Something interesting has emerged in voting patterns on both sides of the Atlantic: Young people are voting in ways that are markedly different from their elders. A great divide appears to have opened up, based not so much on income, education or gender as on the voters’ generation.
There are good reasons for this divide. The lives of both old and young, as they are now lived, are different. Their pasts are different and so are their prospects.
The Cold War, for example, was over even before some were born and while others were still children. Words like socialism do not convey the meaning they once did. If socialism means creating a society where shared concerns are not given short shrift — where people care about other people and the environment in which they live — so be it. Yes, there might have been failed experiments under that rubric a quarter or half-century ago, but today’s experiments bear no resemblance to those of the past. So the failure of those past experiments says nothing about the new ones.
Older upper-middle-class Americans and Europeans have had a good life. When they entered the labor force, well-compensated jobs were waiting for them. The question they asked was what they wanted to do, not how long they would have to live with their parents before they got a job that enabled them to move out.
That generation expected to have job security, to marry young, to buy a house — perhaps a summer house, too — and finally retire with reasonable security. Overall, they expected to be better off than their parents.
While today’s older generation encountered bumps along the way, for the most part, their expectations were met. They might have made more on capital gains on their homes than from working. They almost surely found that strange, but they willingly accepted the gift of our speculative markets and often gave themselves credit for buying in the right place at the right time.
Today, the expectations of young people, wherever they are in the income distribution, are the opposite. They face job insecurity throughout their lives. On average, many college graduates will search for months before they find a job — often only after having taken one or two unpaid internships. And they count themselves lucky, because they know that their poorer counterparts, some of whom did better in school, cannot afford to spend a year or two without income and do not have the connections to get an internship in the first place.
Today’s young university graduates are burdened with debt — the poorer they are, the more they owe. So they do not ask what job they would like; they simply ask what job would enable them to pay their college loans, which often burdens them for 20 years or more. Likewise, buying a home is a distant dream.
These struggles mean that young people are not thinking much about retirement. If they did, they would only be frightened by how much they would need to accumulate to live a decent life (beyond bare social security), given the likely persistence of rock-bottom interest rates.
In short, today’s young people view the world through the lens of intergenerational fairness. The children of the upper middle class might do well in the end, because they are likely to inherit wealth from their parents. While they might not like this kind of dependence, they dislike even more the alternative: a “fresh start” in which the cards are stacked against their attainment of anything approaching what was once viewed as a basic middle-class lifestyle.
These inequities cannot easily be explained away. It is not as if these young people did not work hard: these hardships affect those who spent long hours studying, excelled in school and did everything “right.” The sense of social injustice — that the economic game is rigged — is enhanced as they see the bankers who brought on the financial crisis, the cause of the economy’s continuing malaise, walk away with mega-bonuses, with almost no one being held accountable for their wrongdoing. Massive fraud was committed, but somehow, no one actually perpetrated it. Political elites promised that “reforms” would bring unprecedented prosperity. And they did, but only for the top 1 precent. Everyone else, including the young, got unprecedented insecurity.
These three realities — social injustice on an unprecedented scale, massive inequities and a loss of trust in elites — define our political moment, and rightly so.
More of the same is not an answer. That is why the center-left and center-right parties in Europe are losing. The US is in a strange position: while the Republican presidential candidates compete on demagoguery, with ill-thought-through proposals that would make matters worse, both of the Democratic candidates are proposing changes which — if they could only get them through Congress — would make a real difference.
Were the reforms put forward by US presidential candidates Bernie Sanders or Hillary Rodham Clinton adopted, the financial system’s ability to prey on those already leading a precarious life would be curbed. And both have proposals for deep reforms that would change how the US finances higher education.
However, more needs to be done to make home ownership possible not just for those with parents who can give them a down payment and to make retirement security possible, given the vagaries of the stock market and the near-zero-interest world we have entered. Most important, the young cannot find a smooth path into the job market unless the economy is performing much better. The “official” unemployment rate in the US, at 4.9 percent, masks much higher levels of disguised unemployment, which, at the very least, are holding down wages.
We cannot not be able to fix the problem if we cannot recognize it. Our young do. They perceive the absence of intergenerational justice and they are right to be angry.
Joseph Stiglitz, recipient of the the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel in 2001 and the John Bates Clark Medal in 1979, is a professor at Columbia University, co-chair of the High-Level Expert Group on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress at the OECD, and chief economist of the Roosevelt Institute.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry