Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Tuesday October 10 2017, @11:04AM   Printer-friendly
from the me-me-me-me-me-me-me-me-me-me dept.

Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard

In an age of political animus, increasing hostility toward "others," and 24/7 media coverage that seems to focus on the negative, a recent article in Frontiers in Psychology provides a glimmer of hope, particularly for those who live in the United States.

Written by Yale University academic Gabriel Grant, "Exploring the Possibility of Peak Individualism, Humanity's Existential Crisis, and an Emerging Age of Purpose" aims to clear up two competing views of today's cultural narrative in the United States. First is the traditional view of the next generation—millennials—whom many view as individualistic, materialistic, and narcissistic. Some even refer to millennials as "Gen Me" in response to those who develop their "personal brand" with selfies and social media posts.

In stark contrast there is a view of millennials as rejecting selfish values and leading America into a "great age of purpose." Unlike previous generations, simply earning money is not enough for them—significant data shows that younger people are searching for purpose in their lives and their work. Consider the fact that the non-profit group 80,000 Hours (whose name represents the amount of time spent at work in the average lifespan) even exists. 80,000 Hours provides career advice to help young people build careers with social impact. Universities and businesses are increasingly following this path to help millennial workers achieve their goal of finding purpose in their lives.

Both sides can provide reams of anecdotal evidence that supports their view of millennials, and until recently, there have been few studies on the issue. In his article, however, Grant theorized that Google's digitization of millions of books and the Ngram Viewer, a tool that shows how phrases have appeared in books, could allow a quantified analysis of culture over the past two centuries, and he used this approach to quantitatively test the popular notion that a drive for purpose is increasing. What he found is encouraging.

Yeah, because people with a healthy ego would never possibly do volunteer work...

Source: https://opensource.com/article/17/10/rise-open-source


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by meustrus on Tuesday October 10 2017, @09:07PM (15 children)

    by meustrus (4961) on Tuesday October 10 2017, @09:07PM (#580061)

    Currently, the US is sending a lot more people to college than the almost 8 million people from the Second World War. Where's the economic boost?

    The economic boost is being sucked up by the financial industry who own the student loans. You may not have been paying attention to the stock market, but Wall Street is doing spectacularly right now.

    --
    If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday October 11 2017, @12:23AM (14 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday October 11 2017, @12:23AM (#580179) Journal

    The economic boost is being sucked up by the financial industry who own the student loans.

    Always an excuse, eh? The finance industry didn't force anyone to borrow that much. Students valuing education greatly chose to do that. And we still have the problem that all those educated people didn't result in the expected economic boom. The legendary effectiveness of the GI Bill is just another myth of the power of education. Well, we see now that we need more than that to have a good economy. Scapegoating the nebulous finance industry distracts from the fact that your model isn't working.

    You may not have been paying attention to the stock market, but Wall Street is doing spectacularly right now.

    Does that one good run (since 2011) justifies your opinion about the past 40 years or so? Let's keep in mind that the Bush and Obama administrations did a lot to hold down the value of stocks. For example, NASDAQ Composite index finally regained its dotcom peak (in March, 2000) midway through last year. That's not a stock market that is doing spectacularly over a relevant time frame. Sure, last year was great for the stock market, but most of the last two decades was terrible.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by meustrus on Wednesday October 11 2017, @02:49PM (13 children)

      by meustrus (4961) on Wednesday October 11 2017, @02:49PM (#580488)

      The GI Bill did more than college. It paid for houses too. And the fundamental difference between then and now is that it did not leave an entire generation saddled with debt. Instead of paying off lenders, middle class families were buying cars, appliances, furniture, and contributing to their local community through memberships, clubs, and churches. That is the money that drives local prosperity. And that is the money that my generation is instead paying back to student loan brokers for the "privilege" of having learned to be a productive, tax-paying contributor to society.

      --
      If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday October 12 2017, @02:09PM (12 children)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday October 12 2017, @02:09PM (#581129) Journal

        It paid for houses too.

        Houses were cheap back then.

