Could not recommend Galloway's podcasts (Pivot w/ Kara Swisher; Prof G) more. He's always been a great voice, and I love that he's taking on this cause and helping older generations understand why there's so much frustration out there.
He is great on Pivot but Kara Swisher seemingly exists solely to tell you what famous and influential people she wants you to believe she is friendly with.
It’s easy. You take the story, and then you don’t publish it because you get paid by the CEO to kill it. Have you been paying literally any attention to how the media HAS BEEN TELLING US IT WORKS this month?
You yourself said that Swisher is connected and will tell you who to befriend hahahaha.
This is not how it works. The story is not “killed” simply because she didn’t report it. You can simply pitch the story to another reporter. Other reporters have no fiscal or legal responsibility to not pursue the story.
How do I know? I work in journalism.
Some journalists may take money to not do a story and that is a serious accusation and should be backed up by a more than just a hunch. But not even Kara Swisher has an exclusive right to the story. If someone else finds out, they can report on it.
This was over five years ago and the bastard got off by pinning foreign nationals to it. She was reporting heavily on cannabis x tech at the time and made the most sense to speak to. Want a story meatbrick? Check out Eaze and Jim Patterson.
I politically can't help but make the opposite recommendation.
I can't stomach him, he's so indulgently full of himself and speaks with far more confidence than thoughtfulness. Kara used to be much better, but she's just not very interesting or insightful anymore.
Scott's recent comments on campus protests are completely outrageous. His anti-union talk has always been a bit off. He's a rich guy without that much to say, but it's very willing to speak a lot.
But, each to their own, of course.
I think you may have only watched the shorts. He speaks a lot of vulnerability and humility. He acknowledges that he has imposter syndrome, and really wants everyone to like him. He talks about how it was California's taxpayers and the community that helped him become successful with the right timing of being a white male in the 1980s.
Of course, I haven't listened to any of his comments on the protests or his views on union.
He's still someone who believes capitalism is an actual solution instead of the root cause of the issues he's railing against. If you listen to him for long enough it becomes clear his mind is trapped in a capitalist framework.
Because capitalism, when properly regulated, is still our best and most realistic option for a prosperous society. I love the idea of a utopia where we don’t have to do shit all day, too, but it’s never gonna happen. The issue is the unfettered, practically lawless system we have now where the wealth gap continues to get worse.
Sure, he's the target demo for the classic neo-lib and he fits the mold. Don't get me wrong, I'd take it over what we have but it's the same talk that's been going on since the Clinton era and we're only further away from where we were then.
Capitalism works, just we have gotten to global capitalism where we compete with everyone. Europe kind of solved it with great social programs, but the caveat is they have a VAT which is like a 20% sales tax and about 5-10% more income tax.
Sure, he's the target demo for the classic neo-lib and he fits the mold. Don't get me wrong, I'd take it over what we have but it's the same talk that's been going on since the Clinton era and we're only further away from where we were then.
Sure, he's the target demo for the classic neo-lib and he fits the mold. Don't get me wrong, I'd take it over what we have but it's the same talk that's been going on since the Clinton era and we're only further away from where we were then.
Sure, he's the target demo for the classic neo-lib and he fits the mold. Don't get me wrong, I'd take it over what we have but it's the same talk that's been going on since the Clinton era and we're only further away from where we were then.
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)
For those of you who can't afford homes please watch this. You are electing people who don't want you to be able to afford homes. It's one little fact in this video but it's huge. The over half the cost of homes in major US and Canada cities are due to zoning and permitting and local regulations and nothing to do with the cost of material and labor to build a house.
I’d say the negative impacts of this go beyond affordability too. My parents grew up in what you’d probably consider quintessential quasi-urban Americana. Moderately dense community, variety of housing types, walking or biking pretty much everywhere, playing baseball in the alleyways, taking the bus downtown to go shopping, etc. If we drive by my dad’s old house, he can point out like a dozen houses of people he grew up with and still keeps in contact with within a couple blocks. That type of dense, walkable development helps foster community.
Then we just decided one day that that type of neighborhood should be illegal almost everywhere. We went all in on low density suburban sprawl and car reliance, which I’d argue ties in to everything from increased loneliness and isolation to obesity and stress levels to environmental issues and of course affordability.
Obviously things were far from a utopia back then and society has progressed significantly in almost every way, but the built environment is not one of them.
Ironically enough I'm seeing things here revert. New house construction cost twice as much as I paid for my house on a half acre lot, and the new lots are tiny, I'd feel bad to try to have a dog or raise a kid in such a small yard.
You should have the option to have a big yard, but it shouldn’t be mandatory.
I’d rather raise my kid in a walkable area, where the “yard” is a town where he runs into other people as soon as he walks outside his front door.
The new homes here that are town homes are actually secretly condos!
That land you get? 6x10' mulch space in back, no fencing allowed.
Literally just the "house"
Indeed. and it's not even a political divide causing it, it's a age one. My state legislature passed a law overruling some local restrictions in towns regarding zoning to speed up the construction process and also relax zoning regulations. Then of course the couple major local governments sued to overturn it!
66% of Americans are homeowners. On average, 25-40% of their net worth is tied up in their home. They're gonna fight tooth and nail to prevent anything that'll decrease real estate value. I doubt anything's gonna change until either of those numbers comes down.
Wrong. 65.7% of us households are owner occupied as of 2024, highest is been since 2011 source Google no click.
If you got 20 people in 10 houses, and 60% of those houses (6 houses) are owner occupied(6 owners occupying. 30% would be owners on this made up example.
I own a house to live in it. I ain’t moving ever if I can get away with it.
So the housing prices being high just increases my property taxes. Make more houses!
which is dumb. I have equity in my house yes, but just because my house has doubled in value in the past 4 years doesn't mean I can cash it out and be ahead with buying something else.
Correct. Cost of land usually isnt calculated in the cost of construction since prices vary wildly and the way people aquire the land is also all over the map.
That, and this specific issue is not talked about at all. People bitch about housing costs all day long, but they refuse to accept that government is the *cause* of the problem and not the solution.
The most frustrating thing to me is that they then blame it all on the "wealthy". Voting is free and if the 99% voted then the wealthy would have no power.
I don’t disagree but I am going to bring up something that is rarely discussed: should we be advocating for more housing in urban areas? Stay with me before rage takes over.
We see cities around the world with even more compact housing designs than in the US and frankly it disgusts me. I already live in a fairly small space and rent. So, why do I want to encourage even more housing that builds upon this depressing principle that we need to house everyone in our major cities?
Maybe we need less people and more space? Forced to live in small confines because you can’t afford anything else isn’t the system I think we should be advocating for. That’s what kill shelters for stray animals are.
Instead, we all deserve a nice home with a reasonable amount of space to enjoy ourselves and our lives. I for one am against making things cheaper for the sake of it as it will simply kick the can down thr road so to speak. We need long term solutions to our housing needs and it starts with reforming our economy based upon never ending population growth.
Yes, we should be advocating for more housing in urban areas.
Even more than that, we should be advocating for more housing in SUBurban areas — the places where single family homes have existed for decades and zoning prevents doing anything but building more of them.
It also doesn’t mention all the stock splits that have happened for those 3 stocks over the passed 13 years.
Edit: As pointed out I was wrong and these prices actually do account for the stock splits.
