So many sharp -- and actionable -- insights here but this one struck me as being particularly important: "In this management phase, we've watched student loans turn universities into profit centers. We've seen healthcare become a financialized industry. We've witnessed housing become an asset class for investors rather than, you know, homes for people to live in. Everything feels like it's being optimized for someone else's profit rather than expanded for everyone's benefit."
Yeah that paragraph really struck me too. It's what left wing commentators will usually call "late-stage capitalism" but that phrase never felt particularly useful to me. Capitalism has always worked to optimize profits, and for centuries even it didn't overly detract from a flourishing society. But lately it feels people just expect it now, and have fully bought into being churned for profit. There's something more cultural that feels off now, maybe the lack of an alternative moral order that we can agree to.
I know a lot of people get put off by the phrase because they think it means "being close to the collapse", but most commentators of recent decades use it to mean a later/last stage where the culture of a society is fully integrated with capitalism and capitalism is taken for granted as a natural fact of reality and where its saturated to the point that further extraction of surplus value has to come at the expense of prior public goods. That stage could continue for another 300 years or even forever, the phrase is just marking a qualitative epoch (the term has come a long way since Sombart's use 100 years ago).
I would argue a major war can cause people to "snap" out of it because war and death creates heroes and myths, but that's horrifying even to think about.
“For centuries even it (capitlaism) didn't overly detract from a flourishing society.” Not sure this is correct? Capitalism, especially in its earlier phases, has been high extractive.
Early industrial capitalism was marked by sky-high income inequality, frequent economic depressions and crashes, brutal and dangerous working conditions, state-sanctioned violence against strikers, widespread child labor, and an inchoate but still meager social safety net. American capitalism also developed within the context of slavery — which powered both the southern agrarian economy and the northern textile and financial economy — as well as Jim Crow and the mass dispossession of native people to make way for the railroads and frontier development.
Capitalism did not offer much in the way of broad-based “flourishing” in the United States until the New Deal and post-WWII era through the mid-1970s. This 30-40 year period was the closest the U.S. ever got to a true social democratic capitalist state with actual shared prosperity.
The New Deal was helpful, but I don't call the 1930s and WWII "broad-based flourishing." That didn't happen until Post WWII, and ended after the first moon landing, so 1945-1969 . . . 24-ish years of "broad-based flourishing."
The New Deal created a foundation that served the U.S. for decades: stronger labor protections, social security, easier access to housing and higher education, unemployment insurance, a better regulated and more stable financial system, expanded electrification, etc — all of which constitute the basis of the post-war liberal consensus you allude to. I did not say the New Deal made the 30s a wonderful time period economically.
"[T]hey are canaries in the coal mine of a society that's forgotten how to create rather than extract ...."
I would argue that it's not forgetfulness. It's design. The wealthiest have decided that extraction and maintaining their own position in the hierarchy are more to their benefit than creation (and especially creative destruction).
I would argue that this is the fundamental truth that explains so much of the details listed in the article above it.
Agreed. Former corporate guy now a social worker here. It is cheaper to extract than create. Creating is risky and capital intensive. The "systems" are not broken - they are working exactly as designed (and selective neglect is a design choice). They are just not working for those with the least influence/wealth. Unfortunately this is not a modern phenomenon.
Creative destruction, a concept introduced by economist Joseph Schumpeter, describes the process where new innovations and technologies replace older ones, leading to the obsolescence of existing industries and business models.
As a college student today, I definitely feel this shift from 'positive-sum' to 'zero-sum' thinking. At top schools, dropping out is more common than it used to be. If the ROI isn’t clear, cut your losses early and work on something more directly aligned with your goals. I don’t think this mindset is inherently bad (it's often practical) but it points to a deeper issue: we’re losing trust in our institutions. In a world driven by algorithms, every unoptimized moment can feel like falling behind. And while that pressure fuels ambition for some, it also quietly guarantees that others will be left behind. So in the zero-sum economy, even when you're winning, it doesn’t feel like progress.
A funny anecdote from my life: my best friend is a male nurse, and a damn good one. We’re both about 30. I recently finished up a doctoral degree in nuclear physics, and he’s had his nursing degree for 4 or 5 years. He recently moved states with his wife (also a nurse), and didn’t apply for a nursing job until a week before he moved. He applied to one job and got it in less than a week. He has never not gotten a hospital nursing job he’s applied to, and it’s never taken more than a week. I on the other hand needed 6 months or so to nail down a job, and I already almost lost it due to government science cuts, and that company’s now down to barebones staffing and we have no long-term guarantees.
