August 14, 2025 • 43 mins
This episode explores the legal and cultural clash between rap icon Jay-Z and the United States government, diving into the events, allegations, and public narratives that shaped the dispute. We unpack the facts versus the rumors, the role of media framing, and how celebrity status can influence both perception and outcomes. Whether you’re a fan of hip-hop, interested in legal battles, or curious about the power dynamics between public figures and political institutions, this episode offers an in-depth look at a unique and controversial case.
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-infographics-show-podcast--6317257/support.
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-infographics-show-podcast--6317257/support.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:10):
Welcome to Beyond Infographics, the show where we really try
to peel back the layers of information to see what's
actually going on underneath.
Speaker 2 (00:18):
Get past the headlines exactly.
Speaker 1 (00:21):
And today we're embarking on a pretty deep dive into
a generation that gets talked about constantly often you know, stereotype,
but maybe not truly understood gen Z. We want to
move beyond those easy labels, yeah, like oh, they're just
the Avocado To's crowd or the TikTok generation, because what
we found digging into their experience is it just goes
(00:42):
way way deeper.
Speaker 3 (00:43):
It really does.
Speaker 1 (00:43):
So our mission today is to try and cut through
some of that noise and uncover the maybe surprising and
complex realities that are shaping this well pivotal generation.
Speaker 2 (00:54):
Can you know, understanding gen z isn't just about tracking
youth trends or marketing fads. It's actually crucial if you
want to grasp the bigger societal shifts that are well
already happening. They're going to fundamentally define our collective future.
We've gathered quite a diverse range of insights, stark economic data,
some really nuanced patterns in how they engage or don't
(01:15):
engage politically evolving gender dynamics and these really distinct world
views that they hold.
Speaker 1 (01:21):
So think of this deep dive as like your personal
guide to what's really motivating them, what burdens they're carrying,
and maybe most importantly, what their unique perspectives can tell
us about where society is actually heading.
Speaker 3 (01:34):
Let's start there then.
Speaker 1 (01:35):
Okay, So let's start by unpacking something that seemed like
a huge force shaping gen Z, the just sheer economic
pressure they're under. It's not just a number on a page.
It's a lived reality that fundamentally reshapes their whole outlook
on life in ways maybe previous generations would find hard
to even imagine.
Speaker 2 (01:54):
That's such a crucial starting point. The student loan crisis especially,
is just this monumental burden, and it really defines their
financial landscape.
Speaker 1 (02:02):
You see the numbers at their kind of mind boggling
they are.
Speaker 3 (02:06):
When you look at it.
Speaker 2 (02:06):
The average monthly student loan payment for a gen Z borrower,
it's over five hundred dollars.
Speaker 1 (02:11):
Wow, over five hundred bucks a month.
Speaker 2 (02:13):
Yeah, Now put that in perspective. For millennials, the average
is around two hundred and fifteen dollars the overall average
across everyone is two hundred and eighty four dollars. So
that gen Z number, it's just strikingly high. It represents
a real daily struggle for so many.
Speaker 1 (02:27):
And it's not a small group facing that.
Speaker 3 (02:29):
No, not at all.
Speaker 2 (02:30):
Nearly one in six borrowers that's about fifteen percent of
the total, are paying five hundred dollars or more every
single month. And if you zoom out the collective student
debt in the US, it's now over a staggering one
point seven trillion.
Speaker 1 (02:43):
Dollars one point seven trillion.
Speaker 2 (02:45):
Trillion, And that figure alone, it's up six fold since
just two thousand.
Speaker 1 (02:48):
And three, a sixfold increase in just over twenty years.
I mean, that's not just a statistic. It feels like
a fundamental rewriting of the deal for an entire generation.
Speaker 3 (02:57):
It is.
Speaker 1 (02:58):
Imagine starting your adult life with that financial weight. It
basically reshapes almost every big decision you make, right where
you live, if you get married, when, whether you can
even think about owning a home.
Speaker 2 (03:08):
Exactly right, This debt isn't just about you know, paying
a bill each month. It actively limits their ability to
build any kind of secure financial future, to pursue what
used to be seen as well fundamental markers.
Speaker 1 (03:19):
Of adulthood, like buying a house.
Speaker 2 (03:21):
Saving Yeah, precisely, more than half of all borrowers fifty
six percent explicitly say these loan payments limit their ability
to save or invest money. And the impact goes further.
Almost half twenty five percent have directly delayed major life
milestones because of this debt.
Speaker 1 (03:37):
Well front a milestone.
Speaker 2 (03:38):
We're talking foundational life choices, buying a home, getting married,
even meaningfully planning for retirement. For gen Z, this isn't
some abstract economic theory playing out. It's their day to
day reality, constantly influencing their choices, their opportunities or lack thereof.
Speaker 1 (03:53):
And the personal cost, Yeah, it must be huge, not
just financial, but the stress, the anxiety.
Speaker 2 (03:57):
Oh, absolutely, the emotional impact is profoundly significant. Nearly three
out of five borrowers fifty nine percent openly say they
experienced stress or anxiety directly because of their student loan.
Speaker 1 (04:09):
That's a majority, it is, and for.
Speaker 2 (04:11):
Gen Z specifically, that numbers even higher sixty one percent.
It's just this constant mental weight, and maybe even more telling,
a staggering fifty seven percent of borrowers overall admit that
looking back, they regret taking on so much debt in
the first place.
Speaker 1 (04:24):
Wow, regret.
Speaker 2 (04:27):
That's powerful, it is, and this regret often forces them
into really difficult daily trade offs. More than half fifty
four percent actually prioritize paying other debts like credit cards
or car loans over their student loan payments. That tells
you something about the immediate pressures they're under.
Speaker 1 (04:44):
Yeah, they're juggling.
Speaker 2 (04:45):
They're juggling, and a substantial two to five have had
to cut back on either essential spending or you know,
discretionary things just to manage these payments.
Speaker 3 (04:55):
You hear stories, right.
Speaker 2 (04:56):
Gen Z is running multiple side gigs just to make rent,
let alone, say for a down payment. It really makes
that whole American dream feel well, like a bit of
a mirage for them.
Speaker 1 (05:06):
It's such a huge shift from say their parents' generation,
where those milestones moving out, getting married, buying a place
felt more like you know, achievable steps. Yeah. So what
does this deep economic reality, this pressure mean for their
basic sense of control over their own wives, Because it
sounds like it's eroding it pretty significantly.
Speaker 2 (05:24):
It absolutely is. This economic situation contributes directly to this
pervasive feeling of unfairness and a profound lack of control
over their own destinies.
Speaker 1 (05:33):
You see that in the data.
Speaker 2 (05:34):
Clearly, only sixty percent of thirteen to twenty seven year
old say they feel in control of the major aspects
of their lives. And maybe even more starkly, fifty five
percent of this generation believes that the wealth you're born
with matters more for success than hard work or skills
or talent.
Speaker 1 (05:51):
Wow, fifty five percent, how does that compare.
Speaker 2 (05:54):
It's a huge contrast to older generations where only forty
one percent hold that same view. Just this deep seated
belief that the system is kind of rigged against them,
that their effort won't necessarily pay off in the way
it might have for their parents or grandparents.
Speaker 1 (06:09):
So that delay and traditional adulthood, markers, moving out, marriage,
home ownership. It's not just a choice for many.
Speaker 2 (06:15):
For many, no, it's a forced adaptation to these economic constraints,
and that just fuels that feeling of lost control, maybe
even resentment towards systems they see us fundamentally unfair.
Speaker 1 (06:25):
It really paints a picture. And hey, if you listening
or finding these insights is compelling as we are, maybe
take quick seconds to rate us five stars. Wherever you
get your deep dives, it genuinely helps us bring these
important conversations to more people.
Speaker 3 (06:36):
Yeah, that'd be great.
Speaker 1 (06:37):
Okay, So we've got this picture of a generation feeling
economically burdened, feeling a real loss of control, kind of
pigs a question. How does that sense of unfairness, that
pressure translate into their political engagement. You might acpect them
to be, I don't know, storming the ballot box given
these unique pressures, but the reality seems well a lot
(06:57):
more nuanced.
Speaker 2 (06:59):
That's a really crucial distinction to make. Despite this huge
nationwide focus on getting young people out to vote in
twenty twenty four, the early estimates suggest only about forty
two percent of them actually turned.
Speaker 1 (07:10):
Out, only forty two percent. That's down, isn't it.
Speaker 2 (07:12):
Yeah, it's a noticeable drop from fifty three percent back
in twenty twenty. So the question isn't just why the
lower turnout, it's why lower turnout, especially when they're so
often described as this really politically conscious.
Speaker 1 (07:23):
Generation, right, what's going on there?
Speaker 2 (07:24):
Well, what our insights suggests is that many young voters
are just profoundly disappointed with the current political candidates on offer.
They feel like their values, their concerns aren't really being
reflected by either of the major parties, and that leads
more to disillusionment than outright apathy.
Speaker 1 (07:40):
So it's not that they don't care. Maybe it's more
like a rejection of the choices they're given, kind of
none of the above feeling that leaves them feeling, I guess,
politically homeless.
Speaker 3 (07:51):
That's a good way to put it.
Speaker 1 (07:52):
What does that mean for the future of our two
party system though? Are we seeing a fundamental shift in
how future generations will even think about political participation?
Speaker 3 (08:01):
That's a critical question.
Speaker 2 (08:03):
And this sense of political homelessness, it's starkly reflected in
their party identification, or maybe more accurately, their lack of it.
So a huge sixty one percent of young adults do
not identify with either major political party.
Speaker 1 (08:17):
Sixty one percent. That's massive.
Speaker 2 (08:19):
It is only twenty two percent identify as Democrat and
just seventeen percent as Republican. And what's really fascinating here
is that this makes them inherently less susceptible to that
kind of rigid, ideological partisan polarization that grips so many
older groups. They're just not lining up neatly in the
traditional political boxes. It suggests a more independent, maybe issue
driven approach.
Speaker 1 (08:39):
A shift like that could have really profound implications down
the line. But if they're not aligning with parties and
their turnout is lower, what about their actual understanding of
the political system itself? Is there maybe a civic knowledge
gap playing into this pattern?
Speaker 2 (08:54):
Unfortunately, yes, it looks like a knowledge gap does play role.
Around forty percent of young adults can only answer one
out of four basic civics questions correctly, only one out
of four yeah, And compounding that, a significant thirty five
percent explicitly say they just don't feel informed enough to
participate politically. So that gap can definitely contribute to disengagement
(09:15):
from the formal processes. It makes the whole system feel
maybe overwhelming or irrelevant.
Speaker 1 (09:20):
And how do they feel about the system overall?
Speaker 2 (09:22):
There's deep widespread dissatisfaction. A majority fifty seven percent are
dissatisfied with how the political system functions in the US,
and a concerning forty percent are pessimistic about the future
of American democracy itself. Over half fifty two percent report
having little or no trust in government institutions.
Speaker 1 (09:39):
Okay, so here's the paradox. Then they're dissatisfied, they don't
trust institutions, maybe don't feel informed. Yet sixty eight percent
still say they're vote matters and seventy percent are proud
to be American, but they're not playing by the old
rules of party loyalty or consistent voting. What gives if
they think their vote matters but aren't voting can consistently,
(10:00):
what's missing?