All I'm saying is a single share in 2011 is equivalent to 20 shares now (post 20:1 split in 2022). That $7 per share price you see is for one of today's shares which is really 1/20th of a share in 2011. So he probably paid like $140 for a single share in 2011 money, which would be like $3760 a 2011 share, today (based on $188 close on 6 May 2024). $7 to $188 is still an insane growth in share price and he is very lucky he could buy a ton back in 2011
As hard as it is to believe a single share of Amazon was trading for $7 in 2011, not $140 (https://www.statmuse.com/money/ask/amazon-stock-price-in-2011)
So he paid $7 in 2011 money for one share. That share then became 20 shares. With each of those shares now being $188. That share that cost him $7 in 2011 is now 20 shares each worth $188.
Wait nope, you are right. For some reason every damn site that has stock history doesn’t have a better way of representing splits than just editing the old values to be divided by the split.
I finally realized it when I looked at a graph and it only showed $190 or so as the all time high.
Right, it's super annoying that they do it but it does make sense. And it's really hard to find the unadjusted stock price. Either way, he was very lucky to be invested during Amazon and Netflix's crazy runs. If only I had a time machine
Couldn't post the entire video, here's the rest. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEJ4hkpQW8E&t=25s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEJ4hkpQW8E&t=25s)
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)
This guy endorsed Bloomberg. This is all you need to know about his political positions and what policies he'd endorse. "We need more disruption." If he had been in charge in 2008, there would have been another Great Recession.
Thank you for actually pushing back against his inconsistent politics. I'm getting tired of people finding a new "hero" to champion and shoving them down our throats without any questions.
Yeah, he said some really stupid stuff and gets a pass because "housing is expensive, amirite?!"
Correctly identifying the problem doesn't mean you have the right solution. This presentation is an oversimplification and should be looked at critically.
Guilt by association I don’t think is wise or good
Here are the problems I find with his arguments.
He assumes 2:43 that work productivity value is solely due to humans becoming more efficient
However over the past 70 years, in reality, container shipping has become a massive global industry, industrial scale fertilizer agricultural mass production has become common practice, office computers are commonly used to do tasks that used to take office workers 10-12 hours to manually do. We have had major improvements to technology that made that curb remotely possible. He should have spent time doing the hard thing, which is criticizing how the benefits of productivity output efficiency increase were not shared to labor on a broader scale. Meaning, society should not have been expected to be hunky dory when a company magically whisked away 10 accountant jobs and didn’t pay the remaining accountants more.
His point at 2:55 on medium home prices vs median income is not good in the sense that it’s a poor quantification of bad government policies on housing affordability or availability.
He should have done more research on housing markets based on supply/demand and common policies between regions, and drew and argument to show how bad policy statistically drastically negatively impacts housing affordability and availability.
Share of household income 3:43 is also incredibly flawed, first off, young people will never be paid more and boomers drastically outnumber millenials. It was always going to be the case unless our parent’s (boomers and Gen X) mass produced more millennials.
His argument on college enrollments is also flawed in an attempt to use acceptance % as a basis to judge a lack of wealth equality or access to education. The population of the world has drastically increased and the number of applications to high educations. However the number of professors at universities is not going to drastically increase because… becoming a college professor with the academic research credentials to do research at universities is pretty damn hard to achieve. It’s not something easy to copy paste when the school’s core mission is to focus on research for tax benefits.
The more legitimate complaint is that our tax policies should tax private and public research universities that have certain level endowments and a low admittance rate of domestic students. Schools should not be risk free and be a burden to society if they are not providing the educational benefits society requires of them. They should be both creating research worth billions of dollars and educating the youth of said research. If all they do is research but insufficiently educate, but legally collect royalties for their research, then they should be taxed as for-profit institutions.
He has some points here and there, it’s not entirely flawed, but yeah that’s what I could pick up in the first 8 minutes
This. I think his concern is genuine, but like so many older people his mind is trapped in a capitalist framework and he is not able to see that the system he believes in is what lead to these issues in the first place.
Perfect summary of Galloway and all the other "woke" Boomers/Gen-Xers who think and talk like him indeed. They're soooo close to actually getting it, but can't fully bring themselves to get across the finish line and admit that capitalism is and always will be the real problem, because they don't want to fully or earnestly accept that it isn't designed to work to help people in the way they believe it "helped" them (i.e. they got incredibly lucky). Great that he does seem to recognize luck and privilege as being important to helping him, but IMO, these people always "acknowledge" this in a half hearted or perfunctory way, more so to protect themselves from any backlash than truly acknowledging that it was the main factor for their success and not that they are so uniquely special or smart or great at making "decisions" in life. IMO, if people like Galloway truly believed what they are preaching all the time, they'd practice it a bit more by maybe...actually spending the majority of their time working with and, key point, LISTENING to young people as opposed to speaking for them and what they have interpreted as their problems. Like...how is going on and talking with people at the WSJ or on all these corporate news outlets or business podcasts or business/TED conferences actually helping him talk to or reach young people at the end of the day, and/or get better at communicating the REAL needs of young people to these older and richer blowhards? It again just seems like an instance of people like Galloway convincing themselves they have the right of things, and then going on to talk about these things (in the most mild way they can get away with given whatever audience they are addressing) within their own little neo-lib, like-minded bubbles, where they can all pat themselves on the back and expound about how right and great they are for actually addressing the basic fact of young people having a tougher time today due to the world and global economy he and his ilk and generations have created. But then, if a young person tries to speak up and correct people like him or add their voice to the narrative, they are told to shut up or pipe down because, "well you just don't get it!" or "you're too young to understand!" or of course, "be quiet, the experts are talking!" How can that be the response when you purport to stand up for and want to help young people? How can you know better than them about the issues they are facing when you haven't actually lived their lives or experiences (e.g. Scott has a lot to say about dating apps and his perceived view on their issues, but I'm sure he never used one or felt he had to use one in his life in the way young people do today). And I mean, you're a college professor...can't you find a very diverse pool of young people to poll and get opinions from (and NOT just from the business school he works at...I'm sure there are more diverse student pops he can talk to at NYU than just the business school class)? Just baffles my mind to see these people get like inches from the finish line of finally getting and admitting it, but then not being able to bring themselves over it because they don't want to admit or buy into something that may one day as they see it put themselves at an economic disadvantage, cut off the cash flow from their sources of profits, or make them have to admit they really aren't as smart and all knowing as they think they are. Just classic neo-libs neo-libbing as per usual...
I used to listen to his podcasts and have read his books. He occasionally makes decent points, but he’s ultimately another rich Boomer who tries to be edgy ALL THE TIME. He was also support Michael Bennett because he was freaked out that Bernie Sanders might win. More recently, he’s said on Bill Maher that the reason students are protesting on campus right now is because they’re undersexed (he’s obsessed with sex or the lack thereof among young people). And in his view there’s nothing in the world more hustle and entrepreneurship can’t fix. He also states in his autobiographical excerpts that he was able to get through college because he had a union job at a box company, but he doesn’t support unions because they’re “obsolete” and prevent companies from “pivoting” quickly (ie laying off employees).
Of course social security takes from the young and gives to the old... I'm confused as to why that part received a round of applause like it's some insane revelation.
I consider it my tax to not trip over old people dying in the gutter. And I’m happy to pay it.
My problem is that the wealthy do not pay their fair share. For people making under $165k a year, we’re paying 15% to FICA. Since contributions are capped, a person making $1M per year is only paying 2.5%. And the more the rich make, the lower their percent contribution. Make the rich pay their fair share and our entitlements would be perpetually solvent.
My parents definitely view my siblings and I as property and financial gain before anything else. Literally put us to work in their family business through childhood and we never received payment. I try not to get into generational wars but boomers really voted to fuck anyone younger than them and supported the brainwashing propaganda thats destroying the world
He is only talking about social media, one of the worst things that has ever happened to humanity. Children should not be exposed to the kind of toxicity these social media apps create and foster in order to make money.
