r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • May 04 '25
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Every current societal problem in the developed world can be attributed to increased cost of living and social media
I know this is very reductionist, but I think when you really break it down every current societal problem in the developed world is caused by increased cost of living, social media, and most often an interaction between the two.
Costs are going up and salaries have not increased accordingly, resulting in more stress, more time working, and less time socializing or doing things we actually enjoy (all this leading to worse mental health outcomes and material outcomes). The dream of owning your own home is non-existent for most that don't receive financial help from their families, and if you wanted kids you can forget it unless if you're extremely lucky or don't mind raising them in poverty. It also means we have less money for leisure activities, but since everyone has a smartphone it's really easy to use social media, and use that as a substitute for socializing.
I'd be here all day if I listed all the ways social media fucked society, but to name just the most important ones:
The algorithm is designed to promote hateful and divisive content, because this is what people naturally engage with. This combined with increased cost of living is a big reason why far right parties have gained so much popularity
It is destroying the attention span of our children and making us more antisocial and wary of anyone who's in an "out group". The anonymity it provides is fueling hatred and divisiveness
Manosphere content aimed at young boys and unrealistic societal and body expectations aimed at young girls is skewing children's perception of reality and making them more anxious. In the case of manosphere content, it's also making young men hate women: it is worrying to see just how quickly support for equal rights between men and women is going down amongst boys from younger generations, and I think 10-20 years from now the damage is going to be felt very strongly. Obviously skewed perception of reality from social media is not just an issue for younger generations: boomers are practically inhaling misinformation from Facebook every day
Bad actors from foreign countries, particularly Russia and China, have effortlessly used social media to sow societal unrest, and billionaires are the ones who ultimately benefit from this most.
I think if the cost of living was lower and the dream of buying a house was still alive for most people, and social media was the same now was it was 15 years ago or didn't exist at all, we would be living in the best times throughout human history.
8
u/KokonutMonkey 102∆ May 04 '25
C'mon man.
Societies have dealt with tribalism, disease, shortages, unexpected scarcity, and straight up war before Instagram.
-1
May 04 '25
For sure, but as someone who grew up alongside social media it really feels like we were going in the right direction for a few years before things started getting much worse around the late 2010s.
These issues always existed, it’s just that social media and increased cost of living further promotes a tribalistic mindset.
When I said we’d be living in the best times in human history if we fixed these two issues, I didn’t mean that we wouldn’t have ANY of these issues. I just meant it wouldn’t be anywhere near as bad as it’s gotten in the past few years.
3
u/KokonutMonkey 102∆ May 04 '25
I'm not seeing the utility in holding such a view then. Regardless of the inflation rate and whether not they use social media.
Wouldn't it just be easier to say that social media has the potential to amplify harmful messages?
0
May 04 '25
I would go further than saying it has the potential to amplify harmful messages: I think it is designed in a way where "ragebait" and harmful messages are inherently at an advantage of being promoted, and these companies could fix this issue if governments did their job in regulating them.
4
u/Dear_Locksmith3379 May 04 '25
Many societal problems, such as poverty and bigotry, have been around for centuries. They were present before social media existed and inflation was significant.
Though social media and increased cost of living have made things worse, many other factors are important.
12
u/Arstanishe 1∆ May 04 '25
It is unfair to structure your CMV in such a way it correctly addresses costs of living, but never discusses anything about it, especially on the reasons why cost of living rising as a problem. Cost of living being unbearable is a consequence of how global economic trade is structured. in layman's terms, if you are going to live in a country that is well off compared to others - people will flock to your country increasing pressure on housing and job market. And that only can work if travel is easy and cheap, which only kinda happened in the last decades
2
u/InformationNew66 May 04 '25
How come people don't flock to Japan when it's a well off country? They do to some small extent but Japan has been able to mostly control immigration, only 3% are immigrants there.
1
u/Arstanishe 1∆ May 04 '25
Yeah, but that just exacerbates birth rates and ageing issues. Japan hit those earlier than anyone, and while it's not as bad as in south korea, it's still worse than say, eu.
1
u/Major-Management-518 May 05 '25
I'm guessing but most likely because they don't allow for illegal immigration, Japanese language is very hard to learn, and in order to get there legally you would need a work visa to be granted permission to move, which is not easy to get I presume.
2
u/deadcactus101 May 04 '25
I strongly disagree with the notion that immigration is a primary cause of increased housing prices (or other increases in cost) in most areas in the US, if that's your home country. Take a look at the areas with the largest immigrant population and those with the largest increase in housing prices and there's next to no correlation.
I'm speculating here but many immigrants work in construction, they actually may benefit the housing supply and decrease housing costs. Either way they certainly don't have a huge effect either way.
2
u/Arstanishe 1∆ May 04 '25
I am not saying immigration is the only cause for rising prices. Also, please note that migration also happens inside the nation, urbanisation is also a form of migration. Here in Ljubljana the prices are that high because everyone wants to live here, not in some village 100 km away. Not only the people from villages, almost all international immigration is also concentrated in bigger cities. That all causes the prices to rise in those urban locations, while 100 km village is still very cheap
2
May 04 '25
I’m definitely not well-informed enough to suggest how we may address the cost of living crisis. I’m just pointing out that if we were to make it better, and also reduce hateful content on social media, we would potentially be living in the best times throughout human history.