Speaker 2 (10:02):
It raises a really important, maybe even urgent question for politicians,
for civic leaders, for everyone. Really, how do you genuinely
motivate a generation that believes in the power of their vote,
feels pride in their country, but profoundly distrusts its institutions
and feels the options are just insufficient. Yeah, it suggests
a critical need for new ways to engage them, maybe
outside the traditional party structures, Ways that actually address their
(10:25):
specific concerns, reflect their values, and offer tangible solutions that
resonate with their lived experience, rather than just asking for
their vote every few years.
Speaker 3 (10:33):
It's about building trust really from the ground up.
Speaker 1 (10:36):
And speaking of those core concerns driving them. One of
the most surprising shifts we've seen recently is in what
gen z actually prioritizes when it comes to elections. We
often hear about social issues being key for younger.
Speaker 2 (10:48):
Voters, right, that's the common narrative.
Speaker 1 (10:50):
But our insights show a really clear, dramatic pivot. For
Gen Z voters in the twenty twenty four elections, the
economy was by and large them most important issue.
Speaker 2 (11:01):
That's a huge development, especially when you think back to
the twenty twenty two midterms, issues like abortion were widely
seen as a massive motivator for younger voters.
Speaker 1 (11:09):
Then exactly so has that shifted as dramatically as this
economic focus suggest.
Speaker 2 (11:14):
It really has quite remarkably. This is where we see
what one expert called a big cratering in terms of
how important different issues feel. Abortion, which was the top
priority for forty four percent of young voters in twenty
twenty two.
Speaker 1 (11:27):
Forty four percent. That's huge, it.
Speaker 2 (11:29):
Was, but it dropped significantly down to only thirteen percent
in the twenty twenty four exit polling.
Speaker 1 (11:33):
Wow, from forty four to thirteen.
Speaker 2 (11:35):
Now, it's really crucial to be clear here. This doesn't
mean young people, especially young women, stopped supporting abortion legality.
In fact, support is still very strong. About seven to
ten young women believe it should be legal in all
or most cases. The change is in the salience of
the issue, how much it drives their vote. It's been
(11:56):
decisively overtaken by economic anxiety.
Speaker 1 (11:59):
Okay, so it's not a shift in their fundamental beliefs
on say, reproductive rights, but more that the immediate severe
economic pressures have just become much, much more pressing for
them day to day.
Speaker 2 (12:11):
Precisely, young people are disproportionately feeling the pinch of higher prices.
They're the ones trying to move out of their parents' homes,
struggling to afford rent and crazy housing markets, wondering if
home ownership is even a possibility anymore, dealing with that constant.
Speaker 3 (12:24):
Weight of student debt.
Speaker 1 (12:25):
It's hitting an artist.
Speaker 2 (12:27):
They feel that the traditional American dream, maybe as their
parents understood it, isn't really available to them. So even
if the big picture economic numbers might look okay, low unemployment,
maybe inflation easing a bit, those broad stats don't matter
nearly as much as their immediate lived experience of high
prices and the crushing cost of living.
Speaker 1 (12:47):
So they're voting based on their wallet, just like older
generations often do.
Speaker 2 (12:52):
In a way, Yes, this current economic stress aligns them
with older Americans who also tend to vote their pocketbook issues.
Speaker 3 (12:58):
They feel this general on.
Speaker 2 (12:59):
How happiness with the political status quo, even if some
macro indicators look positive.
Speaker 1 (13:05):
What's the takeaway for political campaigns?
Speaker 2 (13:06):
Then the implication seems clear. While broadly supporting abortion legality
is still important to this group, campaigns focusing only on
that might have missed the deeper, more pervasive economic anxieties
that are now really driving young voters or maybe keeping
them home if they don't feel hurt.
Speaker 1 (13:24):
On those issues. Okay, let's shift gears slightly and delve
into the information landscape. I mean, in an age of
just constant information overload, where do you even turn for truth?
Who do you trust? For gen Z, it seems that
answer is profoundly different than for older generations, and that
has huge implications.
Speaker 3 (13:43):
It really does.
Speaker 2 (13:44):
Gen Z grew up completely immersed in personalized news streams
right where algorithms are constantly pushing novelty, often without much
context or nuance or even caring about accuracy.
Speaker 1 (13:55):
Right, the feed dictates reality.
Speaker 2 (13:56):
And this has led them to adopt what we've called
a mag pie approach to truth. They just sort of
pick up shiny bits from all over. They're far more
likely to trust content they see on social media from friends, sure,
but also from brands, from ads, and crucially from influencers, and.
Speaker 1 (14:11):
They trust that as much as traditional news.
Speaker 2 (14:13):
That's the striking part. They often hold this social media
content in similar regard to, or sometimes even above, mainstream
media outlets.
Speaker 1 (14:20):
So it's not just about preferring different platforms like TikTok
over TV news. It's a fundamental flattening of that whole
hierarchy of trust we used to take for granted, like
all sources are kind of.
Speaker 3 (14:31):
Equal, exactly.
Speaker 2 (14:32):
It's a stark contrast. Older generations tend to have much
clearer preferences. They generally favor established news outlets, traditional broadcasters,
professional journalism. For gen Z, this flattening means that say,
an influencer they follow for fashion tips or video game
streams might be seen as just as convincing, just as
(14:52):
truthful when talking about geopolitics as a professional journalist or
a major.
Speaker 1 (14:56):
News organization that sounds confusing.
Speaker 2 (14:58):
It contributes to what we've identified as a confused generation.
Their views can be really fluid, changing frequently on big
life questions and even everyday issues just because they're navigating
this fractured information environment.
Speaker 1 (15:10):
That confusion almost sounds philosophical, Like you mentioned earlier, if
everyone has a bias, if everything is subjective, can anyone
really know anything for sure? That seems like a profound
challenge to just having a shared reality.
Speaker 2 (15:22):
That really is the core of it. They often mention
bias and agendas in the news, which isn't unique to
them obviously, but their confusion runs deeper. It's like, if
everyone has an angle, then where does objective truth even live?
Speaker 1 (15:35):
So what do they do?
Speaker 2 (15:36):
They're essentially forced to curate their own very eclectic playlists
of truth, pulling tracks from all sorts of diverse, often
contradictory sources. It means it's not unusual for them to hold, say,
broadly left leaning values on some things, but still agree
with some more right leaning ideas on others, simply because
they're piecing together their understanding from this fragmented landscape of
(16:00):
different voices they encounter online.
Speaker 1 (16:02):
What's the consequence of that, that flattening of trust?
Speaker 3 (16:04):
It's profound.
Speaker 2 (16:05):
If influencers can be just as convincing as professional journalists,
it poses a significant challenge to democracy itself because democracy
at its very foundation, relies on some kind of shared
understanding of facts, a common public space for discussion.
Speaker 1 (16:19):
It's like they're building these personal playlists of truth, pulling
tracks from everywhere, maybe without a clear DJ curating it.
What does that mean for our ability to find common
ground or even just have a shared public conversation. If
everyone's reality is so personalized and fragmented, it feels like
it could really deepen societal divides.
Speaker 2 (16:39):
It creates a serious challenge for societal cohesion. You're absolutely right.
When there's no longer a common pool of trusted information sources,
just agreeing on basic facts or a baseline reality becomes incredibly.
Speaker 1 (16:51):
Difficult and people just tune out.
Speaker 2 (16:53):
That's the risk, a pervasive risk of disengagement from what
we might call ambient news, that constant flow of information
that without context, without clear authority, without reliable curation, just
becomes background noise or worse, a source of deep confusion and.
Speaker 3 (17:08):
Maybe even apathy.
Speaker 1 (17:09):
So it's the answer.
Speaker 2 (17:10):
There's an urgent need for credible, balanced, contextual information delivered
authentically in the places gen Z actually are, on the
platforms they use. It means meeting them where they are,
not just expecting them to come back to the traditional sources.
It's about bridging those divides and trying to foster a
more unified understanding.
Speaker 1 (17:28):
Okay, this actually leads us to another really fascinating and
sometimes frankly concerning divergence we're seeing, and that's along gender
lines within gen Z itself. It's not just about who
they vote for. It seems to be impacting everything from
economic success to how young men and women even see
their roles in society.
Speaker 2 (17:45):
The data here is really striking. Take the twenty twenty
four election results for voters aged eighteen twenty nine. While
Kamala Harris won that group overall by six points, Donald
Trump opened up a significant sixteen point gender gap within
that same age group.
Speaker 1 (17:59):
Sixty points. How did that break down?
Speaker 2 (18:01):
It means a substantial fifty six percent of young men
voted for Trump, while only forty percent of young women did.
What's even more surprising, maybe, is that Trump actually improved
his performance among young women compared to twenty twenty. He
went from thirty three percent to forty percent, even with
that widening overall gap between young men and women.
Speaker 1 (18:20):
So this isn't entirely new, This gender split in voting No.
Speaker 2 (18:23):
It mirrors a larger historical trend, women generally leaning more Democratic,
men more Republican. But it's clearly intensified within gen Z.
It's reached a point of real ideological divergence.
Speaker 1 (18:35):
Okay, so why why this particular intensification now, young women
leaning left, young men turning right? What's behind that split?
Speaker 2 (18:44):
Well, for many young women, their political coming of age
really happened during the Trump presidency and the whole hashtag
me too movement that period seemed to foster a strong
gender consciousness for them, really highlighting issues of rights, equality,
systemic fairness. They strongly support abortion legality for his gasample,
and many feel that their rights are actually diminishing. That
makes them much less likely to embrace.
Speaker 1 (19:04):
The Republican Party.
Speaker 2 (19:05):
And for young men, on the other hand, for many
young men, the Democratic Party often seems to lack a
convincing economic or even social message that speaks directly to
their specific concerns or experiences. Donald Trump, however, actively engaged
young men. He notably appeared on platforms like Joe Rogan's
podcast others popular with younger male audiences, sending a signal exactly,
(19:28):
sending a powerful message that he cared about their votes,
that he was willing to meet them where they were,
maybe speak to their perceived grievances or anxieties. When you
don't feel like a party is fighting for you or
even really acknowledging your struggles, you become a lot less
interested in voting for them.
Speaker 1 (19:43):
And beyond the politics, are there underlying economic or educational
gaps that might be feeding into this gender divergence, creating
a sense for some young men maybe of being left behind.
Speaker 2 (19:54):
Absolutely, and this is a really critical piece of the puzzle.
We're seeing what some experts are calling an attainment crisis
merging among young men. By age nineteen, for instance, fifty
four percent of young women are enrolled in higher education
compared to only forty percent of men.
Speaker 1 (20:09):
That's a big gap.
Speaker 2 (20:11):
It is, and that trend continues into the workforce.
Speaker 3 (20:14):
Young womenag.
Speaker 2 (20:15):
Twenty twenty four now actually have higher employment rates, there's
a three percentage point gap, and remarkably they even out
earn young men on average in that age group.
Speaker 1 (20:24):
Wow. So that economic struggle, the educational gap, it could
feed feelings of being marginalized.
Speaker 2 (20:31):
It certainly can contribute significantly to feelings of marginalization. Maybe
resentment or just feeling left behind, especially if those traditional
markers of male success seem less attainable than they used
to be.