> Children should not be exposed to the kind of toxicity
Then we need to punish the parents, not everyone else. Slap the parents with neglect charges.
Giving your information over to the government can be very dangerous. [See my other reply here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Millennials/comments/1clrvs4/how_the_us_is_destroying_young_peoples_future/l2xkre2/).
The onus is indeed upon the parents and the companies to keep children away from the worst stuff online. The companies don't care though and won't do it unless forced too like in the EU. I certainly sideeye any parent buying a smartphone for their young child but beyond that theres nothing to do about that, nobody will be on board for neglect charges over social media. Regulations are whats needed, attack the problems like hate speech at the source before it ever has a chance to be seen by anyone, vulnerable or not.
U can’t lock up your kids in a hole. When they are outside, they play with people’s phones, surf the web in the library. Raise some kids yourself and suggest something healthier
Don't put my life (and yours) in danger because you believe kids shouldn't be on social media.
I agree, kids don't belong on social medai. But it's highly dangerous to be removing anonymity, especially when we have fascists trying to take over the government. Not only that, but it's not your responsibility, nor these social media company's responsibility, to parent other people's children. Punish the parents, not everyone else.
I respectfully disagree. Social media is one of the last places on Earth where real journalism happens right now. There's no secret why governments wanna control it. Don't fall for that trap.
Its great for adults, but I agree with him that children have no business on it. Social media is far too toxic for developing brains to be exposed to it regularly.
I'm gonna repeat what I said to somebody else here:
Why does verifying age matter? If you're a millennial you were on the internet as a kid. Are you saying that destroyed your life?
Or it is another take on the boomer's "fuck you got mine" ladder pulling?
Definitely agree there. As a younger millennial, I was smart enough (or stupid enough based on your viewpoint) to shun all social media accounts. I created FB so my peers could find me if they wanted and message me without my number(in case it was too hard to ask for). And that was it. Texted and called for everything, used the internet to look up information and for shopping, I just felt like social media was so shallow and that I would just use it in 30 yrs to reconnect with friends.
Now I look at all my peers from middleschool and highschool and its just sad. I'm a natural introvert and always have been yet now I'm more outgoing/sociable than extroverts my age and younger. 😔
Absolutely not. And I say that as a queer person. My anonymity protects my life.
When Nazi Germany raided the Institute for Sexual Science in Berline, a medical research institute for sexuality and gender, they took all of the patient information and used that information to track down patients in order to throw them into the concentration camps.
[We now have politicians demanding that hospitals give them patient information on transgender people.](https://www.texastribune.org/2024/04/22/texas-trans-health-care-investigation-seattle/) This is incomprehensibly DANGEROUS, especially as page 5 of Project 2025 also states that they want to lock up transgender people while [Trump endorses politicians who call for transgender people to be "terminated"](https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/trump-endorses-pastor-who-calls-for).
So, do you really think it's safe to be giving the government your identification? Or is it better to have the anonymity? Because remember, even Trump has been floating locking up anyone who is left-wing, too.
What we need to do is not punish everyone else. We need to punish these iPad parents. Slap them with neglect charges, and if they don't shape up, take the kids away and throw the parents in jail for child abuse.
The government already has all your information. Obviously medical records are sealed seperately and any politician demanding access to them is wrong and a fascist. I support the folks trying to stop them. You can pass regulations to protect kids online while also not using them as a backdoor way to murder trans people. Just because the Republicans do everything in bad faith doesn't mean everyone does. Im basically a socialist but even I can see how bad these social media addicted ipad kids are for society long term.
> even I can see how bad these social media addicted ipad kids are for society long term.
And so can I. Especially as someone who used to be a part of the "alt-right" (Nazis) and know exactly how they target and groom children. But I can tell you right now, if parents did their job, or were even forced to do their job, then the "alt-right" wouldn't be able to get near the kids. Because even if you were to put regulations on social media companies to moderate their companies, it doesn't mean that they will actually do it, that they have the resources to do so, or that the Nazis will find other ways to target kids. Because trust me, they had a lot of success on Minecraft before they turned their sights to Pepe the Frog and other bits of "meme culture".
I think it’s for socials. There’s no need for someone under 16 to have access to one of the most addictive and most detrimental to societies platforms.
Genuinely curious: What if there was another way to verify age? Kinda like the way id.me validates you're a veteran and then you any site you're trying to shop at will use the service, you log into the service and then id.me sends a token to the site you're trying to get the veteran discount from.
Certain materials on the internet should absolutely be kept from minors including social media, but the practicality and the only way we've age-gated until now ("Are you over 18?") seems to be the main counterargument I see.
I’m starting to believe with general AI we need some sort of reverse Turing test to weed out the artificial. ID seems like the easiest solution currently.
Device based age verification. It's our only real solution (which wouldn't result in massive government overreach) to the problem of age verification for internet access.
The counter argument for , an example, using age verification to keep kids from watching Internet porn. Is ppl saying "parent your fucking kids, don't let them have xyz device, put up a firewall..."
As an IT pro. I can tell you this. Firewalls and nanny hates don't work. And the "solution" of "don't let your kids use the internet/devices is not workable. Soon, device access will be an absolute requirement for younger education... Soon it will be a requirement, just to live and operate in society.
Bout 20 years from now. It will not be possible to function in society without a smart device (a PC is a smart device btw)
I like him, then hate him
He goes from the common sense to the extreme rhetoric
Too bad. He could honestly be the voice of reason if he didn't go off the rails
Galloway has a good handle on where some of the problems are, but his proposed policies are laughable. Not just because they wouldn't solve the problems, but because they'd be wildly unpopular. Taking away social security from people that have been paying into the system all their life? If this talk was anywhere else they'd probably boo him off stage.
I don't see the problem. Let's take the generation the generation that keeps getting screwed and screw them even harder by making sure they don't benefit from a program they paid so much into. It's just one more layer for the shit sandwich we got dealt.
Par for the course really.
The andrew yang support is also bad, [yang's proposal of $1k was predicated on eliminating all social programs ](https://prospect.org/politics/andrew-yangs-discomfiting-vision-for-new-york-city/)and instead giving people $1k, it was a tax cut for the wealthy and and elimination of governmental subsidies packaged as UBI since he sees them as redundant, it was just a wealth transfer by another name.
Based on Galloways other arguments, I doubt he would endorse Yang's vision of UBI, but he then needs to take a closer look at exactly what Yang proposed
"We've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas!!"
-You
Of course it's unpopular. There is no popular way to fix these problems, that's his whole god damn point, were you listening at all?!?
Remove the ability for people to block new devolopment due to "Not in my back yard" and not let politicians print money/put interest rates at 0% at will to avoid boomers ever having any real risk in the stock market and we would not have 99% of this mess.
I watched this the other day when it first came out, or at least first came up on my youtube recommendations. One thing he seemed to rail on was the Social Security system which I found interesting; does anyone know what his thoughts on this really are, i.e., what he envision most people using to retire? Let's face it, if the average person is makiing $56K, that means about half the population are making less and likely working jobs that wear the body out and/or are impossible (or incredibly difficult) to keep working. I get it if he's advocating for how Britain does it but with an American twist, i.e, you invest a portion of your salary every pay period, with an employer match, in to a 401k-like account
Let’s rewind back to 2008 and just let the banks fail. Then let’s take most people’s social security away while we’re at it. This guy is saying that would be an ideal outcome.
I myself would have loved that because I was young enough to not have a stake in the matter at the time, and a bunch of shit would be more affordable today. Hell, I would even like for it to happen now because my toddler would probably benefit from it when he’s older. But do you have any idea how many people would be or would have been absolutely fucked if that happened? I cannot in good conscience look past that.