To be clear, my friend deserves everything he’s gotten and more. I think nurses working on hospital floors deserve a version of veterans benefits and a pension, and he’s one of the very best of them. It’s just a bit of a mental shock to see his job search experience next to mine and many of my other friends’.
I've had it suggested to me that I should go to nursing school, but I don't think I could handle it emotionally when something bad happened to a patient. (I also have a few religion-adjacent views about death that don't jive with the medical establishment that would make working with dying patients awkward: https://www.overcomingbias.com/p/we-agree-get-frozehtml )
The Casino Economy also forces the Attention Economy to trickle down to everyone.
It’s not just politicians or startups that have to capture attention to win, but the average person also has to find ways to stand out in a sea of resumes, dating profiles, etc that are filtered by algorithms. Everyone has to “perform” online to some degree for basic things like employment or dating.
Of course, that’s always been an element of performance to these things, but there’s so much more noise to stand out from and I think the dynamics are unnatural or uncomfortable for most people. Crafting a dating profile to represent yourself feels much more complicated and inauthentic than getting dressed up to go meet people in person.
The zero sum strategy has been fostered for decades by the right. It was the “urban” areas in the 90s, then welfare moms, and now “open borders”. They see anyone getting assistance from our social safety net that they don’t get as freeloaders. And our corporate-driven healthcare system is why it is the largest employer is almost every state. Difficult times for young people caused by the insatiable greed of the oligarchy and the inequality of wealth.
The left has played a role in our status quo. Affordable housing is a significant challenge for many Americans.
I can’t recall any progressive media or politician demonizing a particular geography or socioeconomic class.
There is a difference between the Dems and Republicans.
The left doesn’t see the opposition as an enemy and played by the old rules too long. The right wants to rewrite our rule of law and Constitutional principles.
The left calls for violence all the time against the right. It's why they tried killing Trump twice, beat Andy Ngo bloody, murdered Cayler Ellingson's (then the perp got a sweet heart deal when he said it wasn't political).
They claim everyone they don't like is a Nazi so they can "punch them in the face".
Get your eyes and ears checked. Every leftist group I went to, once you start talking politics, would say the quiet part out loud.
IE, mass murder is justified for the "greater good". They'll just build a fake caricature to hate like landlords, Christians or Jews and call for their extermination unless they were the "good" Christian/Jew who didn't actually follow their faith.
Because those land lords minimize the abundance we have by artificially creating a housing shortage which raises prices on houses thus making them more money. The "far left" is flipping out over abundance because it is here, but we can't enjoy the abundance. Many houses are sitting with no one to live in them.
How do you think they create a housing shortage? Do they simply decree it, or use things like zoning restrictions and "community input" to slow development? "Abundance" argues that those veto points should be changed, and that's in fact starting to happen.
"Many houses are sitting with no one to live in them."
This is one of those nonsense statistics that gets thrown around form time to time. While I do think AirBnB should be sharply curbed, the vast majority of empty houses are empty because of things like lawsuits over title, contamination with meth, not being able to pass a fire inspection etc.
I own rental property and we spend all day every trying to fill vacancies. I had to lower rent in Denver -- previously one of the fastest growing rental markets in the country. Rents have been falling for the past 18 months because new housing is being built. (Also, Denver put limits on what properties can be used for AirBnB, but that started in 2016. Rents continued rising through 2023.)
Also, people who complain about corporate ownership don't understand that the vast majority of those corporations are just one person. When buying or converting to rental property, the first thing lawyers do is tell you to set up a single member LLC to limit your liability. My Denver property is owned by a "corporation" but it's just me.
It's actually quite simple to artificially raise prices. Little something called supply and demand. By limiting how many houses are sold the houses still around become more expensive. The housing crisis of 2008 showed how quickly things can turn into a bubble and that this very thing was occurring. Quick google search shows an article from The Guardian in 2009 stating that around 11% of homes in America were vacant during the housing crisis. They continue stating that this doesn't include houses that aren't made for "year-round" use. The percentage when including those homes is only 15%. Millions of homes were not being used during an economic recession so devastating they named it a "housing crisis". Let me remind you, almost no one was arrested for the illegal activity that started the housing crisis. This was only 18 years ago while our economy and these practices are slow to change.