Speaker 1 (20:42):
That's a profound shift in traditional roles societal expectations. Yeah,
how does that then translate into how they see things
like feminism or even masculinity itself. It sounds like it's
creating a real cultural rift.
Speaker 2 (20:52):
It undeniably creates a very complex, often conflicted picture. Our
insights show that only thirty six percent of sixteen to
two twenty nine year old men agree with the statement
feminism has done more good than harm.
Speaker 1 (21:03):
Only thirty six percent. That's low.
Speaker 2 (21:05):
It's a critical indicator of a generational divide on this. Furthermore,
nearly half forty five percent believe that efforts to promote
women's equality have actually gone so far that men are
now being discriminated against.
Speaker 1 (21:16):
Forty five percent believe men are discriminated.
Speaker 2 (21:19):
Against, and almost the same number forty seven percent of
gen Z men agree that masculinity is under attack.
Speaker 1 (21:27):
So what does that make them receptive to?
Speaker 2 (21:29):
Well, it makes them particularly receptive to certain narratives often
amplified by controversial online figures, people like Andrew Tait, perhaps
others who articulate and validate that sense of marginalization or
confusion or even anger about modern masculinity. Young men, it seems,
are actively looking for motivational figures for guidance on how
to navigate these rapidly shifting gender roles, and that makes
(21:52):
them open to rhetoric that might not align with broader
progressive narratives and can sometimes feel quite isolating to young women.
Speaker 1 (21:58):
It's a really complex thingme and hey, just a quick
reminder again, if you're finding this deep dive into gen
Z insightful, please do rate beyond infographics five stars. It
genuinely helps us keep producing this kind of analysis.
Speaker 2 (22:10):
So when we talk about gen Z, it's just so
crucial to hammer this home. They are not one single,
monolithic group. Our insights revealed that this generation is actually
made up of distinct world views. These aren't like rigid boxes,
but more like nuanced perspectives that are really shaped by
their unique experiences, their beliefs, the societal pressures they're under.
We've identified six key world views that help us sort
(22:33):
of decode this internal complexity and get beyond those simple stereotypes.
Speaker 1 (22:37):
It's six distinct world views, Okay, that immediately tells you
you can't just slap one label in this whole generation
and think you understand them. Let's break these down because
this feels really vital to grasping who they are and
just do it.
Speaker 3 (22:49):
Okay, First, we have boys can't be boys.
Speaker 2 (22:51):
These are essentially the traditional masculinity supporters. This group makes
up about fourteen percent of gen Z roughly two point
seven million people, and it's overwhelmingly male about eighty two percent.
Speaker 1 (23:02):
What defines them They.
Speaker 2 (23:03):
Feel genuinely trapped by the rapidly changing expectations around masculinity.
They perceive themselves as being actively under attack in modern society,
and they often express this profound lack of positive, relatable
role models, which unfortunately can make them quite vulnerable to
negative influences online or elsewhere. So they might connect with
(23:23):
figures like They might strongly resonate with figures like Andrew
Taate or Jordan Peterson, people who seem to validate their
sense of being marginalized, offering a narrative that simplifies complex
gender issues and maybe offers clear, although often controversial paths
for identity.
Speaker 1 (23:39):
Okay, world view one, what's next?
Speaker 3 (23:41):
Next?
Speaker 2 (23:41):
Up, we have the fight for rights individuals This is
your activist, socially conscious segment. They make up about twelve
percent of gen Z, so around two point one million people,
and they skew slightly female, about sixty percent. And their
focus is these are the ones truly dedicated to equality, fairness,
social justice. They're passionately engaged, often channeling their energy into
(24:03):
advocating for progressive causes. What's interesting is despite believing that
society is deeply unfair and faces huge challenges, they remain
remarkably optimistic about their collective ability to actually create meaningful
change through advocacy, through direct action. They're often the vocal
champions for marginalized groups, leading the charge on social reform.
Speaker 1 (24:24):
So on one hand, you've got a group feeling attacked
and misunderstood, on the other, a group fired up and
ready to fight for a more just world. Two very different,
almost opposing reactions to the current climate. What about other
key segments, especially thinking about young women.
Speaker 2 (24:39):
Well, the third significant worldview we identified as girl power.
This represents empowered, optimistic young women and it's a substantial
group twenty one percent of gen Z another two point
seven million people, and it's almost exclusively female or non binary, around.
Speaker 3 (24:52):
Ninety nine percent.
Speaker 1 (24:53):
And what's their approach?
Speaker 2 (24:54):
These individuals are profoundly self reliant. They're determined to shape
their own futures much on their own terms. They often
lead more by example than through overt activism, focusing intently
on personal goals, education, career advancement. They tend to thrive
in social and cultural spaces, actively reject traditional gender stereotypes,
(25:15):
and really embrace their independence and ambition. They represent a
significant force of sort of self determination within the generation.
Speaker 1 (25:23):
Okay, that's three. What else?
Speaker 3 (25:24):
Then?
Speaker 2 (25:25):
We encounter the zero sum thinkers. This is a particularly
a potentially radical worldview. It represents eighteen percent of gen Z,
about two point two million people, and is notably gender balanced.
Speaker 1 (25:38):
Zero sum. What does that mean in practice?
Speaker 2 (25:40):
Their foundational belief is basically that life is a finite pie.
One group's success inherently means another group must lose out.
If someone gets a bigger slice, someone else has to
get a smaller one. This isn't just politics. It fundamentally
shapes how they see daily life, how they react to news.
Can you give an example, sure, Imagine news about say,
diversity initiatives or even economic growth benefiting one sector more
(26:02):
than another. Their immediate reaction is often to look for
who's losing out, who's being disadvantaged by this. It often
leads to a leaning towards more authoritarian views, maybe a
deep suspicion about their own freedoms being eroded. And they're
often very receptive to online narratives, perhaps from features echoing
their sense that traditional structures, or even masculinity itself is
(26:24):
under attack.
Speaker 1 (26:25):
How does that play out with things like social programs?
Speaker 2 (26:27):
Well, for them, something like a welfare system might feel
like an unfair handout, because their worldview dictates that personal
success comes only from individual hard work. Any deviation from
that path feels like a threat to their own and
maybe hard won gains. They're often skeptical of collective action,
seeing everything through a lens of individual competition.
Speaker 1 (26:47):
That's zero sum thinking. It seems particularly potent in a
generation facing such tough economic realities where resources already feel scarce.
What about those who feel blocked by the system but
don't necessarily kind of radical worldview.
Speaker 2 (27:02):
That leads us straight to the diser loaded group. These
individuals are deeply concerned with socioeconomic barriers. This segment is
about fifteen percent of gen Z maybe one point nine
million people and it's predominantly female around sixty eight percent.
Speaker 1 (27:17):
What's their perspective?
Speaker 2 (27:18):
They share that feeling that society the economy is rigged
against them. This leads to a pervasive sense of unhappiness,
a significant lack of control over their future, especially finances, housing,
mental health. But while they're profoundly frustrated by these systemic obstacles,
they're typically not radical in their proposed solutions. They tend
(27:39):
to reject the notion that men are being unfairly treated,
for instance, and seek more equitable systems rather than wanting
to tear everything down. They often have this kind of
weary pragmatism, navigating a world they see as unfair, but
not necessarily seeking revolution.
Speaker 1 (27:52):
Okay, one more world view left.
Speaker 2 (27:53):
Yes, finally we have the blank slates. These are largely neutral,
often kind of disinterested young men, and it's a significant
GRIP group twenty percent of gen Z about two point
five million individuals, and it's entirely male, one hundred percent.
Speaker 1 (28:06):
Blank slates.
Speaker 2 (28:07):
They prioritize personal stuff, hobbies, friendships, everyday life over getting
involved in broader social or political issues. They aren't necessarily unambitious,
it's more than their focus is intensely on near term
personal achievements, getting good grades, landing a stable job, maybe
buying a house, eventually starting a family. They often just
(28:27):
disengage from the bigger cultural debates, preferring to focus on
building a stable, comfortable life for themselves. It's like a
preference for personal peace over societal engagement.
Speaker 1 (28:36):
Wow, it's just abundantly clear, isn't it. Generalizing about gen
Z misses so much of the internal complexity. They're absolutely
not just one thing. They're this mosaic of distinct perspectives,
sometimes clashing, all shaped by their unique place in time.
It really shows the incredible diversity within a generation. We
often talk about as if they're all the same. Okay,
so we have this complex mosaic of internal shit, these
(29:00):
evolving worldviews. What does that mean for how gen Z
might face major external pressures. Let's think about something potentially
really disruptive, like the possibility of a military draft returning.
It feels almost like ancient history to many people, but
just talking about it highlights some big shifts both in
society and in this generation's outlook.
Speaker 2 (29:21):
It's a fascinating, almost hypothetical thought experiment for many isn't it,
especially given gen zs often express anti war feelings and
their general skepticism towards institutions.
Speaker 1 (29:32):
Right, we haven't had a draft in ages exactly.
Speaker 2 (29:35):
Historically, the US only used a draft in times of
truly massive conflict. I think the Civil War, where the
wealthy could famously pay someone to take their place.
Speaker 1 (29:43):
Right the commutation fee.
Speaker 3 (29:44):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (29:44):
Then World War One and two, where millions were drafted
for what were clearly seen as existential fights for the nation.
We even had that peacetime draft during the Cold War.
Elvis Presley famously.
Speaker 3 (29:54):
Got drafted then and later.
Speaker 2 (29:56):
Of course, widespread conscription for Korea in Vietnam.
Speaker 1 (29:59):
And Vietnam really change things. It did.
Speaker 2 (30:01):
That war saw two point two million men drafted, and
its profound divisiveness, the sheer human carnage ultimately led to
the end of the draft in America.
Speaker 1 (30:11):
And for over fifty years now, nobody's been drafted. But
the system selective service, it still exists. Right, It's not
completely gone, even if it feels like a relic from
another era.
Speaker 3 (30:22):
That's correct.
Speaker 2 (30:23):
While nobody's been drafted for five decades, all men aged
eighteen to twenty five are still legally required to register
with selective service. It's largely just a formality now technically
not complying as a felony. But it's important to note
no one's been prosecuted for it since nineteen eighty six.
Speaker 1 (30:39):
But the system itself has issues.
Speaker 2 (30:40):
Right It faces ongoing criticisms. For one, women aren't required
to register. That gender disparity would undoubtedly face intense legal
challenges if a draft ever came back today, and there
are fundamental questions about whether a random lottery draw is
even the best way to conscript people for modern warfare.
Speaker 1 (30:55):
Has anyone actually talked about bringing it back?
Speaker 2 (30:58):
Interestingly, yes, Some on the political right have occasionally suggested
it could quote whip gen Z into shape and still
patriotism civic duty. And conversely, some on the left, like
the late Congressman Charles Rangel, argued that an all volunteer
military unfairly puts the burden of war on just a
small segment of society, disconnecting most people from the reality
(31:21):
of conflict but its critical distress. Neither argument has gained
any real widespread public support in decades.
Speaker 1 (31:28):
Okay, so if a draft were to return, it would
have to be for a conflict of immense scale and
a very specific kind, wouldn't it, especially since many of
those old ways people used to avoid the draft are
gone now.
