I totally understand the need to opt out of something as extreme as the 996 culture in China. But what’s happening in the US among younger generations is different. It feels a lot more like entitlement to me, enabled by generous COVID stimulus, eviction bans, and other policies. But if this ‘revolt’ isn’t just a fad but something with staying power, then I think the long-term implication for the American economy is grim. Ultimately, it takes hard work to remain competitive. And there is a world full of countries with hungry, driven individuals who are ready to put in the effort if given a chance. When that economic pressure comes for US workers, I’m not sure they’ll be ready to cope.
This is precisely why immigration is really important. Need to replace fat, lazy, satisfied natives with immigrants hungry for a slice of their pie.
It's the only way US can stay afloat. Easy immigration, especially for skilled workers, and maintaining the American dream where a hard worker in a well paying industry will, in fact, live far better than in any other country.
This is also why I personally find the socialistic tendencies of US youth to be so naive. I hope this trend doesn't stick.
" the American dream where a hard worker in a well paying industry will, in fact, live far better than in any other country."
Why should a decent standard of living only apply to those working in a well paying industry? Shouldn't all industries be well paying, at least to the point of people being able to afford to live? Countries need a variety of industries, skills and jobs to function. If you work hard you should be able to live well, regardless of industry. But in many countries, including the US, working hard & long hours can still leave you on the breadline and choosing between heating your home or fueling your car. The US has huge income disparity and there is a total lack of respect for many employees. This is what people are getting sick of and realising there are other options.
There are multitudes of people living in other countries, doing the same jobs as millions of Americans, living much better than their US counterparts and many of those are immigrants. The US is not competitive for immigrants, it can't even provide all its citizens with the adequate jobs they want. Even removing small countries and the effects refugee crises, there are many countries with higher per capita immigration than the US.
I am in no ways opposed to migration, being a migrant & product of migrants myself, but what the US needs most is decent working conditions, rights & pay. Not only does this solve the employment problem, a higher quality of life leads to improvements in many areas across society, from increased education to lower crime and happier people.
> There are multitudes of people living in other countries, doing the same jobs as millions of Americans, living much better than their US counterparts.
America/American is a religion for many, and its believers won’t be swayed by factual arguments.
Some outrageous percentage of Gen Z Americans believe they will be crypto—wealthy soon. Just like their parents and grandparents held onto the hope that they’d become millionaires one way or another.
When your foundational principle is a sort of wealth faith, you can overlook the positive societal outcomes in other countries. Because they are not a function of personal wealth, they are inauspicious.
But that's what US has over other countries - the promise of a dream. The idea goes is that if you work/study hard, you'll be wealthier than elsewhere. This doesn't have to be 100% true for everyone, there's already an understanding that some luck will be needed. But it's POSSIBLE to have a significantly higher QOL in the US than in most other civilized countries without resorting to illegal means.
If US evens out the playing field, why would a high skilled worker want to emigrate to the US vs New Zealand, Australia, or any of the awesome Northern European countries? You can argue that societal changes would be good for everyone. And this is true on paper, but actually you end up with a more even country that is still very split politically, has relatively high crime rates, healthcare woes, legal guns, etc etc. If the main thing keeping US desirable is the elusive American dream, then I don't think it's wise to mess with this dream. Unfortunately, wealth redistribution is a sure way to fuck this dream up through a variety of side effects.
How big should the world economy be before we can feed, clothe and house everyone?
The logic behind the successful earning more has the flipside that the unsuccessful deserve to earn less. As a society we've decided that all people should have access to asset-based wealth. In a sane world this wouldn't be an issue. In this one, it's led to price fixing, government corruption and inescapable poverty. Housing is not a free market. And yet we treat it is as such.
Until governments shift taxation from income to wealth this increasingly unfair world will continue to punish those who cannot keep up.
Can somebody please explain to me how these people continue to live? I’m sure many people want to quit their jobs and just walk out. But how would one pay rent, food and expenses? I’m not too familiar with welfare, but even for that don’t you need to be looking for a job?
First world countries have created a bind for themselves. Wages have been suppressed for decades while prices have been steadily rising. The cost of housing has skyrocketed and for many the need to own a car and pay for fuel is now out of reach. Along with the many hours needed to commute.
Many are now finding that they simply can't afford to go to work.
All this while there are many alternatives. For those with savings, simply retire. Live in a van. Live with parents. Move to the country. Work occasionally on a "cash in hand" basis. Take up crime, prostitution, etc. It's called "living between the cracks".
i have the same question but americans don't have a good answer or at least no one has given a good answer yet. Why do americans have a fixation for "leaving the nest" and a disdain for "living with mom"?
in india, anyone who emigrates anywhere. be it the other side of the city or neighboring city or a different part of country or even abroad, the idea is if things don't work out, they just return "home". we saw that in 2020 when there was mass migration back to villages from cities and expats returned en masse. most have stayed back because their jobs aren't back.
i fail to understand if american cities, big ones are made up of people from smaller towns, why don't they return back if they loose a job or something? sure there are cases like mortgage and all but what about being on the street?
i'm pointing out economics of what you wrote. why does a newly homeless couple have to stay on the streets when they could potentially back a bus back to their parents homes?
do parents not tolerate their kids? "you've flown the nest so don't ever come back again"?
Homelessness in Western countries is not about money, the people on the street are mentally or physically disabled or do it by choice.
It is essentially impossible to genuinely be homeless in the UK for more than a few weeks unless you just can't be arsed. There are huge job surpluses at the moment and the minimum wage is twice as much as is needed to rent a room even in London.
>mentally or physically disabled or do it by choice.
fine. point taken about those. what about the "job lost" or
"bank forclosed my home, i am homeless".
i agree but shouldn't the state look after physically or mentally disabled? or is "socialism" too russia to accept as proud americans? i agree. where i live, we have the same thing. the market is shit but people are not on the streets. people prefer living 5 families in a home, 1 in each room instead of trying to "make your own nest" by renting and then not being able to afford.
You have some land usually right in rahnewali, that is not usually the case in America or land is not something you can live off of. In very rural South like around Lake Charles people do live off land but that is very low cash income and they are not spending/earning much and mostly bartering. That land is also fragmented from generations so landholdings can’t support all family and many leave (I don’t know how it is in J and K with the state land act being reversed now)
[citation needed] - I mean, it sounds plausible, but there's also a lot of genuine poverty out there, such as the explosion in foodbank use, so it would be good to have something a bit more investigative.
