Seth Walsh
Iconoclast
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2020
- Posts
- 10,957
- Reputation
- 22,387
I have a slightly insane theory that “low economics” might accidentally bring social connection back for Gen Z.
Not because society gets nicer.
Because everyone gets poorer at the same time.
Thread.
1/
For like 15 years we built an economy where the ideal young person was basically a tiny sovereign state.
Own apartment.
Own car.
Own subscriptions.
Own Deliveroo.
Own entertainment.
Own everything.
You technically didn’t need anyone.
You just needed money.
2/
And then we removed the money.
lol
3/
This is where I think it gets weird.
If a large enough % of young people start economically trending towards 0 while a tiny group becomes almost cartoonishly rich, the social consequences aren’t necessarily just “everyone gets miserable”.
People start adapting.
Humans are very good at coping.
4/
You can already see the beginnings of it.
€9 pint? drink in someone’s kitchen.
€25 brunch? coffee + walk.
€2,400 rent? four people in a house.
Can’t afford Ibiza? 11 people somehow end up in a field with a disposable BBQ.
Materially worse.
Possibly socially better.
5/
This is NOT me saying poverty is good.
Obviously poverty is bad.
I’m saying humans respond to economic constraints in extremely funny ways.
Take away enough purchasing power and eventually we rediscover:
“do you wanna come over?”
6/
There was something extremely socially powerful about old hippie / socialist / student cultures that modern capitalism accidentally destroyed:
nobody had anything.
So everything happened together.
You weren’t “meeting for an experience”.
You were just… there.
For 9 hours.
7/
Modern upper-middle-class socialising is bizarre when you think about it.
You book something.
You pay €38.
You sit there for exactly 94 minutes.
You take a photo.
Then everyone goes home to separate €2,000 boxes and watches separate Netflix accounts.
Incredible civilisation.
8/
Low economics reverses this.
Nobody can afford the formal activity anymore.
So the activity becomes each other.
That distinction might matter A LOT.
9/
And the funniest possible outcome of extreme wealth inequality would be:
while
10/
Basically:
the rich optimise away every inconvenience.
the poor are forced back into interdependence.
And unfortunately for the rich, “inconvenience” includes approximately 70% of the situations where humans historically made friends.
11/
Your car breaks?
Someone gives you a lift.
Can’t afford childcare?
Your sister watches the kid.
Can’t afford a hotel?
Sleep on your friend’s floor.
Can’t afford entertainment?
Everyone sits around talking absolute nonsense until 2am.
These are economically inefficient arrangements.
They are also…
relationships.
12/
I genuinely wonder whether we’ve massively underestimated how much AFFLUENCE enabled loneliness.
Not wealth itself.
The ability to continuously substitute money for another human being.
Every little dependency got turned into a service.
And every service removed one reason to know somebody.
13/
There’s probably some threshold where this gets really strong.
Not “everyone is destitute”.
More like:
everyone is permanently slightly broke.
Nobody can buy a house.
Nobody feels particularly ahead.
Prestige consumption becomes obviously fake.
Career ladders stop delivering what they promised.
Suddenly the social hierarchy gets… weirdly flatter.
14/
Because what are you flexing?
Your €4,900 monthly rent?
Congratulations mate.
The landlord has won.
15/
And once enough people realise they are not individually failing — the actual economic game has just become ridiculous — the shame starts disappearing.
That’s important.
One broke person feels embarrassed.
Eight broke friends become a culture.
16/
That’s where the “trauma bond” part comes in.
17/
And strangely, the park might be better.
Because there’s no transaction ending the interaction.
Nobody brings the bill.
Nobody needs the table back.
Nobody has “the next booking”.
You just stay.
18/
This could also explain the return of:
The winning social products of the next decade might be things that cost almost nothing.
19/
There is something almost communist about being 24 in 2030.
You own no property.
You own increasingly fewer objects.
Your salary immediately disappears into necessities.
Everything expensive is rented.
Your primary remaining asset is the lads.
20/
Meanwhile some 31 year old Nvidia employee has $14.7m in stock and hasn’t received a spontaneous phone call since 2024.
History has a sense of humour.
21/
Again: none of this means inequality is desirable.
The dark point is almost the opposite.
Humans may start rebuilding social structures in defence against it.
Community becomes the hedge.
22/
Because when the economic system stops providing security individually, people start manufacturing security socially.
Who can give me a lift?
Who has a spare room?
Who knows someone hiring?
Who’s cooking?
Who’s around tonight?
The network becomes the welfare state.
23/
And that changes friendship.
Friendship stops being something you schedule around your optimised life.
Friendship becomes part of the infrastructure of the life itself.
Huge difference.
24/
Maybe the weirdest Gen Z arc is therefore:
internet makes everyone lonely
↓
consumer capitalism monetises the loneliness
↓
housing crisis destroys consumer capitalism for young people
↓
young people become too broke to consume loneliness properly
↓
everyone goes outside again
25/
The future may not be the 1950s American dream.
It might be:
9 people renting a slightly mouldy house
one air fryer
three bikes
everybody single
nobody owning anything
someone permanently making pasta
and somehow the kitchen is full every night.
Objectively a macroeconomic disaster.
Subjectively?
“best years of my life”
26/
Maybe abundance atomised us more than we realised.
And scarcity — cruelly, inefficiently, accidentally — forces humans back into contact.
Not a political prescription.
Just a prediction:
if enough young people trend towards zero together, they probably don’t sit quietly at zero alone.
They start forming tribes.
27/
Low economics.
High socialisation.
The bleakest possible route back to community.
Not because society gets nicer.
Because everyone gets poorer at the same time.