Speaker 2 (31:39):
Indeed, historically people found ways paying that fee, marry and
early having kids, getting college deferments, which mostly helped the
wealthy and were scrapped by the early seventies. Claiming to
be gay was a tactic until the two thousands. Fleeing
to Canada or Mexico was common during Vietnam, but that's
much harder now with modern borders and tracking Conscientious objector
(31:59):
status based on deep moral or religious beliefs like Desmond
Das was an option, but tough to get. Most were
rejected during Vietnam, often facing prison like Muhammad Ali famously did, and.
Speaker 1 (32:11):
The military itself doesn't want it back. No.
Speaker 2 (32:13):
Today, the US military leadership is actually quite vocally opposed
to a draft. Our modern military is built on highly
trained professionals, often experts in advanced tech. A draft, they argue,
would cause massive upheaval. It would bring in unprepared, possibly unmotivated,
maybe even outright angry troops, which would be terrible for
military cohesion and effectiveness.
Speaker 1 (32:34):
That makes total sense. The whole structure is designed for volunteers. Now,
So what kind of conflict could possibly be so severe,
so demanding of just raw man power that it would
overlye the military's objections, override public opinion, and basically force
a draft back onto the table.
Speaker 2 (32:49):
It wouldn't necessarily be the biggest war in terms of
global impact, but one that demands a specific kind of
scale and manpower. For instance, wars with Canada or Mexico
highly unlikely to need a draft, a war with Iran,
probably led by air and naval power, not huge ground forces.
Conflicts with the EU militarily improbable due to NATO. A
(33:11):
war with Russia likely high tech missile based, again emphasizing
technology over mass infantry.
Speaker 1 (33:17):
So what's the scenario? People point to.
Speaker 2 (33:19):
The most plausible scenario, though still unlikely, that could demand
that level of manpower, potentially triggering draft discussions would be
a large scale, drawn out conflict with China, probably over
Taiwan in the Pacific or Asia. While it would start
heavily reliant on superior navy and air force tech, such
a complex war in a vast area could potentially require
far more personnel than the all volunteer force could sustain.
(33:41):
Long term. That might eventually require more boots on the
ground or maybe on ships and islands.
Speaker 3 (33:45):
Pushing the draft question.
Speaker 1 (33:46):
Okay, so hypothetically if that happened, how would gen Z react?
Given everything we've said, they're politically iconoclastic and anti war leanings,
their deep dissatisfaction with institutions, how would they respond to
the very idea of a draft coming back?
Speaker 2 (34:02):
The strong expectation among analysts is that if a draft
were reinstated, it would spark a protest movement at least
as energetic as Vietnam.
Speaker 3 (34:10):
Possibly more so.
Speaker 1 (34:11):
Really, that's strong.
Speaker 3 (34:13):
Given this generation's core values.
Speaker 2 (34:14):
They're focus on issues like climate change, their general anti
war stance, that deep seated distrust of government and traditional authority.
It strongly suggests they would resist conscription vehemently. You could
anticipate widespread protests, legal challenges, massive civil disobedience, potentially amplified
far beyond anything seen before because of social media's power
for organizing and communication, and warfare itself is changing too, right, Yeah, absolutely,
(34:39):
that's another layer. Modern conflicts are increasingly high tech, cyber warfare,
drone operations, advanced data analysis. The military might actually find
it needs a few good gamers with incredible hand eye coordination,
quick reaction times, tech savvy, more than just sheer numbers
of traditional soldiers.
Speaker 1 (34:58):
It's a really complex pick, then, where the old ideas
of war of service might just not align at all
with this generation's experiences, their preferences, or even what modern
conflict actually demands. It raises a huge question if the
nature of civic duty of conflict is changing so dramatically,
how do we even prepare a generation whose civic engagement
(35:19):
already looks so different.
Speaker 2 (35:20):
And despite that general political disengagement, that institutional distrust we've
talked so much about, gen Z and millennials really do
stand out for their activism and engagement on specific issues.
Climate change is probably the clearest example. It acts as
as powerful lens for understanding their broader civic impulses, their
commitment to collective action when something truly matters to them.
Speaker 1 (35:40):
Okay, so it's not that they don't care about the world,
it's what they care about and how they choose to
engage that's fundamentally different. It's almost like a redefinition of
what political action even looks like.
Speaker 2 (35:51):
Precisely, younger Americans, especially gen Z and millennials, are highly
almost viscerally engaged with climate change. They talk about it
more often, they actively seek out and see more content
about it online, and they are significantly more involved in
tangible actions volunteering for environmental groups, attending rallies, participating in protests.
Speaker 1 (36:12):
To see that in the number here clearly.
Speaker 2 (36:13):
For instance, a substantial thirty two percent of gen Zer's
report having taken some kind of action to address climate
change in the last year. That contrasts pretty significantly with
just twenty one percent of baby boomers. So for them,
this isn't just some casual interest. It's a deep, often
existential concern that really permeates their worldview.
Speaker 1 (36:32):
And the emotional toll sounds intense too. It's not just
an intellectual thing for.
Speaker 3 (36:36):
Them, absolutely not.
Speaker 2 (36:37):
Among those who use social media, nearly seven to ten
gen Zers, sixty nine percent report feeling anxious about the
future the last time they saw content about climate change.
Speaker 1 (36:46):
Wow, almost seventy percent.
Speaker 2 (36:48):
That level of emotional impact just underscores how deeply intertwined
this issue is with their personal well being, their sense
of the future.
Speaker 3 (36:55):
Their whole outlook.
Speaker 2 (36:56):
And what's really fascinating is how this engagement, this concern
actually cuts across traditional political divides.
Speaker 1 (37:03):
How so, even among conservatives, yes.
Speaker 2 (37:06):
Even among Republicans gen Z at forty nine percent and
millennial forty eight percent. Republicans are far more likely than
older Republicans like gen X thirty seven percent or boomers
twenty six percent to say that immediate action to reduce
the effects of climate change needs to be prioritized today.
It indicates this powerful generational consensus on the issue slicing
(37:26):
right across party lines.
Speaker 1 (37:28):
That's a really significant generational divide within the parties, not
just between them. It means the issue just resonates incredibly
deeply across the whole political spectrum. For younger people, it
signals a fundamental shift and how important this has become exactly.
Speaker 2 (37:41):
And while the public overall generally supports a range of
policies prioritizing renewables, seventy one percent favor that stricter emissions rules,
there are important nuances. For example, nearly two thirds of
Americans sixty four percent, still say the US should use
a mix of energy sources, including fossil fuels, and people
are closely divided on phasing out gasped cars entirely by
twenty thirty five.
Speaker 1 (38:02):
But gen Z and millennials are different there.
Speaker 3 (38:04):
That's precisely where they stand out.
Speaker 1 (38:06):
Again.
Speaker 2 (38:06):
Clear majorities of Gen Z fifty six percent and millennials
fifty seven percent do favor phasing out new gasoline cars
and trucks by twenty thirty five. That's a sharp contrast
with older generations. It shows a stronger willingness among the
younger groups to embrace more radical, more rapid shifts and
energy policy, reflecting that deep sense of urgency they feel
about the climate crisis. Their activism isn't just about awareness,
(38:28):
it's about driving real systemic change.
Speaker 1 (38:31):
So Okay, While their engagement with traditional politics might be shifting,
maybe even declining by some measures, the passion the activism
for issues like climate change is undeniably strong. It really
does feel like they're reframing what political action means, moving
beyond just the ballot box to social movements, direct advocacy,
cultural shifts, focusing on issues they feel directly and profoundly
(38:55):
impact their future. Their civic engagement isn't necessarily less, it's
just different.
Speaker 3 (39:00):
It's a really good way to put it.
Speaker 1 (39:01):
Okay, So as we bring this deep dive towards a close,
let's try and synthesize what we've really learned about gen Z.
What are those big overarching themes, maybe even contradictions that
define this incredibly complex generation.
Speaker 2 (39:13):
Well, we've definitely uncovered a generation that is, without doubt
economically burdened, facing unprecedented student debt, delayed life milestones that
fuels this pervasive sense of unfairness, a profound lack of
control over their own futures. Politically, they're paradoxically less partisan
than older generations, yet deeply dissatisfied with the system as
(39:34):
it exists. That often translates into lower turnout and traditional elections,
but also significant passionate engagement on issues that really hit
home for them, like climate change, Like climate change. Yes,
they're navigating these complex, sometimes widening gender dynamics, particularly with
that emerging attainment crisis among young men and those sharply
(39:54):
differing views on masculinity and feminism, And maybe most fundamentally,
they're actively curating their own version of truth in this fragmented,
algorithm driven media world, pulling from diverse, often contradictory sources,
which profoundly flattens that traditional hierarchy of trust and information.
Speaker 1 (40:13):
And it's just so vital to Remember, as we saw
with those distinct world views, that this generation is absolutely not.
Speaker 3 (40:18):
Monolithic, absolutely not.
Speaker 2 (40:20):
Our exploration of their worldviews, you know, from the boys
can't be boys feeling under attack, to the empowered girl
power group, the competitive zero sum thinkers. That offers a
far more accurate, more nuanced lens than any simple stereotype
ever could.
Speaker 1 (40:32):
So what's the overall picture.
Speaker 2 (40:33):
While there's definitely a strong thread of individualism and real
concerns about declining happiness and that tendency towards zero sum thinking,
there's also clear powerful potential for robust civic action on
issues they care about deeply, and a fundamental rejection of
political violence, which is important. They're complex, they're contradictory, constantly evolving,
(40:55):
and deeply responsive to the world they've inherited.
Speaker 1 (40:58):
So what is this whole mosaic of trades mean for society?
For all of us, the stakes feel pretty high. If
truth keeps fragmenting, if trust in basic institutions continues to erode,
what does that mean for our shared society, for our
ability to find common ground the future of democracy itself?
Speaker 3 (41:16):
Democracy really at its heart relies.
Speaker 2 (41:18):
On some shared foundation effects right on a collective understanding
of reality that allows for constructive debate, for collective decision making.
But as we've seen, gen Z's flattened hierarchy of trust,
where an influencer might hold as much sway as a
professional journalist, poses a profound challenge to civil discourse, to
the very idea of a common public.
Speaker 1 (41:36):
Sphere, and the risk of tuning out.
Speaker 2 (41:38):
The risk of disengagement from ambient news, where that constant
flood of uncontextualized information just leads to confusion or maybe apathy,
is very real and very concerning for the future of
having an informed citizenry. But there's also a significant opportunity here. Also,
there's an urgent need and maybe an opening to meet
gen Z where they actually are, on the platforms they use,
(42:00):
with credible, balanced, contextual information delivered authentically. It means actively
working to try and bridge these emerging divides, to maybe
rebuild trust and shared facts and institutions, recognizing that the
old ways of engaging just might not work anymore.
Speaker 1 (42:14):
We've really dug into the forces shaping gen Z today,
from those crushing economic pressures to their shifting political priorities,
those unique and sometimes conflicting worldviews. But as this generation
increasingly steps up to define our future. We're kind of
left with a big, profound question for you, the listener,
to consider. If happiness seems to be declining, if trust
(42:36):
is fragmented, if those traditional milestones are being redefined, how
will society adapt to a generation that increasingly see success
as a zero sum game and finds its own version
of truth? And maybe more importantly, what can we collectively
do to bridge these emerging divides and try to build
a more cohesive, maybe more flourishing future together.
