keeps warning about increasing inequality of wealth in US politics: this video You don't want to talk about social media + money replacing discourse, post-2010. I think that intentional omission alone inva

This is deckchairs on the Titanic. "long-term stability" ? US federal debt is now 122% of GDP and rising; from only 79% in 2019. [0] In a few years we get to the levels at which countries either slide into war or sovereign default. I cited you Scott Galloway saying the current US political process is simply generational theft by the elderly from the young. [1] Even just look at the discrepancy in % home ownership level (by age) and you see how unsustainable it is. Sure in principle, a (US or UK) referendum process would have to be safeguarded, if all the other legs of healthy democracy were still in place, and the (US) judiciary hadn't already in 2010 removed the mechanism by which excessive money coud be kept out of politics, but that's all well in the rear-view mirror. I think your analysis is wanting to hang everything on some structurally independent mechanism that will persist longterm, regardless whether it's a referendum mechanism or rule of law + independent media. > At the state level, you still defend your values with one person one vote. No you can't do that either, because only a few (27+16 / 438) Congressional districts in 2024 were toss-up/competitive and not safe/gerrymandered, per Brennan/Cook Political Report [2]. And when one party establishes a quadrifecta in a state, they try to lock down that numerical advantage for another decade or two. [0]: "U.S. Debt Is on Pace to Set a Record High, Going All the Way Back to 1790" link [1]: this video [2]: link

Expect this to get much worse soon. Even left-leaning youth will probably start to agree with the idea of destroying it out of spite, and even if they know it won't actually help them. At some point we'll have to admit, it's not easy to explain why youth need to subsidize things for an older generation that enjoys housing, healthcare, and stocks when they themselves have not had the disposable income for any of that. Scott Galloway has a ted-talk where he calls it generational theft: this video

> The data shows millennials as a whole are better off than boomers were at their age. Perhaps true if you go east far enough, seems objectively wrong for the majority of the west though. Honest question, if you think this and it isn't just rage bait.. what data supports it? Scott Galloway disagrees and offers hard data, and goes as far as calling it intergenerational theft. this video