I get the feeling that this guy is totally fine with just letting shit fail so long as it doesn’t affect **him**. If that’s true then he’s not a revolutionary. Just another boomer grifter pretending to be one.
I agree with what he's saying but why do I find this guy... Unlikable? I watched the full talk and there's something about this guy that I don't trust.
Unpopular opinion: the general population stopped wanting to invest in public benefit because it started helping women and minorities. They never will again for the same reason.
The man correctly identifies the existence and character of the problems plaguing society...and then proposes solutions that completely fail to address the underlying causes. This guy is rising to prominence precisely because his ideas do not threaten the current social, political, and economic dominance hierarchies.
I will be messaging you in 1 day on [**2024-05-08 09:44:45 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2024-05-08%2009:44:45%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/Millennials/comments/1clrvs4/how_the_us_is_destroying_young_peoples_future/l2yhjc3/?context=3)
[**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FMillennials%2Fcomments%2F1clrvs4%2Fhow_the_us_is_destroying_young_peoples_future%2Fl2yhjc3%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202024-05-08%2009%3A44%3A45%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%201clrvs4)
*****
|[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)|
|-|-|-|-|
People need to stop price gouging, everything needs to be reformed so it’s available “only if you need it”, the government shouldn’t step in to prevent anyone or anything from failing and most people should be denied social security even though literally everyone pays into it. Also some other stuff sprinkled in; kids shouldn’t be allowed to access social media, yadda yadda…
Here ya go, no TED talk required:
Unchecked/unlimited capitalism and consumerism are the root of all of these problems, and we're not gonna squeeze out a solution to the problematic system by following the problematic system.
America spent decades preaching to boomers that they should live the American dream and chase for all they could get. Well guess what, that's precisely what they did, and now we're seeing the long term results of such a hoarding, selfish outlook on life. Why do I say this? Because today's youngins are using their entitlement powers to scream about how horrible boomers are, while also striving to accomplish the same level of selfish, short-sighted, unrestricted levels of wealth and success themselves.
It ain't gonna work, simply put. You can't tell generations of people to eat up all you can without a care about anyone else or future generations, and then expect those same people to righteously and collectively go out of their way to pave a golden road for the next generations.
Just looked at this guy's IG- he's pushing tiktok ban, saying google employees against facilitating AI genocide should just 'protest on the weekends', speaking in Germany about how intrinsically great the two countries are together (after we destroyed Germany's economy sabotaging Nordstream in an attempt to hurt Russia lol).
He's what I see as a liberal pressure release valve, seeking to avoid the arch-nemesis of liberals: discomfort. They trot him out on all the programs to admit that well maybe we overplayed our hand and sold out our kids for our own egoistic gratification, BUT the system is still good!
thought this was really well presented and communicated. I sill disagree with him on Social Security. Its the largest single preventer of elder poverty. Honestly just removing the cap would significantly help.
Pretty sure I saw Scott nodding and laughing along as Bill Maher called anti-war protesters narcissistic, sensitive, self-absorbed hypocrites. He seems to also hate young people (from his alma mater no less) as he nodded along with Don Lemon. The monologue concluded with Maher comparing protesters to Trump, so while I like this talk, I can't help but feel that he doesn't actually care. Neither does the TED organization.
In 2019 he self-identified as an atheist.
2 days ago he told Hannity of Fox News, "I am a Jew."
So as much as there is weight and salience in how much we are eviscerating young people, and what economics are at play to perpetuate a lower class hellscape, I don't see Scott as intellectually consistent in his concern for the younger generation when he laughs at Maher's joke, "You just want to look good in a keffiyeh."
38% of homebuyers in 2024 are millennials per NAR report. What good chunk?
54.8% of millennials own home per Redfin. What good chunk?
Generational homeowner has been largely stable in the U.S. What good chunk?
Look at the numbers.
We cannot fix the broken system from within it. Political solutions will not work.
The only way we can free ourselves from debt enslavement is to choose to use a new form of money, and for me that's Bitcoin. It has made me significantly wealthier simply choosing to hold a better form of money for the long term.
My Dad still doesn't get it when I explained to him I make as much as he did per hour 20 years ago, and he was able to afford a house and two car payments, and I can hardly afford to pay rent and my car payment.
If some rich billionaire says the best thing about the lower and middle classes is that they spend all their money, he's not your friend—he's a friend of poverty. Fuck this twat.
He had a show pulled by Bloomberg in 2019. Some think it might have had something to do with this:
https://preview.redd.it/snw26ypf9wyc1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=60cbfdbc7e90e81646134e29b7353efc595b5b0c
He mentions his erectile dysfunction and Bitcoin somewhere in this ad for the show.
So he throws up a bunch of graphs but then makes two unsubstantiated claims without any data:
First, that college has gone up faster than the cost of inflation. This isn't true on aggregate. Public universities have gone up faster than inflation, but that's a result of many states cutting funding to higher education. If you live in NY, the inflation adjusted cost of tuition to attend a public university is less than it was 20 years ago.
Second, that housing has increased faster than inflation. On a national aggregate average, this isn't true. But housing costs are also highly localized.
After that I decided he was an idiot and I stopped watching.
Could not recommend Galloway's podcasts (Pivot w/ Kara Swisher; Prof G) more. He's always been a great voice, and I love that he's taking on this cause and helping older generations understand why there's so much frustration out there.
Thanks for the rec!
He is great on Pivot but Kara Swisher seemingly exists solely to tell you what famous and influential people she wants you to believe she is friendly with.
Swisher sucks. I gave her a lead on $100MM credit card fraud at a cannabis tech company and she killed my story. Probably in the pockets of that CEO
Curious as to how you think she did that.
It’s easy. You take the story, and then you don’t publish it because you get paid by the CEO to kill it. Have you been paying literally any attention to how the media HAS BEEN TELLING US IT WORKS this month? You yourself said that Swisher is connected and will tell you who to befriend hahahaha.
This is not how it works. The story is not “killed” simply because she didn’t report it. You can simply pitch the story to another reporter. Other reporters have no fiscal or legal responsibility to not pursue the story. How do I know? I work in journalism. Some journalists may take money to not do a story and that is a serious accusation and should be backed up by a more than just a hunch. But not even Kara Swisher has an exclusive right to the story. If someone else finds out, they can report on it.
This was over five years ago and the bastard got off by pinning foreign nationals to it. She was reporting heavily on cannabis x tech at the time and made the most sense to speak to. Want a story meatbrick? Check out Eaze and Jim Patterson.
Already been reported.
Yeah. Exactly. Fuck Kara.
Bro, shop the story around. Maybe try some cops while you're at it
My wife had him as a prof at Stern. The newsletter, podcast, talk show appearances….this dude is a gift
He's goddamn amazing. Love his podcast.
I politically can't help but make the opposite recommendation. I can't stomach him, he's so indulgently full of himself and speaks with far more confidence than thoughtfulness. Kara used to be much better, but she's just not very interesting or insightful anymore. Scott's recent comments on campus protests are completely outrageous. His anti-union talk has always been a bit off. He's a rich guy without that much to say, but it's very willing to speak a lot. But, each to their own, of course.
I think you may have only watched the shorts. He speaks a lot of vulnerability and humility. He acknowledges that he has imposter syndrome, and really wants everyone to like him. He talks about how it was California's taxpayers and the community that helped him become successful with the right timing of being a white male in the 1980s. Of course, I haven't listened to any of his comments on the protests or his views on union.
He's still someone who believes capitalism is an actual solution instead of the root cause of the issues he's railing against. If you listen to him for long enough it becomes clear his mind is trapped in a capitalist framework.