Speaker 2 (42:57):
A lot to think about there, definitely, we really.
Speaker 1 (42:59):
Hope this deep die has given you plenty to think
about it, and if it has, please do leave us
that five star review. Tell a friend about beyond infographics.
It genuinely helps us reach more curious minds like yours.
Welcome to Beyond Infographics, the show where we really try
to peel back the layers of information to see what's
actually going on underneath.
Speaker 2 (00:18):
Get past the headlines exactly.
Speaker 1 (00:21):
And today we're embarking on a pretty deep dive into
a generation that gets talked about constantly often you know, stereotype,
but maybe not truly understood gen Z. We want to
move beyond those easy labels, yeah, like oh, they're just
the Avocado To's crowd or the TikTok generation, because what
we found digging into their experience is it just goes
(00:42):
way way deeper.
Speaker 3 (00:43):
It really does.
Speaker 1 (00:43):
So our mission today is to try and cut through
some of that noise and uncover the maybe surprising and
complex realities that are shaping this well pivotal generation.
Speaker 2 (00:54):
Can you know, understanding gen z isn't just about tracking
youth trends or marketing fads. It's actually crucial if you
want to grasp the bigger societal shifts that are well
already happening. They're going to fundamentally define our collective future.
We've gathered quite a diverse range of insights, stark economic data,
some really nuanced patterns in how they engage or don't
(01:15):
engage politically evolving gender dynamics and these really distinct world
views that they hold.
Speaker 1 (01:21):
So think of this deep dive as like your personal
guide to what's really motivating them, what burdens they're carrying,
and maybe most importantly, what their unique perspectives can tell
us about where society is actually heading.
Speaker 3 (01:34):
Let's start there then.
Speaker 1 (01:35):
Okay, So let's start by unpacking something that seemed like
a huge force shaping gen Z, the just sheer economic
pressure they're under. It's not just a number on a page.
It's a lived reality that fundamentally reshapes their whole outlook
on life in ways maybe previous generations would find hard
to even imagine.
Speaker 2 (01:54):
That's such a crucial starting point. The student loan crisis especially,
is just this monumental burden, and it really defines their
financial landscape.
Speaker 1 (02:02):
You see the numbers at their kind of mind boggling
they are.
Speaker 3 (02:06):
When you look at it.
Speaker 2 (02:06):
The average monthly student loan payment for a gen Z borrower,
it's over five hundred dollars.
Speaker 1 (02:11):
Wow, over five hundred bucks a month.
Speaker 2 (02:13):
Yeah, Now put that in perspective. For millennials, the average
is around two hundred and fifteen dollars the overall average
across everyone is two hundred and eighty four dollars. So
that gen Z number, it's just strikingly high. It represents
a real daily struggle for so many.
Speaker 1 (02:27):
And it's not a small group facing that.
Speaker 3 (02:29):
No, not at all.
Speaker 2 (02:30):
Nearly one in six borrowers that's about fifteen percent of
the total, are paying five hundred dollars or more every
single month. And if you zoom out the collective student
debt in the US, it's now over a staggering one
point seven trillion.
Speaker 1 (02:43):
Dollars one point seven trillion.
Speaker 2 (02:45):
Trillion, And that figure alone, it's up six fold since
just two thousand.
Speaker 1 (02:48):
And three, a sixfold increase in just over twenty years.
I mean, that's not just a statistic. It feels like
a fundamental rewriting of the deal for an entire generation.
Speaker 3 (02:57):
It is.
Speaker 1 (02:58):
Imagine starting your adult life with that financial weight. It
basically reshapes almost every big decision you make, right where
you live, if you get married, when, whether you can
even think about owning a home.
Speaker 2 (03:08):
Exactly right, This debt isn't just about you know, paying
a bill each month. It actively limits their ability to
build any kind of secure financial future, to pursue what
used to be seen as well fundamental markers.
Speaker 1 (03:19):
Of adulthood, like buying a house.
Speaker 2 (03:21):
Saving Yeah, precisely, more than half of all borrowers fifty
six percent explicitly say these loan payments limit their ability
to save or invest money. And the impact goes further.
Almost half twenty five percent have directly delayed major life
milestones because of this debt.
Speaker 1 (03:37):
Well front a milestone.
Speaker 2 (03:38):
We're talking foundational life choices, buying a home, getting married,
even meaningfully planning for retirement. For gen Z, this isn't
some abstract economic theory playing out. It's their day to
day reality, constantly influencing their choices, their opportunities or lack thereof.
Speaker 1 (03:53):
And the personal cost, Yeah, it must be huge, not
just financial, but the stress, the anxiety.
Speaker 2 (03:57):
Oh, absolutely, the emotional impact is profoundly significant. Nearly three
out of five borrowers fifty nine percent openly say they
experienced stress or anxiety directly because of their student loan.
Speaker 1 (04:09):
That's a majority, it is, and for.
Speaker 2 (04:11):
Gen Z specifically, that numbers even higher sixty one percent.
It's just this constant mental weight, and maybe even more telling,
a staggering fifty seven percent of borrowers overall admit that
looking back, they regret taking on so much debt in
the first place.
Speaker 1 (04:24):
Wow, regret.
Speaker 2 (04:27):
That's powerful, it is, and this regret often forces them
into really difficult daily trade offs. More than half fifty
four percent actually prioritize paying other debts like credit cards
or car loans over their student loan payments. That tells
you something about the immediate pressures they're under.
Speaker 1 (04:44):
Yeah, they're juggling.
Speaker 2 (04:45):
They're juggling, and a substantial two to five have had
to cut back on either essential spending or you know,
discretionary things just to manage these payments.
Speaker 3 (04:55):
You hear stories, right.
Speaker 2 (04:56):
Gen Z is running multiple side gigs just to make rent,
let alone, say for a down payment. It really makes
that whole American dream feel well, like a bit of
a mirage for them.
Speaker 1 (05:06):
It's such a huge shift from say their parents' generation,
where those milestones moving out, getting married, buying a place
felt more like you know, achievable steps. Yeah. So what
does this deep economic reality, this pressure mean for their
basic sense of control over their own wives, Because it
sounds like it's eroding it pretty significantly.
Speaker 2 (05:24):
It absolutely is. This economic situation contributes directly to this
pervasive feeling of unfairness and a profound lack of control
over their own destinies.
Speaker 1 (05:33):
You see that in the data.
Speaker 2 (05:34):
Clearly, only sixty percent of thirteen to twenty seven year
old say they feel in control of the major aspects
of their lives. And maybe even more starkly, fifty five
percent of this generation believes that the wealth you're born
with matters more for success than hard work or skills
or talent.
Speaker 1 (05:51):
Wow, fifty five percent, how does that compare.
Speaker 2 (05:54):
It's a huge contrast to older generations where only forty
one percent hold that same view. Just this deep seated
belief that the system is kind of rigged against them,
that their effort won't necessarily pay off in the way
it might have for their parents or grandparents.
Speaker 1 (06:09):
So that delay and traditional adulthood, markers, moving out, marriage,
home ownership. It's not just a choice for many.
Speaker 2 (06:15):
For many, no, it's a forced adaptation to these economic constraints,
and that just fuels that feeling of lost control, maybe
even resentment towards systems they see us fundamentally unfair.
Speaker 1 (06:25):
It really paints a picture. And hey, if you listening
or finding these insights is compelling as we are, maybe
take quick seconds to rate us five stars. Wherever you
get your deep dives, it genuinely helps us bring these
important conversations to more people.
Speaker 3 (06:36):
Yeah, that'd be great.
Speaker 1 (06:37):
Okay, So we've got this picture of a generation feeling
economically burdened, feeling a real loss of control, kind of
pigs a question. How does that sense of unfairness, that
pressure translate into their political engagement. You might acpect them
to be, I don't know, storming the ballot box given
these unique pressures, but the reality seems well a lot
(06:57):
more nuanced.
Speaker 2 (06:59):
That's a really crucial distinction to make. Despite this huge
nationwide focus on getting young people out to vote in
twenty twenty four, the early estimates suggest only about forty
two percent of them actually turned.
Speaker 1 (07:10):
Out, only forty two percent. That's down, isn't it.
Speaker 2 (07:12):
Yeah, it's a noticeable drop from fifty three percent back
in twenty twenty. So the question isn't just why the
lower turnout, it's why lower turnout, especially when they're so
often described as this really politically conscious.
Speaker 1 (07:23):
Generation, right, what's going on there?
Speaker 2 (07:24):
Well, what our insights suggests is that many young voters
are just profoundly disappointed with the current political candidates on offer.
They feel like their values, their concerns aren't really being
reflected by either of the major parties, and that leads
more to disillusionment than outright apathy.
Speaker 1 (07:40):
So it's not that they don't care. Maybe it's more
like a rejection of the choices they're given, kind of
none of the above feeling that leaves them feeling, I guess,
politically homeless.
Speaker 3 (07:51):
That's a good way to put it.
Speaker 1 (07:52):
What does that mean for the future of our two
party system though? Are we seeing a fundamental shift in
how future generations will even think about political participation?
Speaker 3 (08:01):
That's a critical question.
Speaker 2 (08:03):
And this sense of political homelessness, it's starkly reflected in
their party identification, or maybe more accurately, their lack of it.
So a huge sixty one percent of young adults do
not identify with either major political party.
Speaker 1 (08:17):
Sixty one percent. That's massive.
Speaker 2 (08:19):
It is only twenty two percent identify as Democrat and
just seventeen percent as Republican. And what's really fascinating here
is that this makes them inherently less susceptible to that
kind of rigid, ideological partisan polarization that grips so many
older groups. They're just not lining up neatly in the
traditional political boxes. It suggests a more independent, maybe issue
driven approach.
Speaker 1 (08:39):
A shift like that could have really profound implications down
the line. But if they're not aligning with parties and
their turnout is lower, what about their actual understanding of
the political system itself? Is there maybe a civic knowledge
gap playing into this pattern?
Speaker 2 (08:54):
Unfortunately, yes, it looks like a knowledge gap does play role.
Around forty percent of young adults can only answer one
out of four basic civics questions correctly, only one out
of four yeah, And compounding that, a significant thirty five
percent explicitly say they just don't feel informed enough to
participate politically. So that gap can definitely contribute to disengagement
(09:15):
from the formal processes. It makes the whole system feel
maybe overwhelming or irrelevant.
Speaker 1 (09:20):
And how do they feel about the system overall?
Speaker 2 (09:22):
There's deep widespread dissatisfaction. A majority fifty seven percent are
dissatisfied with how the political system functions in the US,
and a concerning forty percent are pessimistic about the future
of American democracy itself. Over half fifty two percent report
having little or no trust in government institutions.
Speaker 1 (09:39):
Okay, so here's the paradox. Then they're dissatisfied, they don't
trust institutions, maybe don't feel informed. Yet sixty eight percent
still say they're vote matters and seventy percent are proud
to be American, but they're not playing by the old
rules of party loyalty or consistent voting. What gives if
they think their vote matters but aren't voting can consistently,
(10:00):
what's missing?
Speaker 2 (10:02):
It raises a really important, maybe even urgent question for politicians,
for civic leaders, for everyone. Really, how do you genuinely
motivate a generation that believes in the power of their vote,
feels pride in their country, but profoundly distrusts its institutions
and feels the options are just insufficient. Yeah, it suggests
a critical need for new ways to engage them, maybe
outside the traditional party structures, Ways that actually address their
(10:25):
specific concerns, reflect their values, and offer tangible solutions that
resonate with their lived experience, rather than just asking for
their vote every few years.