        And the fundamental difference between then and now is that it did not leave an entire generation saddled with debt.

        Nobody is forced to saddle themselves with debt.

        And that is the money that my generation is instead paying back to student loan brokers for the "privilege" of having learned to be a productive, tax-paying contributor to society.

        By choice, let us note once again. Again, I don't buy that this is responsible for the economic decline of the past 50 years. Let us note that the level of debt is not that great. For example, of all people owing student loan debt, 42 million [forbes.com] in 2015, over half (29 million) owed $25,000 or less. Sure, that means the rest owe more (with a fair number, 415 thousand, owing more than $200k apiece) and probably will be a drain on the economy, but most of the near past college population appears to have gotten through college owing no more than a loan on a new car.

        Also, let us note that such high levels of expenses and debt are a relatively recent thing. It doesn't explain fully the last 40 years. Glancing at household debt [slate.com] over that period, we do see that from 1962 to 1986, household debt plateaued at around 45% of US GDP, then climbed to around 65% of GDP in 2001 at the end of the dotcom bubble. Then the irresponsible G. W. Bush era policies pushed that to almost 100% of GDP in 2007. It has since declined to under 80% of GDP in 2015.

        If such rising debt were correlating to economic declines, then we would have seen something in the 1960s (which instead saw good economic growth) and 1990s. If the rising debt were the cause of apparently economic improvement, we would have seen more improvement through 2007 than what actually happened and less in the 1980s.

        It's a cool story, bro, but I think we see better correlation between the pressure on US wages with US exposure to the Japanese and Chinese labor markets, including a roughly 10 year gap between the decline in Japanese labor competition (following their 1990-1991 recession) and the establishment of China's labor competition around 2000.

        • (Score: 2) by meustrus on Thursday October 12 2017, @03:44PM (11 children)

          by meustrus (4961) on Thursday October 12 2017, @03:44PM (#581175)

          Lots of things are technically "choices". For example, we all have the "choice" to shower daily. We can "choose" not to spend the money on hot water and soaps and reclaim that time in our day. But we will be judged for doing so, and may find ourselves with fewer economic opportunities due to our...odor.

          We also have the "choice" as a society as to how well educated we want to be. In the 21st century American economy so far, having less than a college education severely limits a person's economic opportunities, and such people are much more likely to become dependent on public welfare services. They are certainly less likely to be the next great innovator (excepting people who went to college and "chose" to drop out to follow their dreams - an option not available to people with student loan debt).

          I would not argue for a no single cause of the slow economic decline of the last 50 years. But I would caution against making any claims based on immediate correlations. Debt would have an immediate effect of boosting the economy because it was taken out to pay for something. It's only on the tail end that peoples' spending power and economic mobility is diminished. And between these two opposite effects, generational cycles, and outside factors, I would find it highly unlikely to see any strong simple correlations.

          P.S. I know I'm being a bad citizen in comparison, but I commend you on your use of actual data to back up your position.

          --
          If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday October 12 2017, @04:21PM (10 children)

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday October 12 2017, @04:21PM (#581199) Journal

            We also have the "choice" as a society as to how well educated we want to be. In the 21st century American economy so far, having less than a college education severely limits a person's economic opportunities, and such people are much more likely to become dependent on public welfare services. They are certainly less likely to be the next great innovator (excepting people who went to college and "chose" to drop out to follow their dreams - an option not available to people with student loan debt).

            Well, yes, that is the myth that causes people to make stupid decisions like accumulating $200k or more in debt just to have an education that could be acquired for far less. Needless to say, I don't agree.

            I would not argue for a no single cause of the slow economic decline of the last 50 years. But I would caution against making any claims based on immediate correlations. Debt would have an immediate effect of boosting the economy because it was taken out to pay for something. It's only on the tail end that peoples' spending power and economic mobility is diminished. And between these two opposite effects, generational cycles, and outside factors, I would find it highly unlikely to see any strong simple correlations.