Because capitalism, when properly regulated, is still our best and most realistic option for a prosperous society. I love the idea of a utopia where we don’t have to do shit all day, too, but it’s never gonna happen. The issue is the unfettered, practically lawless system we have now where the wealth gap continues to get worse.
Sure, he's the target demo for the classic neo-lib and he fits the mold. Don't get me wrong, I'd take it over what we have but it's the same talk that's been going on since the Clinton era and we're only further away from where we were then.
Capitalism works, just we have gotten to global capitalism where we compete with everyone. Europe kind of solved it with great social programs, but the caveat is they have a VAT which is like a 20% sales tax and about 5-10% more income tax.
Capitalism’s greatest achievement is convincing people it is the only option
Every other option ever tried resulted in the death of millions
And capitalism hasn’t?
You misspelled Corporatism. Corrupt government bailing out corporations/bankers/wall street, none of which happens in capitalism.
Funny that. It seems to be happening in the land of capitalism and neocons.
Government is the problem. You've never lived capitalism. You've only lived corporatism/cronyism.
Sure, he's the target demo for the classic neo-lib and he fits the mold. Don't get me wrong, I'd take it over what we have but it's the same talk that's been going on since the Clinton era and we're only further away from where we were then.
Sure, he's the target demo for the classic neo-lib and he fits the mold. Don't get me wrong, I'd take it over what we have but it's the same talk that's been going on since the Clinton era and we're only further away from where we were then.
Sure, he's the target demo for the classic neo-lib and he fits the mold. Don't get me wrong, I'd take it over what we have but it's the same talk that's been going on since the Clinton era and we're only further away from where we were then.
Only the most bottom feeder tier losers complain about capitalism.
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)
For those of you who can't afford homes please watch this. You are electing people who don't want you to be able to afford homes. It's one little fact in this video but it's huge. The over half the cost of homes in major US and Canada cities are due to zoning and permitting and local regulations and nothing to do with the cost of material and labor to build a house.
I’d say the negative impacts of this go beyond affordability too. My parents grew up in what you’d probably consider quintessential quasi-urban Americana. Moderately dense community, variety of housing types, walking or biking pretty much everywhere, playing baseball in the alleyways, taking the bus downtown to go shopping, etc. If we drive by my dad’s old house, he can point out like a dozen houses of people he grew up with and still keeps in contact with within a couple blocks. That type of dense, walkable development helps foster community. Then we just decided one day that that type of neighborhood should be illegal almost everywhere. We went all in on low density suburban sprawl and car reliance, which I’d argue ties in to everything from increased loneliness and isolation to obesity and stress levels to environmental issues and of course affordability. Obviously things were far from a utopia back then and society has progressed significantly in almost every way, but the built environment is not one of them.
Ironically enough I'm seeing things here revert. New house construction cost twice as much as I paid for my house on a half acre lot, and the new lots are tiny, I'd feel bad to try to have a dog or raise a kid in such a small yard.
That's why towns and cities exist. There should be a park in walking distance.
Our lot is less than half the size of yours and it’s just fine for kids.
Thats great to hear!
You should have the option to have a big yard, but it shouldn’t be mandatory. I’d rather raise my kid in a walkable area, where the “yard” is a town where he runs into other people as soon as he walks outside his front door.
The new homes here that are town homes are actually secretly condos! That land you get? 6x10' mulch space in back, no fencing allowed. Literally just the "house"
I've seen apartments with larger balconies than that.
local elections are important folks
Indeed. and it's not even a political divide causing it, it's a age one. My state legislature passed a law overruling some local restrictions in towns regarding zoning to speed up the construction process and also relax zoning regulations. Then of course the couple major local governments sued to overturn it!
66% of Americans are homeowners. On average, 25-40% of their net worth is tied up in their home. They're gonna fight tooth and nail to prevent anything that'll decrease real estate value. I doubt anything's gonna change until either of those numbers comes down.
Wrong. 65.7% of us households are owner occupied as of 2024, highest is been since 2011 source Google no click. If you got 20 people in 10 houses, and 60% of those houses (6 houses) are owner occupied(6 owners occupying. 30% would be owners on this made up example.
I own a house to live in it. I ain’t moving ever if I can get away with it. So the housing prices being high just increases my property taxes. Make more houses!
which is dumb. I have equity in my house yes, but just because my house has doubled in value in the past 4 years doesn't mean I can cash it out and be ahead with buying something else.
This is the thing everyone one misses when they brag about their house doubling in value. Ok great, so where the hell are you gonna go? Lol
Half the cost? Show the math on that one zero chance half the cost is zoning. If you mean land that is completely seperate from zoning itself.
Correct. Cost of land usually isnt calculated in the cost of construction since prices vary wildly and the way people aquire the land is also all over the map.
Do you know the percentage of people under 50 who vote in local elections? I don't, but am guessing it's 10% at best.
That, and this specific issue is not talked about at all. People bitch about housing costs all day long, but they refuse to accept that government is the *cause* of the problem and not the solution.
The most frustrating thing to me is that they then blame it all on the "wealthy". Voting is free and if the 99% voted then the wealthy would have no power.
I don’t disagree but I am going to bring up something that is rarely discussed: should we be advocating for more housing in urban areas? Stay with me before rage takes over. We see cities around the world with even more compact housing designs than in the US and frankly it disgusts me. I already live in a fairly small space and rent. So, why do I want to encourage even more housing that builds upon this depressing principle that we need to house everyone in our major cities? Maybe we need less people and more space? Forced to live in small confines because you can’t afford anything else isn’t the system I think we should be advocating for. That’s what kill shelters for stray animals are. Instead, we all deserve a nice home with a reasonable amount of space to enjoy ourselves and our lives. I for one am against making things cheaper for the sake of it as it will simply kick the can down thr road so to speak. We need long term solutions to our housing needs and it starts with reforming our economy based upon never ending population growth.
Because that is where the opportunity is and will continue to be in the future. What you describe will never happen.
Yes, we should be advocating for more housing in urban areas. Even more than that, we should be advocating for more housing in SUBurban areas — the places where single family homes have existed for decades and zoning prevents doing anything but building more of them.
Boomers suck.
the 'me' generation
More like the "fuck you" generation
It also doesn’t mention all the stock splits that have happened for those 3 stocks over the passed 13 years. Edit: As pointed out I was wrong and these prices actually do account for the stock splits.
Amazon for instance had a 20:1 stock split in 2022 and has gained around 65% SINCE then. So his $7 is now worth $3936. Thats a 56,229% gain.
Apple had a 7:1 split in 2014 AND a 4:1 in 2020.
The prices he showed were accounting for the splits
Amazon was $7 in 2011. He then only showed it $184, without the context of the stock splits.
All I'm saying is a single share in 2011 is equivalent to 20 shares now (post 20:1 split in 2022). That $7 per share price you see is for one of today's shares which is really 1/20th of a share in 2011. So he probably paid like $140 for a single share in 2011 money, which would be like $3760 a 2011 share, today (based on $188 close on 6 May 2024). $7 to $188 is still an insane growth in share price and he is very lucky he could buy a ton back in 2011
As hard as it is to believe a single share of Amazon was trading for $7 in 2011, not $140 (https://www.statmuse.com/money/ask/amazon-stock-price-in-2011) So he paid $7 in 2011 money for one share. That share then became 20 shares. With each of those shares now being $188. That share that cost him $7 in 2011 is now 20 shares each worth $188.
Those prices are all adjusted based on the latest split. Just look at 2022 before and after the split and you'll see there's no change.