You talk a bit about AirBnB's, which I never stated was a root cause. AirBnB's are not a large sum of houses flooding the market. What is are rental homes that, depending on the area, are still continuing to increase in price. Your paragraph about Denver confuses me on this. I'm sorry for you to hear this, but hearing that you had to lower rent in your area is awesome. How'd that happen? Well as you stated, building new housing. When you build more houses it puts land lords into a situation where they have to lower prices to entice customers from this large accessible market. Crazy.
I'm not sure why you felt the need to clarify how a company works, because I don't care who owns the company. Scummy practices can still be practiced by only one person. You must know this, because you use your 3rd paragraph to show how quickly you fill vacancies, and state this like it's an exception and not a status quo. From what you're telling me it seems like you're an upstanding landlord. The problem is that there is not enough landlords that don't act this way.
Overall buying a home in America is very similar to buying anything else. Work until you have the money to purchase an item, purchase the item, find out a monthly payment is needed to keep it, and then find out it was never yours in the first place.
Agree! The student loan forgiveness saga is a perfect example of years of zero sum teaching coming to the forefront. The idea of helping a group of Americans while not directly benefiting from it yourself was and is unthinkable for so many people in this country.
Very insightful piece. In the book “Why nations fail” the authors point out extractive institutions (vs inclusive institutions) as the culprits of nation decline and failure. I wonder whether we have already gone so far in this path that we will be facing the precipice soon.
Most modern countries are like this nowadays, and the problem is that the wealthy few have their influences in governments to make sure their interests are protected, as inclusive institutions inherently will mean some level of redistribution of the wealth to the poorer side (unless economies magically figures out how to grow again, which AI has "promised", but I'm sceptical)
Really amazing stuff in here. I was in a similar boat to yours ... graduated a few years ago, perfect GPA, good extracurriculars, good internships. I sent hundreds of job applications, got only 3 or 4 interviews, and wound up rejected by all. The job I eventually got was one where the employer came to campus and just interviewed students all day. I was extremely lucky, but many of my qualified and motivated friends were still unemployed months after graduation (some with highly technical graduate degrees.) It's bad out there.
Ahhh the in person interview. So refreshing. I used to do that a lot. Anecdotally I would look at a persons shoes when they appeared for the interview. If they took the time and the 5 bucks to shine their shoes it shows they took this seriously. Nowadays? If you’re not wearing pajamas it’s all cool.
As a person who has spent his life in the recruiting function, I’ve lived in the full evolution of recruiting
From literally running a resume with my notes attached up to a hiring managers desk to using LinkedIn back in 2004 when they had 20000 profiles; they now have over a billion
I’ve watched as AI has completely dehumanized a basic Human Resources function to the point where bots are asking question on video. I’ve witnessed candidates cheating and companies not even bothering to craft a job description that actually reflects the true nature and productivity expectations of the job.
AI has completely removed the communication, interpersonal and behavioral probing that a real human can assess and report on to the hiring managers. A soulless computer is now the main arbiter and trusted advisor we as recruiters have been trained to be.
The rise of the machines isn’t coming
It’s here now and we are done as a working class society if we continue along this path.
Historically, 'surplus' young men without jobs, work or indeed any purpose in life where either sent off to die in wars or they, eventually, upended the status quo through rebellion and/or at worse violent rebellion. Deep Demographic trends are rarely understood as drivers historically. Why hasn't rebellion shappened yet? Pacified currently with video games, porn and drugs? Many of them are moving right. I genuinely think we need to watch out for what might happen as they see their chances and opportunities diminish. History might not always repeat but it sure as hell rhymes.
Big fan of Kyla's, even though I disagree with a fair number of her political stances.
Good notes about the current college situation. I think "is college worth it?" is still a proper question to ask, especially for high schoolers and their parents facing down the question in the next year or two. But it's only proper after you establish answers to "which parts of college are working, and what does that tell us about the future?" Those answers serve as the foundation for someone's college search, and they aren't the same answers for everyone.
College is now like buying a house or a business; you have to know what you're looking for and find the right deal for you (if it exists at all), or you're going to have a bad time.
That top employer graphic in each state then vs. now is crazy. Great visual to include.
I disagree with the note that "everyone seemingly agrees on the path forward - reduce regulation, build things, ..." Far from everyone agrees on the path forward. I'd argue that there's widespread agreement on the problems; there's a sharp divide between those who believe in doing these things, and those who would rather prioritize redistributive efforts and additional controls/rules/regulations.
Trump vs. Mamdani is a good example. Maybe you don't agree with the characterization of the policies of one or the other, but they for sure have different approaches to the problems.
Good comments. I am a retired Boomer, but when I was working, every opportunity that came my way came through a personal connection with someone else. The idea of sending hundreds of e-resumes to potential employers and not even receiving so much as a "Thank you for your resume" response would be deeply dispiriting. Perhaps there is still some value in emphasizing the need to develop and maintain personal contacts as an essential part of any job hunting exercise. Lifetime employment ended in my father's generation and my son's generation seems to be moving all the time, making personal connections even more important than ever.
I also liked your analogy on treating a college education as an investment. My years at college were ridiculously cheap by today's standards, while my son's education was eye-wateringly expensive. Not everyone can afford what many colleges charge today and/or the "return on investment" of their degree may not justify the cost. The irony is that small, mostly expensive, schools are better equipped to help students make better educational choices, whereas large public schools seem to operate on the basis of every student for themselves. As a result, we have more college graduates than we need and many with degrees that don't really prepare them for useful work. And, if AI fulfills its potential, this imbalance is only going to get a lot worse unless steps are taken to help redirect our young people into alternate careers.
What’s interesting to me about this piece is that while the author is infinitely more sympathetic to young Trump voters than I am as a middle aged liberal, her mode of structural analysis is impeccably left wing. People make choices based on external circumstances, not internal values and autonomy, so their lives can only meaningfully change if the entire system changes.
On the one hand, this mode of analysis is convenient, because it exonerates young Trump voters of the charge of being horrible, deeply prejudiced fascists (just like every other group of Trump voters). On the other though, it traffics in a narrative of individual powerlessness which has had a debilitating psychological effect on American liberals.
To be sure, I don’t doubt that our lives are heavily affected by structural factors, but I also think there is considerable space for individual values and action. However, even a contingent version of free will comes with the baggage of a contingent level of personal responsibility. And based on his plummeting polling numbers among young adults, I suspect that many young people who voted for Trump - a twice impeached felon, a self-confessed and legally adjudicated sexual predator, a candidate who routinely demonized immigrants and trans people while also denigrating women (it’s a man’s man’s world), a would be fascist dictator who promised to use the power of the state to attack his enemies, and a traitor who tried to overthrow American democracy on Jan. 6th - would rather not be held responsible for the terrible consequences of their decision. They prefer to express opposition to Alligator Alcatraz, rather than acknowledging that it only exists because of people like them. Moreover, I suspect many of them would rather not admit that they’d likely either endorse or ignore Trump’s fascism and prejudice if he was delivering the kind of economy that they are hoping for.
But, ultimately, that is the path of weakness, submission, dependence, and, frankly, evil. The path of strength and virtue is to complain less about the system, and to focus more on building a productive and moral life within the world as it is. By all means, seek positive change in society, but blaming the system for your problems, and believing that only systemic change will lead to salvation, is a recipe for a psychologically and emotionally damaged life.
Why is this person getting platformed on the daily show, ezra klein, etc.? I mean, good for you, that's "success" right there. But I can't help but find your ideas half-baked, uninteresting, surface level, tying together to many disparate things and assigning causality frivolously and unstudiously. It would be one thing if you just had a substack but you're going on national tv and shit. again, congrats, but also, why? much more interesting informed stuff on nyt opinion, etc.
On universities, I agree that student loans have turned them into profit centers. They should be much cheaper. But I think one mistake they’ve also made is becoming too vocational. They can’t predict the future. I know people who were told CS was can’t miss and it was a miss. A better approach is an affordable approach that ensures everyone graduates with an ability to adapt and reason about the world (old school liberal arts) so people have both the mental resources and the financial resources to pivot. Sending indebted students out into the world with super vocational degrees that might not be necessary is insane.
Yep. Few institutions of the 1980s were preparing students for the arrival of the internet in the 1990s. It's hard, if not impossible, to time the labour market.
So many sharp -- and actionable -- insights here but this one struck me as being particularly important: "In this management phase, we've watched student loans turn universities into profit centers. We've seen healthcare become a financialized industry. We've witnessed housing become an asset class for investors rather than, you know, homes for people to live in. Everything feels like it's being optimized for someone else's profit rather than expanded for everyone's benefit."
Yeah that paragraph really struck me too. It's what left wing commentators will usually call "late-stage capitalism" but that phrase never felt particularly useful to me. Capitalism has always worked to optimize profits, and for centuries even it didn't overly detract from a flourishing society. But lately it feels people just expect it now, and have fully bought into being churned for profit. There's something more cultural that feels off now, maybe the lack of an alternative moral order that we can agree to.
