Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

A Majority Of Millennials Now Reject Capitalism, Poll Shows (washingtonpost.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the democratic-socialism dept.

A new poll shows that a majority of young people do not support capitalism. The study was conducted by Harvard University, which polled young adults ages 18-29. It found that 51 percent of those polled rejected capitalism, that is to say, they did not support it. Only 42 percent said they support capitalism -- there was a margin of error of 2.4 percentage points. When asked what alternative system they would prefer, there wasn't a clear winner. Just 33 percent said they supported socialism. When talking about politics or economics, it can get complicated and the poll does little to shed light on what parts of capitalism young people dislike or what parts of socialism young people like. It does appear to suggest young people are frustrated with the status quo and are more focused on the flaws of free markets.

12 of 1,080 comments (clear)

  1. Subversion of the West by zapadnik · · Score: 1, Interesting

    The Cultural Marxist Subversion of the Free World has resulted in weaponized zombies who prefer Big State authoritarianism and Central Planning over voluntary exchange for mutual benefit (the 'Free Market' - "capitalism" is the World the Marxists use for the Free Market). The nice thing is reality can only be defied for a short time, and those zombies will reap what they sew. And for all the sane people out there, buckle up, it's going to get rough as the Collectivist-Islamist Axis spins up to full speed.

    1. Re: Subversion of the West by Gamasta · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's a bit like the "Emperor's nose fallacy." By averaging people's opinion when they have no clue, you don't get any closer to what the best solution might be. But you drown out the experts. See Feynman's chapter on "Judging a book by it's cover"(http://www.textbookleague.org/103feyn.htm)

      --
      reason defies logic
    2. Re:Subversion of the West by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 1, Interesting

      It's not even possible to have universally informed consumers, low barriers to entry, etc.

      Take healthcare, and the criteria for the perfect market :

      • Large number of buyers and sellers : will concede that this may be possible. Definitely large number of buyers.
      • Perfect information - only a small fraction of patients have the medical education required to make appropriate buying decisions
      • Homogenous products - no way, medical care varies widely in quality because of human elements
      • No barriers to entry or exit - ginormous barriers, huge amounts of capital required, long training periods for staff, etc
      • Every participant is a price taker - again, untrue, e.g. pharmaceuticals which are monopoly products with set prices
      • Perfect factor mobility - factors of production e.g. doctors are not mobile, need licenses to practice, etc
      • Rational Buyers - no-one is rational about healthcare, because you will pay what you need to
      • No externalities - plenty of counter examples - e.g. prevention saves money in the long run, but private players not going to fund it

      The very notion of specialization, one of the foundations of the modern economy, on it's own, precludes perfect information because the buyer will never know as much about the product as the seller.

    3. Re: Subversion of the West by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Speaking of trust, we should not trust headlines. The polls shows capitalism is the preferred system among millennials. Using the twisted approach of the author, the poll shows that 65% of millennials reject socialism.

    4. Re:Subversion of the West by dywolf · · Score: 3, Interesting

      no one supports an inheritance tax on dependent children.
      but what you said is effectively the same as supporting an inheritance tax as it is commonly understood to be.

      that is because Adam Smith supported the basic concepts of fair competition* and level playing fields, things which inherited wealth undermine. inherited wealth is a distortion in the market, bestowing on an actor opportunity they didn't gain through the market. and as such Adam Smith was not a fan.

      (i'd use the word meritocracy, except meritocracy is not the word to use, unless you define the source of merit carefully; for ex, he didn't believe in merit from assumed position or inherited wealth)

      He may have believed such situations as competition and level playing fields should arise naturally through mutual agreement and restraint, but reality has shown they do not, as all it takes is one self-interested person to poison the pot. In point of fact, Adam Smith's views on capitalism and markets based around fair competition dovetail nicely with government rules meant to accomplish and foster such, as what is government but an abstracted form of mutual agreement (at least in in its ideal form), albeit one able to enforce those ideal level competitive fields under force of law ?

      (the fact that government itself can be subverted doesn't negate its role; rather it forces upon the users another layer of vigilance, that of maintaining control over their government from those who would subvert it)

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
  2. the invisible hand of capitalism by bugmenot1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The invisible hand does not exist, that is why capitalism has so many problems. Adam Smith got it wrong. The younger generations are screwed. There is no longer a decent path to paid insurance at a nice company with a nice salary. H1B visa holders own those jobs now. I work at a tech company in California. A billion dollar software company, a household name. Several managers from India (located in CA) were telling external recruiters they only wanted resumes of other workers from India. They did this for years. The major qualification was someone who once came from India so we ended up with a lot of technicians who knew nothing about our products and many with very little coding skills. They took almost all the new jobs over time. I checked around and other major tech companies almost all have this problem. Why do managers from India break the rules of companies committed to be equal opportunity employers? If you look at your organization chart at your tech company I bet you notice quickly that Indian managers and executives have tricked HR and managed to hire only other people from India or of Indian descent. At worst I suspect they are racist and believe the blacks, latinos, chinese and caucasian people are inferior. At best they are just hiring their friends, be an interesting study to find out what is going on. However, it is already too late, the young people of this country are screwed.