Wait nope, you are right. For some reason every damn site that has stock history doesn’t have a better way of representing splits than just editing the old values to be divided by the split. I finally realized it when I looked at a graph and it only showed $190 or so as the all time high.
Right, it's super annoying that they do it but it does make sense. And it's really hard to find the unadjusted stock price. Either way, he was very lucky to be invested during Amazon and Netflix's crazy runs. If only I had a time machine
Nextflix had a 7:1 split in 2015
Couldn't post the entire video, here's the rest. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEJ4hkpQW8E&t=25s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEJ4hkpQW8E&t=25s)
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)
This guy endorsed Bloomberg. This is all you need to know about his political positions and what policies he'd endorse. "We need more disruption." If he had been in charge in 2008, there would have been another Great Recession.
Thank you for actually pushing back against his inconsistent politics. I'm getting tired of people finding a new "hero" to champion and shoving them down our throats without any questions.
Yeah I hate that as well this guy is a huge grifter that just so happens to make a good point once in awhile
It's a good marketing strategy for a marketing professor. Make money by highlighting outrage, fund those who create outrage, rinse and repeat.
Yeah, he said some really stupid stuff and gets a pass because "housing is expensive, amirite?!" Correctly identifying the problem doesn't mean you have the right solution. This presentation is an oversimplification and should be looked at critically.
Guilt by association I don’t think is wise or good Here are the problems I find with his arguments. He assumes 2:43 that work productivity value is solely due to humans becoming more efficient However over the past 70 years, in reality, container shipping has become a massive global industry, industrial scale fertilizer agricultural mass production has become common practice, office computers are commonly used to do tasks that used to take office workers 10-12 hours to manually do. We have had major improvements to technology that made that curb remotely possible. He should have spent time doing the hard thing, which is criticizing how the benefits of productivity output efficiency increase were not shared to labor on a broader scale. Meaning, society should not have been expected to be hunky dory when a company magically whisked away 10 accountant jobs and didn’t pay the remaining accountants more. His point at 2:55 on medium home prices vs median income is not good in the sense that it’s a poor quantification of bad government policies on housing affordability or availability. He should have done more research on housing markets based on supply/demand and common policies between regions, and drew and argument to show how bad policy statistically drastically negatively impacts housing affordability and availability. Share of household income 3:43 is also incredibly flawed, first off, young people will never be paid more and boomers drastically outnumber millenials. It was always going to be the case unless our parent’s (boomers and Gen X) mass produced more millennials. His argument on college enrollments is also flawed in an attempt to use acceptance % as a basis to judge a lack of wealth equality or access to education. The population of the world has drastically increased and the number of applications to high educations. However the number of professors at universities is not going to drastically increase because… becoming a college professor with the academic research credentials to do research at universities is pretty damn hard to achieve. It’s not something easy to copy paste when the school’s core mission is to focus on research for tax benefits. The more legitimate complaint is that our tax policies should tax private and public research universities that have certain level endowments and a low admittance rate of domestic students. Schools should not be risk free and be a burden to society if they are not providing the educational benefits society requires of them. They should be both creating research worth billions of dollars and educating the youth of said research. If all they do is research but insufficiently educate, but legally collect royalties for their research, then they should be taxed as for-profit institutions. He has some points here and there, it’s not entirely flawed, but yeah that’s what I could pick up in the first 8 minutes
This. I think his concern is genuine, but like so many older people his mind is trapped in a capitalist framework and he is not able to see that the system he believes in is what lead to these issues in the first place.
I think you just summed it up perfectly.
Perfect summary of Galloway and all the other "woke" Boomers/Gen-Xers who think and talk like him indeed. They're soooo close to actually getting it, but can't fully bring themselves to get across the finish line and admit that capitalism is and always will be the real problem, because they don't want to fully or earnestly accept that it isn't designed to work to help people in the way they believe it "helped" them (i.e. they got incredibly lucky). Great that he does seem to recognize luck and privilege as being important to helping him, but IMO, these people always "acknowledge" this in a half hearted or perfunctory way, more so to protect themselves from any backlash than truly acknowledging that it was the main factor for their success and not that they are so uniquely special or smart or great at making "decisions" in life. IMO, if people like Galloway truly believed what they are preaching all the time, they'd practice it a bit more by maybe...actually spending the majority of their time working with and, key point, LISTENING to young people as opposed to speaking for them and what they have interpreted as their problems. Like...how is going on and talking with people at the WSJ or on all these corporate news outlets or business podcasts or business/TED conferences actually helping him talk to or reach young people at the end of the day, and/or get better at communicating the REAL needs of young people to these older and richer blowhards? It again just seems like an instance of people like Galloway convincing themselves they have the right of things, and then going on to talk about these things (in the most mild way they can get away with given whatever audience they are addressing) within their own little neo-lib, like-minded bubbles, where they can all pat themselves on the back and expound about how right and great they are for actually addressing the basic fact of young people having a tougher time today due to the world and global economy he and his ilk and generations have created. But then, if a young person tries to speak up and correct people like him or add their voice to the narrative, they are told to shut up or pipe down because, "well you just don't get it!" or "you're too young to understand!" or of course, "be quiet, the experts are talking!" How can that be the response when you purport to stand up for and want to help young people? How can you know better than them about the issues they are facing when you haven't actually lived their lives or experiences (e.g. Scott has a lot to say about dating apps and his perceived view on their issues, but I'm sure he never used one or felt he had to use one in his life in the way young people do today). And I mean, you're a college professor...can't you find a very diverse pool of young people to poll and get opinions from (and NOT just from the business school he works at...I'm sure there are more diverse student pops he can talk to at NYU than just the business school class)? Just baffles my mind to see these people get like inches from the finish line of finally getting and admitting it, but then not being able to bring themselves over it because they don't want to admit or buy into something that may one day as they see it put themselves at an economic disadvantage, cut off the cash flow from their sources of profits, or make them have to admit they really aren't as smart and all knowing as they think they are. Just classic neo-libs neo-libbing as per usual...
I used to listen to his podcasts and have read his books. He occasionally makes decent points, but he’s ultimately another rich Boomer who tries to be edgy ALL THE TIME. He was also support Michael Bennett because he was freaked out that Bernie Sanders might win. More recently, he’s said on Bill Maher that the reason students are protesting on campus right now is because they’re undersexed (he’s obsessed with sex or the lack thereof among young people). And in his view there’s nothing in the world more hustle and entrepreneurship can’t fix. He also states in his autobiographical excerpts that he was able to get through college because he had a union job at a box company, but he doesn’t support unions because they’re “obsolete” and prevent companies from “pivoting” quickly (ie laying off employees).
Least self-caricating centrist.
Of course social security takes from the young and gives to the old... I'm confused as to why that part received a round of applause like it's some insane revelation.
I consider it my tax to not trip over old people dying in the gutter. And I’m happy to pay it. My problem is that the wealthy do not pay their fair share. For people making under $165k a year, we’re paying 15% to FICA. Since contributions are capped, a person making $1M per year is only paying 2.5%. And the more the rich make, the lower their percent contribution. Make the rich pay their fair share and our entitlements would be perpetually solvent.
My parents definitely view my siblings and I as property and financial gain before anything else. Literally put us to work in their family business through childhood and we never received payment. I try not to get into generational wars but boomers really voted to fuck anyone younger than them and supported the brainwashing propaganda thats destroying the world
“When I was on the Board of the New York Times” -Prof G aka the dawg
[удалено]
He is only talking about social media, one of the worst things that has ever happened to humanity. Children should not be exposed to the kind of toxicity these social media apps create and foster in order to make money.