Speaker 3 (10:33):
It's about building trust really from the ground up.
Speaker 1 (10:36):
And speaking of those core concerns driving them. One of
the most surprising shifts we've seen recently is in what
gen z actually prioritizes when it comes to elections. We
often hear about social issues being key for younger.
Speaker 2 (10:48):
Voters, right, that's the common narrative.
Speaker 1 (10:50):
But our insights show a really clear, dramatic pivot. For
Gen Z voters in the twenty twenty four elections, the
economy was by and large them most important issue.
Speaker 2 (11:01):
That's a huge development, especially when you think back to
the twenty twenty two midterms, issues like abortion were widely
seen as a massive motivator for younger voters.
Speaker 1 (11:09):
Then exactly so has that shifted as dramatically as this
economic focus suggest.
Speaker 2 (11:14):
It really has quite remarkably. This is where we see
what one expert called a big cratering in terms of
how important different issues feel. Abortion, which was the top
priority for forty four percent of young voters in twenty
twenty two.
Speaker 1 (11:27):
Forty four percent. That's huge, it.
Speaker 2 (11:29):
Was, but it dropped significantly down to only thirteen percent
in the twenty twenty four exit polling.
Speaker 1 (11:33):
Wow, from forty four to thirteen.
Speaker 2 (11:35):
Now, it's really crucial to be clear here. This doesn't
mean young people, especially young women, stopped supporting abortion legality.
In fact, support is still very strong. About seven to
ten young women believe it should be legal in all
or most cases. The change is in the salience of
the issue, how much it drives their vote. It's been
(11:56):
decisively overtaken by economic anxiety.
Speaker 1 (11:59):
Okay, so it's not a shift in their fundamental beliefs
on say, reproductive rights, but more that the immediate severe
economic pressures have just become much, much more pressing for
them day to day.
Speaker 2 (12:11):
Precisely, young people are disproportionately feeling the pinch of higher prices.
They're the ones trying to move out of their parents' homes,
struggling to afford rent and crazy housing markets, wondering if
home ownership is even a possibility anymore, dealing with that constant.
Speaker 3 (12:24):
Weight of student debt.
Speaker 1 (12:25):
It's hitting an artist.
Speaker 2 (12:27):
They feel that the traditional American dream, maybe as their
parents understood it, isn't really available to them. So even
if the big picture economic numbers might look okay, low unemployment,
maybe inflation easing a bit, those broad stats don't matter
nearly as much as their immediate lived experience of high
prices and the crushing cost of living.
Speaker 1 (12:47):
So they're voting based on their wallet, just like older
generations often do.
Speaker 2 (12:52):
In a way, Yes, this current economic stress aligns them
with older Americans who also tend to vote their pocketbook issues.
Speaker 3 (12:58):
They feel this general on.
Speaker 2 (12:59):
How happiness with the political status quo, even if some
macro indicators look positive.
Speaker 1 (13:05):
What's the takeaway for political campaigns?
Speaker 2 (13:06):
Then the implication seems clear. While broadly supporting abortion legality
is still important to this group, campaigns focusing only on
that might have missed the deeper, more pervasive economic anxieties
that are now really driving young voters or maybe keeping
them home if they don't feel hurt.
Speaker 1 (13:24):
On those issues. Okay, let's shift gears slightly and delve
into the information landscape. I mean, in an age of
just constant information overload, where do you even turn for truth?
Who do you trust? For gen Z, it seems that
answer is profoundly different than for older generations, and that
has huge implications.
Speaker 3 (13:43):
It really does.
Speaker 2 (13:44):
Gen Z grew up completely immersed in personalized news streams
right where algorithms are constantly pushing novelty, often without much
context or nuance or even caring about accuracy.
Speaker 1 (13:55):
Right, the feed dictates reality.
Speaker 2 (13:56):
And this has led them to adopt what we've called
a mag pie approach to truth. They just sort of
pick up shiny bits from all over. They're far more
likely to trust content they see on social media from friends, sure,
but also from brands, from ads, and crucially from influencers, and.
Speaker 1 (14:11):
They trust that as much as traditional news.
Speaker 2 (14:13):
That's the striking part. They often hold this social media
content in similar regard to, or sometimes even above, mainstream
media outlets.
Speaker 1 (14:20):
So it's not just about preferring different platforms like TikTok
over TV news. It's a fundamental flattening of that whole
hierarchy of trust we used to take for granted, like
all sources are kind of.
Speaker 3 (14:31):
Equal, exactly.
Speaker 2 (14:32):
It's a stark contrast. Older generations tend to have much
clearer preferences. They generally favor established news outlets, traditional broadcasters,
professional journalism. For gen Z, this flattening means that say,
an influencer they follow for fashion tips or video game
streams might be seen as just as convincing, just as
(14:52):
truthful when talking about geopolitics as a professional journalist or
a major.
Speaker 1 (14:56):
News organization that sounds confusing.
Speaker 2 (14:58):
It contributes to what we've identified as a confused generation.
Their views can be really fluid, changing frequently on big
life questions and even everyday issues just because they're navigating
this fractured information environment.
Speaker 1 (15:10):
That confusion almost sounds philosophical, Like you mentioned earlier, if
everyone has a bias, if everything is subjective, can anyone
really know anything for sure? That seems like a profound
challenge to just having a shared reality.
Speaker 2 (15:22):
That really is the core of it. They often mention
bias and agendas in the news, which isn't unique to
them obviously, but their confusion runs deeper. It's like, if
everyone has an angle, then where does objective truth even live?
Speaker 1 (15:35):
So what do they do?
Speaker 2 (15:36):
They're essentially forced to curate their own very eclectic playlists
of truth, pulling tracks from all sorts of diverse, often
contradictory sources. It means it's not unusual for them to hold, say,
broadly left leaning values on some things, but still agree
with some more right leaning ideas on others, simply because
they're piecing together their understanding from this fragmented landscape of
(16:00):
different voices they encounter online.
Speaker 1 (16:02):
What's the consequence of that, that flattening of trust?
Speaker 3 (16:04):
It's profound.
Speaker 2 (16:05):
If influencers can be just as convincing as professional journalists,
it poses a significant challenge to democracy itself because democracy
at its very foundation, relies on some kind of shared
understanding of facts, a common public space for discussion.
Speaker 1 (16:19):
It's like they're building these personal playlists of truth, pulling
tracks from everywhere, maybe without a clear DJ curating it.
What does that mean for our ability to find common
ground or even just have a shared public conversation. If
everyone's reality is so personalized and fragmented, it feels like
it could really deepen societal divides.
Speaker 2 (16:39):
It creates a serious challenge for societal cohesion. You're absolutely right.
When there's no longer a common pool of trusted information sources,
just agreeing on basic facts or a baseline reality becomes incredibly.
Speaker 1 (16:51):
Difficult and people just tune out.
Speaker 2 (16:53):
That's the risk, a pervasive risk of disengagement from what
we might call ambient news, that constant flow of information
that without context, without clear authority, without reliable curation, just
becomes background noise or worse, a source of deep confusion and.
Speaker 3 (17:08):
Maybe even apathy.
Speaker 1 (17:09):
So it's the answer.
Speaker 2 (17:10):
There's an urgent need for credible, balanced, contextual information delivered
authentically in the places gen Z actually are, on the
platforms they use. It means meeting them where they are,
not just expecting them to come back to the traditional sources.
It's about bridging those divides and trying to foster a
more unified understanding.
Speaker 1 (17:28):
Okay, this actually leads us to another really fascinating and
sometimes frankly concerning divergence we're seeing, and that's along gender
lines within gen Z itself. It's not just about who
they vote for. It seems to be impacting everything from
economic success to how young men and women even see
their roles in society.
Speaker 2 (17:45):
The data here is really striking. Take the twenty twenty
four election results for voters aged eighteen twenty nine. While
Kamala Harris won that group overall by six points, Donald
Trump opened up a significant sixteen point gender gap within
that same age group.
Speaker 1 (17:59):
Sixty points. How did that break down?
Speaker 2 (18:01):
It means a substantial fifty six percent of young men
voted for Trump, while only forty percent of young women did.
What's even more surprising, maybe, is that Trump actually improved
his performance among young women compared to twenty twenty. He
went from thirty three percent to forty percent, even with
that widening overall gap between young men and women.
Speaker 1 (18:20):
So this isn't entirely new, This gender split in voting No.
Speaker 2 (18:23):
It mirrors a larger historical trend, women generally leaning more Democratic,
men more Republican. But it's clearly intensified within gen Z.
It's reached a point of real ideological divergence.
Speaker 1 (18:35):
Okay, so why why this particular intensification now, young women
leaning left, young men turning right? What's behind that split?
Speaker 2 (18:44):
Well, for many young women, their political coming of age
really happened during the Trump presidency and the whole hashtag
me too movement that period seemed to foster a strong
gender consciousness for them, really highlighting issues of rights, equality,
systemic fairness. They strongly support abortion legality for his gasample,
and many feel that their rights are actually diminishing. That
makes them much less likely to embrace.
Speaker 1 (19:04):
The Republican Party.
Speaker 2 (19:05):
And for young men, on the other hand, for many
young men, the Democratic Party often seems to lack a
convincing economic or even social message that speaks directly to
their specific concerns or experiences. Donald Trump, however, actively engaged
young men. He notably appeared on platforms like Joe Rogan's
podcast others popular with younger male audiences, sending a signal exactly,
(19:28):
sending a powerful message that he cared about their votes,
that he was willing to meet them where they were,
maybe speak to their perceived grievances or anxieties. When you
don't feel like a party is fighting for you or
even really acknowledging your struggles, you become a lot less
interested in voting for them.
Speaker 1 (19:43):
And beyond the politics, are there underlying economic or educational
gaps that might be feeding into this gender divergence, creating
a sense for some young men maybe of being left behind.
Speaker 2 (19:54):
Absolutely, and this is a really critical piece of the puzzle.
We're seeing what some experts are calling an attainment crisis
merging among young men. By age nineteen, for instance, fifty
four percent of young women are enrolled in higher education
compared to only forty percent of men.
Speaker 1 (20:09):
That's a big gap.
Speaker 2 (20:11):
It is, and that trend continues into the workforce.
Speaker 3 (20:14):
Young womenag.
Speaker 2 (20:15):
Twenty twenty four now actually have higher employment rates, there's
a three percentage point gap, and remarkably they even out
earn young men on average in that age group.
Speaker 1 (20:24):
Wow. So that economic struggle, the educational gap, it could
feed feelings of being marginalized.
Speaker 2 (20:31):
It certainly can contribute significantly to feelings of marginalization. Maybe
resentment or just feeling left behind, especially if those traditional
markers of male success seem less attainable than they used
to be.
Speaker 1 (20:42):
That's a profound shift in traditional roles societal expectations. Yeah,
how does that then translate into how they see things
like feminism or even masculinity itself. It sounds like it's
creating a real cultural rift.
Speaker 2 (20:52):
It undeniably creates a very complex, often conflicted picture. Our
insights show that only thirty six percent of sixteen to
two twenty nine year old men agree with the statement
feminism has done more good than harm.
