[hibikir]

The situation is not just unique to the US though: Many countries which had their industrial capacity reduced to rubble are still in the exact same boat: People that started working in the 50s 60s and 70s did a lot better comparatively than those that started after 2000. The 50s were far less happy in Europe than in the US, but there was just so much progress to be made that hit everyone. A big part of it was also population growth.

There's plenty of progress to be made in this decade, but a much smaller percentage of the population is part of this boom: Even for those of us that saw the dot com boom, tech is a picnic.

I look at the outcomes of people that went into science, for instance, and I see them against a wall of tenured professors that will not retire, and an industry that has less demand than there's supply. Those that just picked the wrong major in college are struggling, and those that didn't even go to college, even more so. The only ones ahead of their parents went to tech or got a career by using their connections as a stepping ladder: It's easy to do well in law when daddy makes you partner, stays a few more years and then retires.

As a society, we have to do our best to avoid becoming Brazil, and find ways to improve total outcomes. Having a small group of people that make a whole lot of money, and who give their advantage to the next generation, while a lot of people have worse outcomes than their parents is not exactly a recipe for a happy, peaceful society.

[candiodari]

I like how you've identified what the key difference is.

Demand-limited. Not supply limited like we have been for the past 60 years.

I think it applies to more than just academic jobs though. Oil. Cars. Fridges. Laptops. Computers. Dolls. For all of it demand limits seem to be the problem.