I know a lot of people get put off by the phrase because they think it means "being close to the collapse", but most commentators of recent decades use it to mean a later/last stage where the culture of a society is fully integrated with capitalism and capitalism is taken for granted as a natural fact of reality and where its saturated to the point that further extraction of surplus value has to come at the expense of prior public goods. That stage could continue for another 300 years or even forever, the phrase is just marking a qualitative epoch (the term has come a long way since Sombart's use 100 years ago).
I would argue a major war can cause people to "snap" out of it because war and death creates heroes and myths, but that's horrifying even to think about.
“For centuries even it (capitlaism) didn't overly detract from a flourishing society.” Not sure this is correct? Capitalism, especially in its earlier phases, has been high extractive.
Early industrial capitalism was marked by sky-high income inequality, frequent economic depressions and crashes, brutal and dangerous working conditions, state-sanctioned violence against strikers, widespread child labor, and an inchoate but still meager social safety net. American capitalism also developed within the context of slavery — which powered both the southern agrarian economy and the northern textile and financial economy — as well as Jim Crow and the mass dispossession of native people to make way for the railroads and frontier development.
Capitalism did not offer much in the way of broad-based “flourishing” in the United States until the New Deal and post-WWII era through the mid-1970s. This 30-40 year period was the closest the U.S. ever got to a true social democratic capitalist state with actual shared prosperity.
The New Deal was helpful, but I don't call the 1930s and WWII "broad-based flourishing." That didn't happen until Post WWII, and ended after the first moon landing, so 1945-1969 . . . 24-ish years of "broad-based flourishing."
The New Deal created a foundation that served the U.S. for decades: stronger labor protections, social security, easier access to housing and higher education, unemployment insurance, a better regulated and more stable financial system, expanded electrification, etc — all of which constitute the basis of the post-war liberal consensus you allude to. I did not say the New Deal made the 30s a wonderful time period economically.
"[T]hey are canaries in the coal mine of a society that's forgotten how to create rather than extract ...."
I would argue that it's not forgetfulness. It's design. The wealthiest have decided that extraction and maintaining their own position in the hierarchy are more to their benefit than creation (and especially creative destruction).
I would argue that this is the fundamental truth that explains so much of the details listed in the article above it.
Agreed. Former corporate guy now a social worker here. It is cheaper to extract than create. Creating is risky and capital intensive. The "systems" are not broken - they are working exactly as designed (and selective neglect is a design choice). They are just not working for those with the least influence/wealth. Unfortunately this is not a modern phenomenon.
What is an example of "creative destruction"?
Electric cars replacing gasoline-powered ones?
Creative destruction, a concept introduced by economist Joseph Schumpeter, describes the process where new innovations and technologies replace older ones, leading to the obsolescence of existing industries and business models.
As a college student today, I definitely feel this shift from 'positive-sum' to 'zero-sum' thinking. At top schools, dropping out is more common than it used to be. If the ROI isn’t clear, cut your losses early and work on something more directly aligned with your goals. I don’t think this mindset is inherently bad (it's often practical) but it points to a deeper issue: we’re losing trust in our institutions. In a world driven by algorithms, every unoptimized moment can feel like falling behind. And while that pressure fuels ambition for some, it also quietly guarantees that others will be left behind. So in the zero-sum economy, even when you're winning, it doesn’t feel like progress.
A funny anecdote from my life: my best friend is a male nurse, and a damn good one. We’re both about 30. I recently finished up a doctoral degree in nuclear physics, and he’s had his nursing degree for 4 or 5 years. He recently moved states with his wife (also a nurse), and didn’t apply for a nursing job until a week before he moved. He applied to one job and got it in less than a week. He has never not gotten a hospital nursing job he’s applied to, and it’s never taken more than a week. I on the other hand needed 6 months or so to nail down a job, and I already almost lost it due to government science cuts, and that company’s now down to barebones staffing and we have no long-term guarantees.
To be clear, my friend deserves everything he’s gotten and more. I think nurses working on hospital floors deserve a version of veterans benefits and a pension, and he’s one of the very best of them. It’s just a bit of a mental shock to see his job search experience next to mine and many of my other friends’.
I've had it suggested to me that I should go to nursing school, but I don't think I could handle it emotionally when something bad happened to a patient. (I also have a few religion-adjacent views about death that don't jive with the medical establishment that would make working with dying patients awkward: https://www.overcomingbias.com/p/we-agree-get-frozehtml )
The Casino Economy also forces the Attention Economy to trickle down to everyone.