Speaker 1 (21:03):
Only thirty six percent. That's low.
Speaker 2 (21:05):
It's a critical indicator of a generational divide on this. Furthermore,
nearly half forty five percent believe that efforts to promote
women's equality have actually gone so far that men are
now being discriminated against.
Speaker 1 (21:16):
Forty five percent believe men are discriminated.
Speaker 2 (21:19):
Against, and almost the same number forty seven percent of
gen Z men agree that masculinity is under attack.
Speaker 1 (21:27):
So what does that make them receptive to?
Speaker 2 (21:29):
Well, it makes them particularly receptive to certain narratives often
amplified by controversial online figures, people like Andrew Tait, perhaps
others who articulate and validate that sense of marginalization or
confusion or even anger about modern masculinity. Young men, it seems,
are actively looking for motivational figures for guidance on how
to navigate these rapidly shifting gender roles, and that makes
(21:52):
them open to rhetoric that might not align with broader
progressive narratives and can sometimes feel quite isolating to young women.
Speaker 1 (21:58):
It's a really complex thingme and hey, just a quick
reminder again, if you're finding this deep dive into gen
Z insightful, please do rate beyond infographics five stars. It
genuinely helps us keep producing this kind of analysis.
Speaker 2 (22:10):
So when we talk about gen Z, it's just so
crucial to hammer this home. They are not one single,
monolithic group. Our insights revealed that this generation is actually
made up of distinct world views. These aren't like rigid boxes,
but more like nuanced perspectives that are really shaped by
their unique experiences, their beliefs, the societal pressures they're under.
We've identified six key world views that help us sort
(22:33):
of decode this internal complexity and get beyond those simple stereotypes.
Speaker 1 (22:37):
It's six distinct world views, Okay, that immediately tells you
you can't just slap one label in this whole generation
and think you understand them. Let's break these down because
this feels really vital to grasping who they are and
just do it.
Speaker 3 (22:49):
Okay, First, we have boys can't be boys.
Speaker 2 (22:51):
These are essentially the traditional masculinity supporters. This group makes
up about fourteen percent of gen Z roughly two point
seven million people, and it's overwhelmingly male about eighty two percent.
Speaker 1 (23:02):
What defines them They.
Speaker 2 (23:03):
Feel genuinely trapped by the rapidly changing expectations around masculinity.
They perceive themselves as being actively under attack in modern society,
and they often express this profound lack of positive, relatable
role models, which unfortunately can make them quite vulnerable to
negative influences online or elsewhere. So they might connect with
(23:23):
figures like They might strongly resonate with figures like Andrew
Taate or Jordan Peterson, people who seem to validate their
sense of being marginalized, offering a narrative that simplifies complex
gender issues and maybe offers clear, although often controversial paths
for identity.
Speaker 1 (23:39):
Okay, world view one, what's next?
Speaker 3 (23:41):
Next?
Speaker 2 (23:41):
Up, we have the fight for rights individuals This is
your activist, socially conscious segment. They make up about twelve
percent of gen Z, so around two point one million people,
and they skew slightly female, about sixty percent. And their
focus is these are the ones truly dedicated to equality, fairness,
social justice. They're passionately engaged, often channeling their energy into
(24:03):
advocating for progressive causes. What's interesting is despite believing that
society is deeply unfair and faces huge challenges, they remain
remarkably optimistic about their collective ability to actually create meaningful
change through advocacy, through direct action. They're often the vocal
champions for marginalized groups, leading the charge on social reform.
Speaker 1 (24:24):
So on one hand, you've got a group feeling attacked
and misunderstood, on the other, a group fired up and
ready to fight for a more just world. Two very different,
almost opposing reactions to the current climate. What about other
key segments, especially thinking about young women.
Speaker 2 (24:39):
Well, the third significant worldview we identified as girl power.
This represents empowered, optimistic young women and it's a substantial
group twenty one percent of gen Z another two point
seven million people, and it's almost exclusively female or non binary, around.
Speaker 3 (24:52):
Ninety nine percent.
Speaker 1 (24:53):
And what's their approach?
Speaker 2 (24:54):
These individuals are profoundly self reliant. They're determined to shape
their own futures much on their own terms. They often
lead more by example than through overt activism, focusing intently
on personal goals, education, career advancement. They tend to thrive
in social and cultural spaces, actively reject traditional gender stereotypes,
(25:15):
and really embrace their independence and ambition. They represent a
significant force of sort of self determination within the generation.
Speaker 1 (25:23):
Okay, that's three. What else?
Speaker 3 (25:24):
Then?
Speaker 2 (25:25):
We encounter the zero sum thinkers. This is a particularly
a potentially radical worldview. It represents eighteen percent of gen Z,
about two point two million people, and is notably gender balanced.
Speaker 1 (25:38):
Zero sum. What does that mean in practice?
Speaker 2 (25:40):
Their foundational belief is basically that life is a finite pie.
One group's success inherently means another group must lose out.
If someone gets a bigger slice, someone else has to
get a smaller one. This isn't just politics. It fundamentally
shapes how they see daily life, how they react to news.
Can you give an example, sure, Imagine news about say,
diversity initiatives or even economic growth benefiting one sector more
(26:02):
than another. Their immediate reaction is often to look for
who's losing out, who's being disadvantaged by this. It often
leads to a leaning towards more authoritarian views, maybe a
deep suspicion about their own freedoms being eroded. And they're
often very receptive to online narratives, perhaps from features echoing
their sense that traditional structures, or even masculinity itself is
(26:24):
under attack.
Speaker 1 (26:25):
How does that play out with things like social programs?
Speaker 2 (26:27):
Well, for them, something like a welfare system might feel
like an unfair handout, because their worldview dictates that personal
success comes only from individual hard work. Any deviation from
that path feels like a threat to their own and
maybe hard won gains. They're often skeptical of collective action,
seeing everything through a lens of individual competition.
Speaker 1 (26:47):
That's zero sum thinking. It seems particularly potent in a
generation facing such tough economic realities where resources already feel scarce.
What about those who feel blocked by the system but
don't necessarily kind of radical worldview.
Speaker 2 (27:02):
That leads us straight to the diser loaded group. These
individuals are deeply concerned with socioeconomic barriers. This segment is
about fifteen percent of gen Z maybe one point nine
million people and it's predominantly female around sixty eight percent.
Speaker 1 (27:17):
What's their perspective?
Speaker 2 (27:18):
They share that feeling that society the economy is rigged
against them. This leads to a pervasive sense of unhappiness,
a significant lack of control over their future, especially finances, housing,
mental health. But while they're profoundly frustrated by these systemic obstacles,
they're typically not radical in their proposed solutions. They tend
(27:39):
to reject the notion that men are being unfairly treated,
for instance, and seek more equitable systems rather than wanting
to tear everything down. They often have this kind of
weary pragmatism, navigating a world they see as unfair, but
not necessarily seeking revolution.
Speaker 1 (27:52):
Okay, one more world view left.
Speaker 2 (27:53):
Yes, finally we have the blank slates. These are largely neutral,
often kind of disinterested young men, and it's a significant
GRIP group twenty percent of gen Z about two point
five million individuals, and it's entirely male, one hundred percent.
Speaker 1 (28:06):
Blank slates.
Speaker 2 (28:07):
They prioritize personal stuff, hobbies, friendships, everyday life over getting
involved in broader social or political issues. They aren't necessarily unambitious,
it's more than their focus is intensely on near term
personal achievements, getting good grades, landing a stable job, maybe
buying a house, eventually starting a family. They often just
(28:27):
disengage from the bigger cultural debates, preferring to focus on
building a stable, comfortable life for themselves. It's like a
preference for personal peace over societal engagement.
Speaker 1 (28:36):
Wow, it's just abundantly clear, isn't it. Generalizing about gen
Z misses so much of the internal complexity. They're absolutely
not just one thing. They're this mosaic of distinct perspectives,
sometimes clashing, all shaped by their unique place in time.
It really shows the incredible diversity within a generation. We
often talk about as if they're all the same. Okay,
so we have this complex mosaic of internal shit, these
(29:00):
evolving worldviews. What does that mean for how gen Z
might face major external pressures. Let's think about something potentially
really disruptive, like the possibility of a military draft returning.
It feels almost like ancient history to many people, but
just talking about it highlights some big shifts both in
society and in this generation's outlook.
Speaker 2 (29:21):
It's a fascinating, almost hypothetical thought experiment for many isn't it,
especially given gen zs often express anti war feelings and
their general skepticism towards institutions.
Speaker 1 (29:32):
Right, we haven't had a draft in ages exactly.
Speaker 2 (29:35):
Historically, the US only used a draft in times of
truly massive conflict. I think the Civil War, where the
wealthy could famously pay someone to take their place.
Speaker 1 (29:43):
Right the commutation fee.
Speaker 3 (29:44):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (29:44):
Then World War One and two, where millions were drafted
for what were clearly seen as existential fights for the nation.
We even had that peacetime draft during the Cold War.
Elvis Presley famously.
Speaker 3 (29:54):
Got drafted then and later.
Speaker 2 (29:56):
Of course, widespread conscription for Korea in Vietnam.
Speaker 1 (29:59):
And Vietnam really change things. It did.
Speaker 2 (30:01):
That war saw two point two million men drafted, and
its profound divisiveness, the sheer human carnage ultimately led to
the end of the draft in America.
Speaker 1 (30:11):
And for over fifty years now, nobody's been drafted. But
the system selective service, it still exists. Right, It's not
completely gone, even if it feels like a relic from
another era.
Speaker 3 (30:22):
That's correct.
Speaker 2 (30:23):
While nobody's been drafted for five decades, all men aged
eighteen to twenty five are still legally required to register
with selective service. It's largely just a formality now technically
not complying as a felony. But it's important to note
no one's been prosecuted for it since nineteen eighty six.
Speaker 1 (30:39):
But the system itself has issues.
Speaker 2 (30:40):
Right It faces ongoing criticisms. For one, women aren't required
to register. That gender disparity would undoubtedly face intense legal
challenges if a draft ever came back today, and there
are fundamental questions about whether a random lottery draw is
even the best way to conscript people for modern warfare.
Speaker 1 (30:55):
Has anyone actually talked about bringing it back?
Speaker 2 (30:58):
Interestingly, yes, Some on the political right have occasionally suggested
it could quote whip gen Z into shape and still
patriotism civic duty. And conversely, some on the left, like
the late Congressman Charles Rangel, argued that an all volunteer
military unfairly puts the burden of war on just a
small segment of society, disconnecting most people from the reality
(31:21):
of conflict but its critical distress. Neither argument has gained
any real widespread public support in decades.
Speaker 1 (31:28):
Okay, so if a draft were to return, it would
have to be for a conflict of immense scale and
a very specific kind, wouldn't it, especially since many of
those old ways people used to avoid the draft are
gone now.
Speaker 2 (31:39):
Indeed, historically people found ways paying that fee, marry and
early having kids, getting college deferments, which mostly helped the
wealthy and were scrapped by the early seventies. Claiming to
be gay was a tactic until the two thousands. Fleeing
to Canada or Mexico was common during Vietnam, but that's
much harder now with modern borders and tracking Conscientious objector
(31:59):
status based on deep moral or religious beliefs like Desmond
Das was an option, but tough to get. Most were
rejected during Vietnam, often facing prison like Muhammad Ali famously did, and.