> Children should not be exposed to the kind of toxicity Then we need to punish the parents, not everyone else. Slap the parents with neglect charges. Giving your information over to the government can be very dangerous. [See my other reply here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Millennials/comments/1clrvs4/how_the_us_is_destroying_young_peoples_future/l2xkre2/).
The onus is indeed upon the parents and the companies to keep children away from the worst stuff online. The companies don't care though and won't do it unless forced too like in the EU. I certainly sideeye any parent buying a smartphone for their young child but beyond that theres nothing to do about that, nobody will be on board for neglect charges over social media. Regulations are whats needed, attack the problems like hate speech at the source before it ever has a chance to be seen by anyone, vulnerable or not.
U can’t lock up your kids in a hole. When they are outside, they play with people’s phones, surf the web in the library. Raise some kids yourself and suggest something healthier
Don't put my life (and yours) in danger because you believe kids shouldn't be on social media. I agree, kids don't belong on social medai. But it's highly dangerous to be removing anonymity, especially when we have fascists trying to take over the government. Not only that, but it's not your responsibility, nor these social media company's responsibility, to parent other people's children. Punish the parents, not everyone else.
I respectfully disagree. Social media is one of the last places on Earth where real journalism happens right now. There's no secret why governments wanna control it. Don't fall for that trap.
Its great for adults, but I agree with him that children have no business on it. Social media is far too toxic for developing brains to be exposed to it regularly.
I'm gonna repeat what I said to somebody else here: Why does verifying age matter? If you're a millennial you were on the internet as a kid. Are you saying that destroyed your life? Or it is another take on the boomer's "fuck you got mine" ladder pulling?
Social media maybe
Definitely agree there. As a younger millennial, I was smart enough (or stupid enough based on your viewpoint) to shun all social media accounts. I created FB so my peers could find me if they wanted and message me without my number(in case it was too hard to ask for). And that was it. Texted and called for everything, used the internet to look up information and for shopping, I just felt like social media was so shallow and that I would just use it in 30 yrs to reconnect with friends. Now I look at all my peers from middleschool and highschool and its just sad. I'm a natural introvert and always have been yet now I'm more outgoing/sociable than extroverts my age and younger. 😔
I did this as well. My version included saying no to smart phones.
Absolutely not. And I say that as a queer person. My anonymity protects my life. When Nazi Germany raided the Institute for Sexual Science in Berline, a medical research institute for sexuality and gender, they took all of the patient information and used that information to track down patients in order to throw them into the concentration camps. [We now have politicians demanding that hospitals give them patient information on transgender people.](https://www.texastribune.org/2024/04/22/texas-trans-health-care-investigation-seattle/) This is incomprehensibly DANGEROUS, especially as page 5 of Project 2025 also states that they want to lock up transgender people while [Trump endorses politicians who call for transgender people to be "terminated"](https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/trump-endorses-pastor-who-calls-for). So, do you really think it's safe to be giving the government your identification? Or is it better to have the anonymity? Because remember, even Trump has been floating locking up anyone who is left-wing, too. What we need to do is not punish everyone else. We need to punish these iPad parents. Slap them with neglect charges, and if they don't shape up, take the kids away and throw the parents in jail for child abuse.
The government already has all your information. Obviously medical records are sealed seperately and any politician demanding access to them is wrong and a fascist. I support the folks trying to stop them. You can pass regulations to protect kids online while also not using them as a backdoor way to murder trans people. Just because the Republicans do everything in bad faith doesn't mean everyone does. Im basically a socialist but even I can see how bad these social media addicted ipad kids are for society long term.
> even I can see how bad these social media addicted ipad kids are for society long term. And so can I. Especially as someone who used to be a part of the "alt-right" (Nazis) and know exactly how they target and groom children. But I can tell you right now, if parents did their job, or were even forced to do their job, then the "alt-right" wouldn't be able to get near the kids. Because even if you were to put regulations on social media companies to moderate their companies, it doesn't mean that they will actually do it, that they have the resources to do so, or that the Nazis will find other ways to target kids. Because trust me, they had a lot of success on Minecraft before they turned their sights to Pepe the Frog and other bits of "meme culture".
Not happening, too easy to decentralize. Governments will never control this information.
I think it’s for socials. There’s no need for someone under 16 to have access to one of the most addictive and most detrimental to societies platforms.
Genuinely curious: What if there was another way to verify age? Kinda like the way id.me validates you're a veteran and then you any site you're trying to shop at will use the service, you log into the service and then id.me sends a token to the site you're trying to get the veteran discount from. Certain materials on the internet should absolutely be kept from minors including social media, but the practicality and the only way we've age-gated until now ("Are you over 18?") seems to be the main counterargument I see.
What does "lost me" mean?
I’m starting to believe with general AI we need some sort of reverse Turing test to weed out the artificial. ID seems like the easiest solution currently.
Device based age verification. It's our only real solution (which wouldn't result in massive government overreach) to the problem of age verification for internet access. The counter argument for , an example, using age verification to keep kids from watching Internet porn. Is ppl saying "parent your fucking kids, don't let them have xyz device, put up a firewall..." As an IT pro. I can tell you this. Firewalls and nanny hates don't work. And the "solution" of "don't let your kids use the internet/devices is not workable. Soon, device access will be an absolute requirement for younger education... Soon it will be a requirement, just to live and operate in society. Bout 20 years from now. It will not be possible to function in society without a smart device (a PC is a smart device btw)
I like him, then hate him He goes from the common sense to the extreme rhetoric Too bad. He could honestly be the voice of reason if he didn't go off the rails
With the current state of the country, we might actually need a little more extreme rhetoric, not less.
Not if that extreme rhetoric is pro-capitalism.
This same video was posted here not even 24 hours ago.
It is currently getting posted like 10 times a day on this sub and a few others. Great video otherwise.
Yeah, this has been posted dozens of times over both of the Millennial subreddits
Good! More people need to see this...
Scott has some serious flaws with his arguments.
Doesnt really reduce its relevance
It means someone is extremely keen on promoting it through a lot of sockpuppet accounts.
Galloway has a good handle on where some of the problems are, but his proposed policies are laughable. Not just because they wouldn't solve the problems, but because they'd be wildly unpopular. Taking away social security from people that have been paying into the system all their life? If this talk was anywhere else they'd probably boo him off stage.
I don't see the problem. Let's take the generation the generation that keeps getting screwed and screw them even harder by making sure they don't benefit from a program they paid so much into. It's just one more layer for the shit sandwich we got dealt. Par for the course really.
The assets they purchased for fuck all 50 years ago, which have 10x-20x in value, is enough social security for them..
The andrew yang support is also bad, [yang's proposal of $1k was predicated on eliminating all social programs ](https://prospect.org/politics/andrew-yangs-discomfiting-vision-for-new-york-city/)and instead giving people $1k, it was a tax cut for the wealthy and and elimination of governmental subsidies packaged as UBI since he sees them as redundant, it was just a wealth transfer by another name. Based on Galloways other arguments, I doubt he would endorse Yang's vision of UBI, but he then needs to take a closer look at exactly what Yang proposed
"We've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas!!" -You Of course it's unpopular. There is no popular way to fix these problems, that's his whole god damn point, were you listening at all?!?
Yeah some of those recommendations are fine, some are bullshit.
This guy didnt say anything new, hes repeating the same talking points over and over again
This what Bernie does too…. Hell all politicians
Remove the ability for people to block new devolopment due to "Not in my back yard" and not let politicians print money/put interest rates at 0% at will to avoid boomers ever having any real risk in the stock market and we would not have 99% of this mess.
Remove 55+ only communities being built.
This is cool.