            I already mentioned the "outside factor" I think applies here. Thing is 23 years isn't that far away. I think we'll see the employment situation in the US improve significantly (though it isn't bad right now) once China peaks. In the long run, the advantage remains with the economies that allow for business creation, rule of law, and people retaining what they earn. The US still does relatively well at those things.

            • (Score: 2) by meustrus on Thursday October 12 2017, @04:44PM (9 children)

              by meustrus (4961) on Thursday October 12 2017, @04:44PM (#581210)

              All good responses. But there's one thing you just said I can't leave unaddressed:

              business creation, rule of law, and people retaining what they earn

              That's pretty clearly a proxy for neo-conservative trickle-down economics and I don't like where you're going. We could have a spirited debate about any one of those three objectives but I'd rather not get into it right now.

              --
              If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday October 12 2017, @08:43PM (8 children)

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday October 12 2017, @08:43PM (#581336) Journal

                business creation, rule of law, and people retaining what they earn

                That's pretty clearly a proxy for neo-conservative trickle-down economics and I don't like where you're going. We could have a spirited debate about any one of those three objectives but I'd rather not get into it right now.

                So what? The Nazis and Communists had a few good talking points too. Should we approve of smoking and disapprove of exercise because that was something that the Nazis advocated? Are labor unions bad because Communists favored them?

                Can you find something actually wrong with any of those ideas I listed? Is it bad to create new businesses? Is it bad to actually follow laws that have been written in a defined process down rather than having the powers-that-be make shit up on the fly? Is it bad to keep money from what your wages and investments? The neo-cons don't have a bad reputation today because of these ideas. They have a bad reputation because they lied and schemed to get the US into a bunch of wars in the Middle East just to help out Israel and partly succeeded at creating that mess.Where do those wars fit in the above list? Business creation maybe?

                • (Score: 2) by meustrus on Thursday October 12 2017, @09:48PM (7 children)

                  by meustrus (4961) on Thursday October 12 2017, @09:48PM (#581369)

                  Business Creation

                  Nothing wrong with this in principle. However, targeting policy towards business creation (or as politicians are more likely to say, helping small businesses) favors the ambitious at the expense of everyone else. It ignores the needs of the labor force and asserts the needs of "job creators" as most important to the economy, when in fact jobs are created by market forces far more than the actual businesses taking advantage of them.

                  Rule of Law

                  The concept of laws is certainly vital to civilized society. But this talking point must be taken in the current political context, where the "law" that must be followed (immigration) is outdated and can't be changed due to political gridlock. The law does not exist in a vacuum; it requires enforcement (with its own often too-malleable rules), it requires adjudication, and above all it requires the ability to be changed to better suit the objectives of the ruling body. These aspects of the law have structural problems right now. In this context, those advocating for "rule of law" are really advocating for keeping everything about government exactly as broken as it is now. Especially the broken parts.

                  People Retaining What They Earn

                  Wasn't it Romney who said the bottom 47% don't even pay taxes? I think you'll find that the majority of the population is living mostly month-to-month. The concept of saving money is now old-fashioned; debt has taken over. So the fact is that people with earnings left over are in the minority. When you advocate for retaining what you have "earned", you are necessarily advocating for the wealthier minority of society. And these people have a massive problem finding good things to spend their money on. It's why the super-wealthy quit their jobs and go full-time into managing charitable foundations. Or just, you know, retire to a life of luxury. And while that may be an adequate "reward" for their ambition and/or pseudo-aristocratic family, it's not good for the economy. We want these most ambitious of people to continue working as long as they are able, not getting out of the game.

                   

                  The overall problem with all three of these talking points is that while they are good in the abstract, in reality they are currently being used for nefarious purposes. "Business Creation" is used to gloss over environmental protection, like making sure nobody dumps hazardous waste into the water supply; it is also invoked to justify selling out public resources for the benefit of a few ambitious profiteers with political connections. "Rule of Law" is used to justify maintaining a second-class society of illegal immigrants, including their children who definitely were too young to be complicit in breaking any laws; it also leans pretty heavily in favor of heavy-handed copyright protections that benefit the legacy of a few prominent creators at the expense of the public good. And "People Retaining What They Earn" is a straight up justification for lowering taxes on the richest people in society, which always ends up perversely raising effective tax rates on everyone else as the government scrambles to find ways to pay for the services they are still legally required to provide (or did you think anybody ever bothers to reduce spending when they lower taxes? budget deficits come pretty consistently from Republicans).