  3. Re: It's all relative by religionofpeas · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The point is that there's an alternative to American style capitalism that doesn't involve driving around in a Trabant.

  4. Re:What parts of capitalism young people dislike by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Indeed, playing the victim is the millenial signature move.

    I'm an engineering manager and interview fresh graduates from the best schools in this country. I have a shocking recruitment budget so I can hire the best. And the best are generally not American.

    For the most part, the Americans are technically unremarkable, complain too much, have poor work ethic and can't put down their phone while I'm talking to them.

    The Americans are mostly middle class kids who had school programs, facilities, scholarships and pedigrees that their peers from China, India and Russia could only dream of. But the Americans blew their chance by not working hard while believing they're special. Each kid from China grew up with 1000 peers competing for every spot they ever applied for, going all the way back to grade school.

    Americans complain about student debt yet spend their 4 years of college partying, while the Russian kids who clawed their way into the US buckle down and study. It takes a single glance tell their resumes apart.

  5. Re:So? by abroadwin · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Wow, your sweeping generalization of over 83 million people really makes you sound like an informed and thoughtful individual. Well, I'm sorry, you said a majority, so I'll say you've only broadly judged 41.5 million or so (in the US), to give you the benefit of the doubt. What's your sample size? Surely you've met with at least several million of them and discussed political and economic issues with them to form your opinion?

  6. Re:It's all relative by guestapoo · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Exactly:
    Remind me the critic of Socialist party of Great Britain about Stalin's system in 1936:
    http://www.worldsocialism.org/...
    In the article, it showed Stalin just used "socialism" to cover the system that serve the interest of leaders, and leaded to corruptions.

    and another one in 1931, which prove Stalinist system was in fact a capitalist state, which was slave-system that workers served the "communist leaders":
    http://www.worldsocialism.org/...

    The wage-labour system in Russian State industries, like the system here and elsewhere, is a system of Slavery. The spread of piece-work will intensify the slavery ; it will enable the "Communist" rulers to squeeze more surplus-produce out of Russian workers

    And, Marx claimed that capitalism has "historical mission" to change system of production, which when at highest level, become 'communism'. (Note: in Marx theory, there is no step 'socialism', it's invented by Stalin).

    Hence, the credit system accelerates the material development of the productive forces and the establishment of the world-market. It is the historical mission of the capitalist system of production to raise these material foundations of the new mode of production to a certain degree of perfection.

  7. Re:Good by mrvan · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I can't blame them either.

    I think the only reasonable system possible is one which has private ownership, free and competitive enterprise, and a government providing basic services, ensuring security and regulation, and promoting fairness and equality by e.g. making sure everyone has access to health care and education.

    If this is 'capitalism', I'll take it. You can also call it the Rhineland model or social market economics, or whatever you want. I want it :)

    What we're seeing now is:
    - wage share of income falling relative to capital's share [1]
    - real median income stagnant for the past 20 years even though real average income has increased by 25% [2]. Over 50 years median income increased by 25% (not even .5% per annum), while average income increased by 100%. In other words: the economic growth since the seventies has almost entirely gone to the above-median earners: the top 1% share of income jumped from 10% in the seventies to over 20% now, with a large part of this increase going to the top 0.1% (i.e., not us).
    - governments are unable to provide basic services because the rich don't pay their fair share of tax [4]
    - governments are unable to provide basic services because they are unable to reform entitlement/welfare systems which are in fact transferring money from the relatively poor young to the relatively well-off old [5]
    - markets aren't acutally well regulated, especially in the US, and too many industries have (near-)monopolies, causing profits to be historically way too high [6]

    In Europe, 'capitalism' means that old people have either permanent contracts with generous benefits, or are already enjoying their equally generous retirement which they entered between 55 and 65. Young people have temporary contracts at stagnant wages, are unable to buy a house because of (1) inflated prices due to government meddling (green belts, mortgage interest deductability); (2) they don't have a permanent contract; and (3) new lending regulations means banks are a lot more stingy than even 10 years ago; and will not retire before 67 on a defined contribution scheme, which is pretty bad news especially given the essentially zero interest rates and government bond yields. In the US (and increasingly the UK), added to this is a nice pile of student debt. If I were young(er), I'm not sure I would think this is such a good bargain...

    1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
    2) https://research.stlouisfed.or...
    3) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
    4) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
    5) http://www.economist.com/news/...
    5) http://www.economist.com/news/...

  8. Re:Wait until they start making a bit of money by nukenerd · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Not to mention that the wealth of a nation lies in the general public.

    It does not. Half the world' wealth is held by the top 1% of individuals PBS

    There are 120 nations with less wealth each than Bill Gates alone Knoema

    400 Americans have more wealth than half of all other Americans PolitiFact

    If you look at the detail of those 400 richest Americans you find that a small percentage of those have more than all the rest of the 400.

    Getting the picture?