It’s not just politicians or startups that have to capture attention to win, but the average person also has to find ways to stand out in a sea of resumes, dating profiles, etc that are filtered by algorithms. Everyone has to “perform” online to some degree for basic things like employment or dating.
Of course, that’s always been an element of performance to these things, but there’s so much more noise to stand out from and I think the dynamics are unnatural or uncomfortable for most people. Crafting a dating profile to represent yourself feels much more complicated and inauthentic than getting dressed up to go meet people in person.
The zero sum strategy has been fostered for decades by the right. It was the “urban” areas in the 90s, then welfare moms, and now “open borders”. They see anyone getting assistance from our social safety net that they don’t get as freeloaders. And our corporate-driven healthcare system is why it is the largest employer is almost every state. Difficult times for young people caused by the insatiable greed of the oligarchy and the inequality of wealth.
The irony being, of course, that corporations and big business get tons of welfare from the US taxpayer (eg, subsidies for “BigAg” farms, Tesla, etc).
The left has done itself no favors by making it expensive and time consuming to build. Chicago spends $750,000 per unit to build "affordable" housing.
The left has played a role in our status quo. Affordable housing is a significant challenge for many Americans.
I can’t recall any progressive media or politician demonizing a particular geography or socioeconomic class.
There is a difference between the Dems and Republicans.
The left doesn’t see the opposition as an enemy and played by the old rules too long. The right wants to rewrite our rule of law and Constitutional principles.
What rock do you live under?
The left calls for violence all the time against the right. It's why they tried killing Trump twice, beat Andy Ngo bloody, murdered Cayler Ellingson's (then the perp got a sweet heart deal when he said it wasn't political).
They claim everyone they don't like is a Nazi so they can "punch them in the face".
Get your eyes and ears checked. Every leftist group I went to, once you start talking politics, would say the quiet part out loud.
IE, mass murder is justified for the "greater good". They'll just build a fake caricature to hate like landlords, Christians or Jews and call for their extermination unless they were the "good" Christian/Jew who didn't actually follow their faith.
I was staying out of this but couldn’t help sharing this. Political violence is always unacceptable. Period.
Did any Obama or Biden advisor (or Bush, Reagan, or any admin ever) suggest murdering opposition?
https://youtube.com/shorts/TV0sbCorA1s?si=pow0OEn9soS_uE_3
The far left hates landlords and can't stand the idea of anyone making a profit That's why they're flipping out over Abundance
Because those land lords minimize the abundance we have by artificially creating a housing shortage which raises prices on houses thus making them more money. The "far left" is flipping out over abundance because it is here, but we can't enjoy the abundance. Many houses are sitting with no one to live in them.
How do you think they create a housing shortage? Do they simply decree it, or use things like zoning restrictions and "community input" to slow development? "Abundance" argues that those veto points should be changed, and that's in fact starting to happen.
"Many houses are sitting with no one to live in them."
This is one of those nonsense statistics that gets thrown around form time to time. While I do think AirBnB should be sharply curbed, the vast majority of empty houses are empty because of things like lawsuits over title, contamination with meth, not being able to pass a fire inspection etc.
I own rental property and we spend all day every trying to fill vacancies. I had to lower rent in Denver -- previously one of the fastest growing rental markets in the country. Rents have been falling for the past 18 months because new housing is being built. (Also, Denver put limits on what properties can be used for AirBnB, but that started in 2016. Rents continued rising through 2023.)
Also, people who complain about corporate ownership don't understand that the vast majority of those corporations are just one person. When buying or converting to rental property, the first thing lawyers do is tell you to set up a single member LLC to limit your liability. My Denver property is owned by a "corporation" but it's just me.
It's actually quite simple to artificially raise prices. Little something called supply and demand. By limiting how many houses are sold the houses still around become more expensive. The housing crisis of 2008 showed how quickly things can turn into a bubble and that this very thing was occurring. Quick google search shows an article from The Guardian in 2009 stating that around 11% of homes in America were vacant during the housing crisis. They continue stating that this doesn't include houses that aren't made for "year-round" use. The percentage when including those homes is only 15%. Millions of homes were not being used during an economic recession so devastating they named it a "housing crisis". Let me remind you, almost no one was arrested for the illegal activity that started the housing crisis. This was only 18 years ago while our economy and these practices are slow to change.
You talk a bit about AirBnB's, which I never stated was a root cause. AirBnB's are not a large sum of houses flooding the market. What is are rental homes that, depending on the area, are still continuing to increase in price. Your paragraph about Denver confuses me on this. I'm sorry for you to hear this, but hearing that you had to lower rent in your area is awesome. How'd that happen? Well as you stated, building new housing. When you build more houses it puts land lords into a situation where they have to lower prices to entice customers from this large accessible market. Crazy.
I'm not sure why you felt the need to clarify how a company works, because I don't care who owns the company. Scummy practices can still be practiced by only one person. You must know this, because you use your 3rd paragraph to show how quickly you fill vacancies, and state this like it's an exception and not a status quo. From what you're telling me it seems like you're an upstanding landlord. The problem is that there is not enough landlords that don't act this way.
Overall buying a home in America is very similar to buying anything else. Work until you have the money to purchase an item, purchase the item, find out a monthly payment is needed to keep it, and then find out it was never yours in the first place.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2009/feb/13/america-empty-houses-recession
Agree! The student loan forgiveness saga is a perfect example of years of zero sum teaching coming to the forefront. The idea of helping a group of Americans while not directly benefiting from it yourself was and is unthinkable for so many people in this country.
Very insightful piece. In the book “Why nations fail” the authors point out extractive institutions (vs inclusive institutions) as the culprits of nation decline and failure. I wonder whether we have already gone so far in this path that we will be facing the precipice soon.
Most modern countries are like this nowadays, and the problem is that the wealthy few have their influences in governments to make sure their interests are protected, as inclusive institutions inherently will mean some level of redistribution of the wealth to the poorer side (unless economies magically figures out how to grow again, which AI has "promised", but I'm sceptical)
Really amazing stuff in here. I was in a similar boat to yours ... graduated a few years ago, perfect GPA, good extracurriculars, good internships. I sent hundreds of job applications, got only 3 or 4 interviews, and wound up rejected by all. The job I eventually got was one where the employer came to campus and just interviewed students all day. I was extremely lucky, but many of my qualified and motivated friends were still unemployed months after graduation (some with highly technical graduate degrees.) It's bad out there.
Ahhh the in person interview. So refreshing. I used to do that a lot. Anecdotally I would look at a persons shoes when they appeared for the interview. If they took the time and the 5 bucks to shine their shoes it shows they took this seriously. Nowadays? If you’re not wearing pajamas it’s all cool.
You are just so prescient in this analysis
As a person who has spent his life in the recruiting function, I’ve lived in the full evolution of recruiting
From literally running a resume with my notes attached up to a hiring managers desk to using LinkedIn back in 2004 when they had 20000 profiles; they now have over a billion
I’ve watched as AI has completely dehumanized a basic Human Resources function to the point where bots are asking question on video. I’ve witnessed candidates cheating and companies not even bothering to craft a job description that actually reflects the true nature and productivity expectations of the job.
AI has completely removed the communication, interpersonal and behavioral probing that a real human can assess and report on to the hiring managers. A soulless computer is now the main arbiter and trusted advisor we as recruiters have been trained to be.
The rise of the machines isn’t coming
It’s here now and we are done as a working class society if we continue along this path.
Historically, 'surplus' young men without jobs, work or indeed any purpose in life where either sent off to die in wars or they, eventually, upended the status quo through rebellion and/or at worse violent rebellion. Deep Demographic trends are rarely understood as drivers historically. Why hasn't rebellion shappened yet? Pacified currently with video games, porn and drugs? Many of them are moving right. I genuinely think we need to watch out for what might happen as they see their chances and opportunities diminish. History might not always repeat but it sure as hell rhymes.
Yupppp
Big fan of Kyla's, even though I disagree with a fair number of her political stances.
Good notes about the current college situation. I think "is college worth it?" is still a proper question to ask, especially for high schoolers and their parents facing down the question in the next year or two. But it's only proper after you establish answers to "which parts of college are working, and what does that tell us about the future?" Those answers serve as the foundation for someone's college search, and they aren't the same answers for everyone.
College is now like buying a house or a business; you have to know what you're looking for and find the right deal for you (if it exists at all), or you're going to have a bad time.
That top employer graphic in each state then vs. now is crazy. Great visual to include.
I disagree with the note that "everyone seemingly agrees on the path forward - reduce regulation, build things, ..." Far from everyone agrees on the path forward. I'd argue that there's widespread agreement on the problems; there's a sharp divide between those who believe in doing these things, and those who would rather prioritize redistributive efforts and additional controls/rules/regulations.