                  --
                  If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
                  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 13 2017, @12:32AM (6 children)

                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday October 13 2017, @12:32AM (#581456) Journal

                    Nothing wrong with this in principle. However, targeting policy towards business creation (or as politicians are more likely to say, helping small businesses) favors the ambitious at the expense of everyone else. It ignores the needs of the labor force and asserts the needs of "job creators" as most important to the economy, when in fact jobs are created by market forces far more than the actual businesses taking advantage of them.

                    Doesn't matter how much the labor force "needs", if they don't have a way to achieve those needs. And I can't help but notice that the current economic situation would fare better with more employers than present.

                    But this talking point must be taken in the current political context, where the "law" that must be followed (immigration) is outdated and can't be changed due to political gridlock. The law does not exist in a vacuum; it requires enforcement (with its own often too-malleable rules), it requires adjudication, and above all it requires the ability to be changed to better suit the objectives of the ruling body. These aspects of the law have structural problems right now. In this context, those advocating for "rule of law" are really advocating for keeping everything about government exactly as broken as it is now. Especially the broken parts.

                    Gridlock exists precisely because there is no consensus on how to improve immigration law. And this is not the first time rhetorically that the people who want to fix a problem are blamed for the problem. I guess we shouldn't have worn that dress?

                    Wasn't it Romney who said the bottom 47% don't even pay taxes?

                    Restricting our attention to income taxes, that was a correct statement at the time.

                    The concept of saving money is now old-fashioned; debt has taken over. So the fact is that people with earnings left over are in the minority. When you advocate for retaining what you have "earned", you are necessarily advocating for the wealthier minority of society.

                    I'm not feeling the reason to care. If neo-cons truly were a bunch of savers, they wouldn't be in the doghouse now. Further, people who are perpetually in debt are perpetually making bad decisions. Yet another reason for apathy. Given that this was originally about myths about the supposed virtue of borrowing sick amounts of money for a so-so education, I have to wonder if you're really thinking here.

                    For some reason, we shouldn't advocate for the wealthier minority of society who employ people and save money because that's somehow detrimental to people who can't figure out how to do either. Sorry, but I think we have enough people who are deep in debt. I don't think we have enough employers or savers in comparison.

                    I guess we'll just have to rely on some magic social program like universal basic income to fix all our problems, or at least hammer some more nails into the economic coffin, whichever comes first.

                    • (Score: 2) by meustrus on Friday October 13 2017, @01:29AM (5 children)

                      by meustrus (4961) on Friday October 13 2017, @01:29AM (#581486)

                      If you really believe that the needs of the wealthy few should be prioritized over the needs of the less ambitious many, I can’t help you. At some point it doesn’t matter how virtuous you think their success is. They are still the few, and you almost certainly aren’t one of them, now or at any point in the future.

                      --
                      If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
                      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 13 2017, @02:36PM (4 children)

                        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday October 13 2017, @02:36PM (#581770) Journal

                        If you really believe that the needs of the wealthy few should be prioritized over the needs of the less ambitious many, I can’t help you.

                        We don't need more workers. We do need more employers. Think about it.

                        • (Score: 2) by meustrus on Friday October 13 2017, @04:28PM (3 children)

                          by meustrus (4961) on Friday October 13 2017, @04:28PM (#581840)

                          Why do we need employers? Is there work to do that isn't getting done? Maybe the real problem is that there is more labor available than we need. Adding bullshit jobs may count as a solution to that problem, but it creates problems of its own.

                          Instead, we should focus on increasing individual liberty and capability. Give people the knowledge and tools to identify and provide for their own basic needs. Focus more on volunteer-driven community organizations and ad hoc friendships.

                          And above all, eliminate whenever possible our durable connections to established power structures. Reduce debts, make tech open to local repair shops, decentralize the internet, decentralize the power grid, decentralize our financial system.

                          --
                          If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
                          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 13 2017, @05:15PM (2 children)

                            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday October 13 2017, @05:15PM (#581875) Journal

                            Why do we need employers? Is there work to do that isn't getting done?

                            Yes.

                            Instead, we should focus on increasing individual liberty and capability. Give people the knowledge and tools to identify and provide for their own basic needs. Focus more on volunteer-driven community organizations and ad hoc friendships.

                            I do that. A voluntary job is the number one way to improve individual liberty and capability.

                            And above all, eliminate whenever possible our durable connections to established power structures. Reduce debts, make tech open to local repair shops, decentralize the internet, decentralize the power grid, decentralize our financial system.

                            Or we could solve problems that people actually have?

                            And much of the centralization (for example, "make tech open to local repair shops") is due to centralized government intervention and regulation. At some point, we'll need to address that elephant in the room. I particularly liked what you wrote here: [soylentnews.org]

                            Which brings us to the reality here: government is not separate from the rest of the economy. Government is an intrinsic part of it. There simply doesn't exist a world in which "private stewards of finance" are influenced less by government policy than the government itself. Even if you ignore all of my arguments above, one more fact remains: if the government can write you a check, it is your "fiduciary responsibility" to get the government to write you the check. Every large corporation spends money on lobbying for exactly this purpose.

                            I'll note here that new business creation helps decentralize employment and reduce the power of governments in our lives. So it does fix some of the problems you purport to be concerned about.

                            • (Score: 2) by meustrus on Friday October 13 2017, @07:44PM (1 child)

                              by meustrus (4961) on Friday October 13 2017, @07:44PM (#581971)

                              About the only work that isn't getting done...is the government's responsibility. Crumbling infrastructure and the like. Or telecommunications rollouts that the government already paid for but which the telecoms are refusing to do because they didn't want to use that money for its intended purpose.

                              But look at the basics: American food production is so efficient that crop prices are too low for smaller farms to be profitable right now; labor costs for distribution of goods are going down; new home construction is tracking the market carefully with its existing labor force; utilities continue to operate just fine; there are no shortages of the products people want (except Nintendo hardware).

                              And when there are problems in any of these areas, including infrastructure, the problem lies in the decision makers. The labor is ready and waiting. But the financiers and leaders sometimes have financial incentives to keep the assembly line idle.

                              --
                              If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
                              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 13 2017, @11:22PM

                                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday October 13 2017, @11:22PM (#582070) Journal

                                About the only work that isn't getting done...is the government's responsibility.

                                Just because you don't see it, doesn't mean it's not there.

                                But look at the basics: American food production is so efficient that crop prices are too low for smaller farms to be profitable right now; labor costs for distribution of goods are going down; new home construction is tracking the market carefully with its existing labor force; utilities continue to operate just fine; there are no shortages of the products people want (except Nintendo hardware).

                                That's for the minute slice you happened to look at. The economy is a lot bigger than that. For example, let's consider food production. The most common staple crops are, as you say, best grown at large economies of scale, things like corn, alfalfa, wheat, soybeans, rice, etc. But not everyone wants to eat basic staples all the time. Thus, we have a huge demand for meat, for exotic varieties of vegetables and fruit, for spices and seasonings, for unusual ways to prepare food and drink products, such as puffing wheat or rice, smoking meats and some vegetables, curdling milk into cheeses, fermented beverages of a bewildering variety, etc. Every niche so developed means someone employs people to get their products to a market. It also means markets for small farms to thrive in.

                                Similarly, we don't always have the time or desire to cook things at home. So there are a variety of restaurant options out there. That creates more jobs. Anyway, that's how the US has gone from around 1% employment in staple food farming to 11% in the food industry [usda.gov]. There are plenty of other sectors like this that go from a few core businesses to a huge bunch of secondary businesses. End result is that as long as there is demand and available labor and resources at the appropriate price, this sort of thing will continue to expand.