Speaker 1 (32:11):
The military itself doesn't want it back. No.
Speaker 2 (32:13):
Today, the US military leadership is actually quite vocally opposed
to a draft. Our modern military is built on highly
trained professionals, often experts in advanced tech. A draft, they argue,
would cause massive upheaval. It would bring in unprepared, possibly unmotivated,
maybe even outright angry troops, which would be terrible for
military cohesion and effectiveness.
Speaker 1 (32:34):
That makes total sense. The whole structure is designed for volunteers. Now,
So what kind of conflict could possibly be so severe,
so demanding of just raw man power that it would
overlye the military's objections, override public opinion, and basically force
a draft back onto the table.
Speaker 2 (32:49):
It wouldn't necessarily be the biggest war in terms of
global impact, but one that demands a specific kind of
scale and manpower. For instance, wars with Canada or Mexico
highly unlikely to need a draft, a war with Iran,
probably led by air and naval power, not huge ground forces.
Conflicts with the EU militarily improbable due to NATO. A
(33:11):
war with Russia likely high tech missile based, again emphasizing
technology over mass infantry.
Speaker 1 (33:17):
So what's the scenario? People point to.
Speaker 2 (33:19):
The most plausible scenario, though still unlikely, that could demand
that level of manpower, potentially triggering draft discussions would be
a large scale, drawn out conflict with China, probably over
Taiwan in the Pacific or Asia. While it would start
heavily reliant on superior navy and air force tech, such
a complex war in a vast area could potentially require
far more personnel than the all volunteer force could sustain.
(33:41):
Long term. That might eventually require more boots on the
ground or maybe on ships and islands.
Speaker 3 (33:45):
Pushing the draft question.
Speaker 1 (33:46):
Okay, so hypothetically if that happened, how would gen Z react?
Given everything we've said, they're politically iconoclastic and anti war leanings,
their deep dissatisfaction with institutions, how would they respond to
the very idea of a draft coming back?
Speaker 2 (34:02):
The strong expectation among analysts is that if a draft
were reinstated, it would spark a protest movement at least
as energetic as Vietnam.
Speaker 3 (34:10):
Possibly more so.
Speaker 1 (34:11):
Really, that's strong.
Speaker 3 (34:13):
Given this generation's core values.
Speaker 2 (34:14):
They're focus on issues like climate change, their general anti
war stance, that deep seated distrust of government and traditional authority.
It strongly suggests they would resist conscription vehemently. You could
anticipate widespread protests, legal challenges, massive civil disobedience, potentially amplified
far beyond anything seen before because of social media's power
for organizing and communication, and warfare itself is changing too, right, Yeah, absolutely,
(34:39):
that's another layer. Modern conflicts are increasingly high tech, cyber warfare,
drone operations, advanced data analysis. The military might actually find
it needs a few good gamers with incredible hand eye coordination,
quick reaction times, tech savvy, more than just sheer numbers
of traditional soldiers.
Speaker 1 (34:58):
It's a really complex pick, then, where the old ideas
of war of service might just not align at all
with this generation's experiences, their preferences, or even what modern
conflict actually demands. It raises a huge question if the
nature of civic duty of conflict is changing so dramatically,
how do we even prepare a generation whose civic engagement
(35:19):
already looks so different.
Speaker 2 (35:20):
And despite that general political disengagement, that institutional distrust we've
talked so much about, gen Z and millennials really do
stand out for their activism and engagement on specific issues.
Climate change is probably the clearest example. It acts as
as powerful lens for understanding their broader civic impulses, their
commitment to collective action when something truly matters to them.
Speaker 1 (35:40):
Okay, so it's not that they don't care about the world,
it's what they care about and how they choose to
engage that's fundamentally different. It's almost like a redefinition of
what political action even looks like.
Speaker 2 (35:51):
Precisely, younger Americans, especially gen Z and millennials, are highly
almost viscerally engaged with climate change. They talk about it
more often, they actively seek out and see more content
about it online, and they are significantly more involved in
tangible actions volunteering for environmental groups, attending rallies, participating in protests.
Speaker 1 (36:12):
To see that in the number here clearly.
Speaker 2 (36:13):
For instance, a substantial thirty two percent of gen Zer's
report having taken some kind of action to address climate
change in the last year. That contrasts pretty significantly with
just twenty one percent of baby boomers. So for them,
this isn't just some casual interest. It's a deep, often
existential concern that really permeates their worldview.
Speaker 1 (36:32):
And the emotional toll sounds intense too. It's not just
an intellectual thing for.
Speaker 3 (36:36):
Them, absolutely not.
Speaker 2 (36:37):
Among those who use social media, nearly seven to ten
gen Zers, sixty nine percent report feeling anxious about the
future the last time they saw content about climate change.
Speaker 1 (36:46):
Wow, almost seventy percent.
Speaker 2 (36:48):
That level of emotional impact just underscores how deeply intertwined
this issue is with their personal well being, their sense
of the future.
Speaker 3 (36:55):
Their whole outlook.
Speaker 2 (36:56):
And what's really fascinating is how this engagement, this concern
actually cuts across traditional political divides.
Speaker 1 (37:03):
How so, even among conservatives, yes.
Speaker 2 (37:06):
Even among Republicans gen Z at forty nine percent and
millennial forty eight percent. Republicans are far more likely than
older Republicans like gen X thirty seven percent or boomers
twenty six percent to say that immediate action to reduce
the effects of climate change needs to be prioritized today.
It indicates this powerful generational consensus on the issue slicing
(37:26):
right across party lines.
Speaker 1 (37:28):
That's a really significant generational divide within the parties, not
just between them. It means the issue just resonates incredibly
deeply across the whole political spectrum. For younger people, it
signals a fundamental shift and how important this has become exactly.
Speaker 2 (37:41):
And while the public overall generally supports a range of
policies prioritizing renewables, seventy one percent favor that stricter emissions rules,
there are important nuances. For example, nearly two thirds of
Americans sixty four percent, still say the US should use
a mix of energy sources, including fossil fuels, and people
are closely divided on phasing out gasped cars entirely by
twenty thirty five.
Speaker 1 (38:02):
But gen Z and millennials are different there.
Speaker 3 (38:04):
That's precisely where they stand out.
Speaker 1 (38:06):
Again.
Speaker 2 (38:06):
Clear majorities of Gen Z fifty six percent and millennials
fifty seven percent do favor phasing out new gasoline cars
and trucks by twenty thirty five. That's a sharp contrast
with older generations. It shows a stronger willingness among the
younger groups to embrace more radical, more rapid shifts and
energy policy, reflecting that deep sense of urgency they feel
about the climate crisis. Their activism isn't just about awareness,
(38:28):
it's about driving real systemic change.
Speaker 1 (38:31):
So Okay, While their engagement with traditional politics might be shifting,
maybe even declining by some measures, the passion the activism
for issues like climate change is undeniably strong. It really
does feel like they're reframing what political action means, moving
beyond just the ballot box to social movements, direct advocacy,
cultural shifts, focusing on issues they feel directly and profoundly
(38:55):
impact their future. Their civic engagement isn't necessarily less, it's
just different.
Speaker 3 (39:00):
It's a really good way to put it.
Speaker 1 (39:01):
Okay, So as we bring this deep dive towards a close,
let's try and synthesize what we've really learned about gen Z.
What are those big overarching themes, maybe even contradictions that
define this incredibly complex generation.
Speaker 2 (39:13):
Well, we've definitely uncovered a generation that is, without doubt
economically burdened, facing unprecedented student debt, delayed life milestones that
fuels this pervasive sense of unfairness, a profound lack of
control over their own futures. Politically, they're paradoxically less partisan
than older generations, yet deeply dissatisfied with the system as
(39:34):
it exists. That often translates into lower turnout and traditional elections,
but also significant passionate engagement on issues that really hit
home for them, like climate change, Like climate change. Yes,
they're navigating these complex, sometimes widening gender dynamics, particularly with
that emerging attainment crisis among young men and those sharply
(39:54):
differing views on masculinity and feminism, And maybe most fundamentally,
they're actively curating their own version of truth in this fragmented,
algorithm driven media world, pulling from diverse, often contradictory sources,
which profoundly flattens that traditional hierarchy of trust and information.
Speaker 1 (40:13):
And it's just so vital to Remember, as we saw
with those distinct world views, that this generation is absolutely not.
Speaker 3 (40:18):
Monolithic, absolutely not.
Speaker 2 (40:20):
Our exploration of their worldviews, you know, from the boys
can't be boys feeling under attack, to the empowered girl
power group, the competitive zero sum thinkers. That offers a
far more accurate, more nuanced lens than any simple stereotype
ever could.
Speaker 1 (40:32):
So what's the overall picture.
Speaker 2 (40:33):
While there's definitely a strong thread of individualism and real
concerns about declining happiness and that tendency towards zero sum thinking,
there's also clear powerful potential for robust civic action on
issues they care about deeply, and a fundamental rejection of
political violence, which is important. They're complex, they're contradictory, constantly evolving,
(40:55):
and deeply responsive to the world they've inherited.
Speaker 1 (40:58):
So what is this whole mosaic of trades mean for society?
For all of us, the stakes feel pretty high. If
truth keeps fragmenting, if trust in basic institutions continues to erode,
what does that mean for our shared society, for our
ability to find common ground the future of democracy itself?
Speaker 3 (41:16):
Democracy really at its heart relies.
Speaker 2 (41:18):
On some shared foundation effects right on a collective understanding
of reality that allows for constructive debate, for collective decision making.
But as we've seen, gen Z's flattened hierarchy of trust,
where an influencer might hold as much sway as a
professional journalist, poses a profound challenge to civil discourse, to
the very idea of a common public.
Speaker 1 (41:36):
Sphere, and the risk of tuning out.
Speaker 2 (41:38):
The risk of disengagement from ambient news, where that constant
flood of uncontextualized information just leads to confusion or maybe apathy,
is very real and very concerning for the future of
having an informed citizenry. But there's also a significant opportunity here. Also,
there's an urgent need and maybe an opening to meet
gen Z where they actually are, on the platforms they use,
(42:00):
with credible, balanced, contextual information delivered authentically. It means actively
working to try and bridge these emerging divides, to maybe
rebuild trust and shared facts and institutions, recognizing that the
old ways of engaging just might not work anymore.
Speaker 1 (42:14):
We've really dug into the forces shaping gen Z today,
from those crushing economic pressures to their shifting political priorities,
those unique and sometimes conflicting worldviews. But as this generation
increasingly steps up to define our future. We're kind of
left with a big, profound question for you, the listener,
to consider. If happiness seems to be declining, if trust
(42:36):
is fragmented, if those traditional milestones are being redefined, how
will society adapt to a generation that increasingly see success
as a zero sum game and finds its own version
of truth? And maybe more importantly, what can we collectively
do to bridge these emerging divides and try to build
a more cohesive, maybe more flourishing future together.
Speaker 2 (42:57):
A lot to think about there, definitely, we really.
Speaker 1 (42:59):
Hope this deep die has given you plenty to think
about it, and if it has, please do leave us
that five star review. Tell a friend about beyond infographics.
It genuinely helps us reach more curious minds like yours.
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.