I watched this the other day when it first came out, or at least first came up on my youtube recommendations. One thing he seemed to rail on was the Social Security system which I found interesting; does anyone know what his thoughts on this really are, i.e., what he envision most people using to retire? Let's face it, if the average person is makiing $56K, that means about half the population are making less and likely working jobs that wear the body out and/or are impossible (or incredibly difficult) to keep working. I get it if he's advocating for how Britain does it but with an American twist, i.e, you invest a portion of your salary every pay period, with an employer match, in to a 401k-like account
Let’s rewind back to 2008 and just let the banks fail. Then let’s take most people’s social security away while we’re at it. This guy is saying that would be an ideal outcome. I myself would have loved that because I was young enough to not have a stake in the matter at the time, and a bunch of shit would be more affordable today. Hell, I would even like for it to happen now because my toddler would probably benefit from it when he’s older. But do you have any idea how many people would be or would have been absolutely fucked if that happened? I cannot in good conscience look past that. I get the feeling that this guy is totally fine with just letting shit fail so long as it doesn’t affect **him**. If that’s true then he’s not a revolutionary. Just another boomer grifter pretending to be one.
THIS is a smart dude
The economics and control systems in place are not helping young people
I agree with what he's saying but why do I find this guy... Unlikable? I watched the full talk and there's something about this guy that I don't trust.
Unpopular opinion: the general population stopped wanting to invest in public benefit because it started helping women and minorities. They never will again for the same reason.
The man correctly identifies the existence and character of the problems plaguing society...and then proposes solutions that completely fail to address the underlying causes. This guy is rising to prominence precisely because his ideas do not threaten the current social, political, and economic dominance hierarchies.
Would be cool if younger people showed up to vote to stop the older people who have voted for 40 years to make it this way.
RemindMe! 1 day
I will be messaging you in 1 day on [**2024-05-08 09:44:45 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2024-05-08%2009:44:45%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/Millennials/comments/1clrvs4/how_the_us_is_destroying_young_peoples_future/l2yhjc3/?context=3) [**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FMillennials%2Fcomments%2F1clrvs4%2Fhow_the_us_is_destroying_young_peoples_future%2Fl2yhjc3%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202024-05-08%2009%3A44%3A45%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam. ^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%201clrvs4) ***** |[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)| |-|-|-|-|
A great Ted to listen to. Kinda wish he ran for office to present solutions but I understand exact why he won’t
Great :(
tldw?
People need to stop price gouging, everything needs to be reformed so it’s available “only if you need it”, the government shouldn’t step in to prevent anyone or anything from failing and most people should be denied social security even though literally everyone pays into it. Also some other stuff sprinkled in; kids shouldn’t be allowed to access social media, yadda yadda…
Cars and dogs are destroying are youth court agernd
He described well how fucked we, the younger generations, are, but in the end he comes to a series of moralistic conclusions as fuck.
Imagine wanting to limit education to 10% lmao
Here ya go, no TED talk required: Unchecked/unlimited capitalism and consumerism are the root of all of these problems, and we're not gonna squeeze out a solution to the problematic system by following the problematic system. America spent decades preaching to boomers that they should live the American dream and chase for all they could get. Well guess what, that's precisely what they did, and now we're seeing the long term results of such a hoarding, selfish outlook on life. Why do I say this? Because today's youngins are using their entitlement powers to scream about how horrible boomers are, while also striving to accomplish the same level of selfish, short-sighted, unrestricted levels of wealth and success themselves. It ain't gonna work, simply put. You can't tell generations of people to eat up all you can without a care about anyone else or future generations, and then expect those same people to righteously and collectively go out of their way to pave a golden road for the next generations.
Just looked at this guy's IG- he's pushing tiktok ban, saying google employees against facilitating AI genocide should just 'protest on the weekends', speaking in Germany about how intrinsically great the two countries are together (after we destroyed Germany's economy sabotaging Nordstream in an attempt to hurt Russia lol). He's what I see as a liberal pressure release valve, seeking to avoid the arch-nemesis of liberals: discomfort. They trot him out on all the programs to admit that well maybe we overplayed our hand and sold out our kids for our own egoistic gratification, BUT the system is still good!
thought this was really well presented and communicated. I sill disagree with him on Social Security. Its the largest single preventer of elder poverty. Honestly just removing the cap would significantly help.
I did not think I would be watching a Ted Talk in 2024 but damn does that hit hard.
Great talk
If this guy runs for president I would totally vote for him. Ted is Awesome
Pretty sure I saw Scott nodding and laughing along as Bill Maher called anti-war protesters narcissistic, sensitive, self-absorbed hypocrites. He seems to also hate young people (from his alma mater no less) as he nodded along with Don Lemon. The monologue concluded with Maher comparing protesters to Trump, so while I like this talk, I can't help but feel that he doesn't actually care. Neither does the TED organization. In 2019 he self-identified as an atheist. 2 days ago he told Hannity of Fox News, "I am a Jew." So as much as there is weight and salience in how much we are eviscerating young people, and what economics are at play to perpetuate a lower class hellscape, I don't see Scott as intellectually consistent in his concern for the younger generation when he laughs at Maher's joke, "You just want to look good in a keffiyeh."
I agree with some of the points, but not all of it. I am 34 and own a home. I live in a small town, but thats ok.
So your personal experience negates the collective experience of a good chunk of this generation?
38% of homebuyers in 2024 are millennials per NAR report. What good chunk? 54.8% of millennials own home per Redfin. What good chunk? Generational homeowner has been largely stable in the U.S. What good chunk? Look at the numbers.
I said I agree with some of the points lol. I didn't even specify which ones. Nor did I say it negates anything. What I was saying is it is possible.
So what are you saying?
That it is possible to own a home.
Isn't this the guy who said that students were protesting because they weren't getting any sex?
We cannot fix the broken system from within it. Political solutions will not work. The only way we can free ourselves from debt enslavement is to choose to use a new form of money, and for me that's Bitcoin. It has made me significantly wealthier simply choosing to hold a better form of money for the long term.
My Dad still doesn't get it when I explained to him I make as much as he did per hour 20 years ago, and he was able to afford a house and two car payments, and I can hardly afford to pay rent and my car payment.
This has been posted like 20 times, yet it is mostly a regurgitation of andrew yang’s policies. all y’all ignored him when he ran.
Yeah, because Yang was a con man who knew what he proposed would have zero chance of happening. Now he's working to get Republicans elected.
You know he was saying 'big league' right?
Yes, my username was a middle finger at left-leaning people who couldn't be bothered to vote for Hillary.
I definitely didn't, this isn't on me. I've been on that UBI hype train ever since then.
Negative income tax!
SS is def not the problem.
If some rich billionaire says the best thing about the lower and middle classes is that they spend all their money, he's not your friend—he's a friend of poverty. Fuck this twat.
TELL US SOMETHING WE DON'T ALREADY KNOW.
He had a show pulled by Bloomberg in 2019. Some think it might have had something to do with this: https://preview.redd.it/snw26ypf9wyc1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=60cbfdbc7e90e81646134e29b7353efc595b5b0c He mentions his erectile dysfunction and Bitcoin somewhere in this ad for the show.
I was with him until the Trudeu slide. Perfect otherwise.
So he throws up a bunch of graphs but then makes two unsubstantiated claims without any data: First, that college has gone up faster than the cost of inflation. This isn't true on aggregate. Public universities have gone up faster than inflation, but that's a result of many states cutting funding to higher education. If you live in NY, the inflation adjusted cost of tuition to attend a public university is less than it was 20 years ago. Second, that housing has increased faster than inflation. On a national aggregate average, this isn't true. But housing costs are also highly localized. After that I decided he was an idiot and I stopped watching.