Thread.
1/
For like 15 years we built an economy where the ideal young person was basically a tiny sovereign state.
Own apartment.
Own car.
Own subscriptions.
Own Deliveroo.
Own entertainment.
Own everything.
You technically didn’t need anyone.
You just needed money.
2/
And then we removed the money.
lol
3/
This is where I think it gets weird.
If a large enough % of young people start economically trending towards 0 while a tiny group becomes almost cartoonishly rich, the social consequences aren’t necessarily just “everyone gets miserable”.
People start adapting.
Humans are very good at coping.
4/
You can already see the beginnings of it.
€9 pint? drink in someone’s kitchen.
€25 brunch? coffee + walk.
€2,400 rent? four people in a house.
Can’t afford Ibiza? 11 people somehow end up in a field with a disposable BBQ.
Materially worse.
Possibly socially better.
5/
This is NOT me saying poverty is good.
Obviously poverty is bad.
I’m saying humans respond to economic constraints in extremely funny ways.
Take away enough purchasing power and eventually we rediscover:
“do you wanna come over?”
6/
There was something extremely socially powerful about old hippie / socialist / student cultures that modern capitalism accidentally destroyed:
nobody had anything.
So everything happened together.
You weren’t “meeting for an experience”.
You were just… there.
For 9 hours.
7/
Modern upper-middle-class socialising is bizarre when you think about it.
You book something.
You pay €38.
You sit there for exactly 94 minutes.
You take a photo.
Then everyone goes home to separate €2,000 boxes and watches separate Netflix accounts.
Incredible civilisation.
8/
Low economics reverses this.
Nobody can afford the formal activity anymore.
So the activity becomes each other.
That distinction might matter A LOT.
9/
And the funniest possible outcome of extreme wealth inequality would be:
the billionaires get AI concierges, private chefs, longevity clinics, autonomous cars, 14 houses and robot assistants
while
23 year olds are outside sharing one cigarette and having the greatest conversation of their lives.
10/
Basically:
the rich optimise away every inconvenience.
the poor are forced back into interdependence.
And unfortunately for the rich, “inconvenience” includes approximately 70% of the situations where humans historically made friends.
11/
Your car breaks?
Someone gives you a lift.
Can’t afford childcare?
Your sister watches the kid.
Can’t afford a hotel?
Sleep on your friend’s floor.
Can’t afford entertainment?
Everyone sits around talking absolute nonsense until 2am.
These are economically inefficient arrangements.
They are also…
relationships.
12/
I genuinely wonder whether we’ve massively underestimated how much AFFLUENCE enabled loneliness.
Not wealth itself.
The ability to continuously substitute money for another human being.
Every little dependency got turned into a service.
And every service removed one reason to know somebody.
13/
There’s probably some threshold where this gets really strong.
Not “everyone is destitute”.
More like:
everyone is permanently slightly broke.
Nobody can buy a house.
Nobody feels particularly ahead.
Prestige consumption becomes obviously fake.
Career ladders stop delivering what they promised.
Suddenly the social hierarchy gets… weirdly flatter.
14/
Because what are you flexing?
Your €4,900 monthly rent?
Congratulations mate.
The landlord has won.
15/
And once enough people realise they are not individually failing — the actual economic game has just become ridiculous — the shame starts disappearing.
That’s important.
One broke person feels embarrassed.
Eight broke friends become a culture.
16/
That’s where the “trauma bond” part comes in.
17/
And strangely, the park might be better.
Because there’s no transaction ending the interaction.
Nobody brings the bill.
Nobody needs the table back.
Nobody has “the next booking”.
You just stay.
18/
This could also explain the return of:
[]run clubs
[]house parties
[]shared hobbies
[]communal gyms
[]coffee walks
[]amateur sports- group chats with 47 people in them
The winning social products of the next decade might be things that cost almost nothing.
19/
There is something almost communist about being 24 in 2030.
You own no property.
You own increasingly fewer objects.
Your salary immediately disappears into necessities.
Everything expensive is rented.
Your primary remaining asset is the lads.
20/
Meanwhile some 31 year old Nvidia employee has $14.7m in stock and hasn’t received a spontaneous phone call since 2024.
History has a sense of humour.
21/
Again: none of this means inequality is desirable.
The dark point is almost the opposite.
Humans may start rebuilding social structures in defence against it.
Community becomes the hedge.
22/
Because when the economic system stops providing security individually, people start manufacturing security socially.
Who can give me a lift?
Who has a spare room?
Who knows someone hiring?
Who’s cooking?
Who’s around tonight?
The network becomes the welfare state.
23/
And that changes friendship.
Friendship stops being something you schedule around your optimised life.
Friendship becomes part of the infrastructure of the life itself.
Huge difference.
24/
Maybe the weirdest Gen Z arc is therefore:
internet makes everyone lonely
↓
consumer capitalism monetises the loneliness
↓
housing crisis destroys consumer capitalism for young people
↓
young people become too broke to consume loneliness properly
↓
everyone goes outside again
25/
The future may not be the 1950s American dream.
It might be:
9 people renting a slightly mouldy house
one air fryer
three bikes
everybody single
nobody owning anything
someone permanently making pasta
and somehow the kitchen is full every night.
Objectively a macroeconomic disaster.
Subjectively?
“best years of my life”
26/
Maybe abundance atomised us more than we realised.
And scarcity — cruelly, inefficiently, accidentally — forces humans back into contact.
Not a political prescription.
Just a prediction:
if enough young people trend towards zero together, they probably don’t sit quietly at zero alone.
They start forming tribes.
27/
Low economics.
High socialisation.
The bleakest possible route back to community.