Trump vs. Mamdani is a good example. Maybe you don't agree with the characterization of the policies of one or the other, but they for sure have different approaches to the problems.
Good comments. I am a retired Boomer, but when I was working, every opportunity that came my way came through a personal connection with someone else. The idea of sending hundreds of e-resumes to potential employers and not even receiving so much as a "Thank you for your resume" response would be deeply dispiriting. Perhaps there is still some value in emphasizing the need to develop and maintain personal contacts as an essential part of any job hunting exercise. Lifetime employment ended in my father's generation and my son's generation seems to be moving all the time, making personal connections even more important than ever.
I also liked your analogy on treating a college education as an investment. My years at college were ridiculously cheap by today's standards, while my son's education was eye-wateringly expensive. Not everyone can afford what many colleges charge today and/or the "return on investment" of their degree may not justify the cost. The irony is that small, mostly expensive, schools are better equipped to help students make better educational choices, whereas large public schools seem to operate on the basis of every student for themselves. As a result, we have more college graduates than we need and many with degrees that don't really prepare them for useful work. And, if AI fulfills its potential, this imbalance is only going to get a lot worse unless steps are taken to help redirect our young people into alternate careers.
Kyla is my favorite economist. She always teaches me about the moneys
What’s interesting to me about this piece is that while the author is infinitely more sympathetic to young Trump voters than I am as a middle aged liberal, her mode of structural analysis is impeccably left wing. People make choices based on external circumstances, not internal values and autonomy, so their lives can only meaningfully change if the entire system changes.
On the one hand, this mode of analysis is convenient, because it exonerates young Trump voters of the charge of being horrible, deeply prejudiced fascists (just like every other group of Trump voters). On the other though, it traffics in a narrative of individual powerlessness which has had a debilitating psychological effect on American liberals.
To be sure, I don’t doubt that our lives are heavily affected by structural factors, but I also think there is considerable space for individual values and action. However, even a contingent version of free will comes with the baggage of a contingent level of personal responsibility. And based on his plummeting polling numbers among young adults, I suspect that many young people who voted for Trump - a twice impeached felon, a self-confessed and legally adjudicated sexual predator, a candidate who routinely demonized immigrants and trans people while also denigrating women (it’s a man’s man’s world), a would be fascist dictator who promised to use the power of the state to attack his enemies, and a traitor who tried to overthrow American democracy on Jan. 6th - would rather not be held responsible for the terrible consequences of their decision. They prefer to express opposition to Alligator Alcatraz, rather than acknowledging that it only exists because of people like them. Moreover, I suspect many of them would rather not admit that they’d likely either endorse or ignore Trump’s fascism and prejudice if he was delivering the kind of economy that they are hoping for.
But, ultimately, that is the path of weakness, submission, dependence, and, frankly, evil. The path of strength and virtue is to complain less about the system, and to focus more on building a productive and moral life within the world as it is. By all means, seek positive change in society, but blaming the system for your problems, and believing that only systemic change will lead to salvation, is a recipe for a psychologically and emotionally damaged life.
Just ask the libs.
“The techcession of the past few years, with higher rates striking reality into the heart of many of a vaporware company.”
I’m starting to think a person’s physical survival shouldn’t depend on their ability to get a job building vaporware
Why is this person getting platformed on the daily show, ezra klein, etc.? I mean, good for you, that's "success" right there. But I can't help but find your ideas half-baked, uninteresting, surface level, tying together to many disparate things and assigning causality frivolously and unstudiously. It would be one thing if you just had a substack but you're going on national tv and shit. again, congrats, but also, why? much more interesting informed stuff on nyt opinion, etc.
Well as the Dude Lebowski said “That’s just like your opinion , man”
On universities, I agree that student loans have turned them into profit centers. They should be much cheaper. But I think one mistake they’ve also made is becoming too vocational. They can’t predict the future. I know people who were told CS was can’t miss and it was a miss. A better approach is an affordable approach that ensures everyone graduates with an ability to adapt and reason about the world (old school liberal arts) so people have both the mental resources and the financial resources to pivot. Sending indebted students out into the world with super vocational degrees that might not be necessary is insane.
Yep. Few institutions of the 1980s were preparing students for the arrival of the internet in the 1990s. It's hard, if not impossible, to time the labour market.
C'mon, I took a Cobol class in fall 1979, and with a little bit of a nepotism connection was able to land an entry level programming job in 1980.