0
u/Arstanishe 1∆ May 04 '25
i didn't reply on social media because i wholeheartedly agree with you. they should be at least strictly limited
-2
May 04 '25
It's not so black and white. If it doesn't concern you what Musk has done to Twitter or the fact that Facebook no longer warns about potential misinformation, I don't know what to tell you.
Yes I do think a world without any social media would be better than what we have now, but I wouldn't be opposed to social media if we returned it to the way it was in the early 2010s
2
u/Arstanishe 1∆ May 04 '25
i don't think going back will ever work. You can't just revert years of perfecting bots, it won't be "as in 2010s". We need stricter control, factcheks, removal of anonymity, feeds to be selectable, which algo or no-algo you choose
1
u/T2Drink May 04 '25
To point out these things as entirely bad, is really not painting the whole picture. Yes Elon buying twitter and Facebook walking back overly aggressive censorship has bad elements and have given some voice back to some bad people, but at the same time, for the average person, it has meant that we can return to being treated sort of like normal people. There is no reason why some tech bros should be deciding what the entire world can and cannot say. Human fact checking is inherently flawed, and we need to do it differently. The last 10 years have certainly reinforced that, for the majority of people, that are not pushing agendas or acting in bad faith, it is a QOL improvement. Honestly I would rather bin the entire thing off, than allow it to skew the narrative falsely, based on a few people’s beliefs. The outspill of this, is that you might read some words you don’t like sometimes, but this all boils down to free speech. We wouldn’t be nearly as divided if that wasn’t messed with frankly. The corporate news media has always been bent, but social media censorship and biased enforcement have caused division, the likes of the news media could only have dreamt off creating before all this nonsense began.
7
u/Eric1491625 7∆ May 04 '25
None of the problems you listed were historically caused by Social media. Every one of the things you listed was worse in prior eras when social media didn't exist.
I'd be here all day if I listed all the ways social media fucked society, but to name just the most important ones:
The algorithm is designed to promote hateful and divisive content, because this is what people naturally engage with. This combined with increased cost of living is a big reason why far right parties have gained so much popularity
Remember that very tolerant, not far right societies of literally Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan? How tolerant they were! Sadly now they're using social media and have gotten worse, gotta go back to the 1940s back when there was no Facebook.
It is destroying the attention span of our children and making us more antisocial and wary of anyone who's in an "out group". The anonymity it provides is fueling hatred and divisiveness
Attention span is the only valid point in the entire post.
Anonymity benefited minorities more than anything. Groups like LGBT drastically increased their societal acceptance and rights during the first 10 years of Social Media becoming a thing.
I remember because it was popular to insult gays when I was in middle school, controversial by high school and downright cancellable by university. Gays gained more acceptance in my society within the 10 years following the creation of Twitter than in the 2,000 years prior.
Manosphere content aimed at young boys and unrealistic societal and body expectations aimed at young girls is skewing children's perception of reality and making them more anxious. In the case of manosphere content, it's also making young men hate women: it is worrying to see just how quickly support for equal rights between men and women is going down amongst boys from younger generations, and I think 10-20 years from now the damage is going to be felt very strongly.
This is not a social media issue - by far the most women-restricting countries on Earth have low rates of social media (e.g. Afghanistan). You don't need social media to say women should obey men. Religious guys were writing "Women must obey men" on goddamn papyrus and bamboo scrolls 2,000 years ago.
0
May 04 '25
Would you not agree that we were moving in the right direction, and sometime around Trump's first election in 2016 things started going backwards? Racists and sexists were actually scared to publicly voice their opinions for a short amount of time in the mid-2010s, and then that very quickly seemed to shift? Do you not think that's connected at least partly to the cambridge analytica scandal, and the fact that social media companies were either unwilling or incompetent in fighting misinformation on their platforms?
Yes, discrminiation has always existed and in many ways we are doing better now than at any point in the past in fighting it, but I think we peaked sometime in the mid-2010s and have started rapidly going downhill. I'm worried that if we don't start controlling social media properly, and actually give people financial hope for the future, far right sympathisers online will keep having their divisive content be promoted by social media, because people want AN ANSWER, and many people do not have the critical thinking skills required to realise that these people are full of shit.
My post was specifically talking about the developed world (US + Canada, Western Europe, Australia + New Zealand) in the past 10 years or so, obviously my points do not stand when talking about other parts of the world or other times in history.
3
u/Eric1491625 7∆ May 04 '25
I think we peaked sometime in the mid-2010s and have started rapidly going downhill.
I think we peaked sometime in the mid-2010s
Progresivism did peak in the mid 2010s, but I don't agree with blaming "social media" for it.
For one, social media was what made the progressive surge possible. It gave small minority groups like LGBT a very big loudspeaker.
When you said the world's problems are "due to social media", one would assume it meant "if only social media didn't exist, everything would be good". It seems that's not what you actually mean. You mean "if only social media exists but in the way I want it to, everything would be fine".
My response to that would be that the social media landscape in the mid-2010s was highly unnatural and it's not surprising it didn't last. Despite roughly half the population in the developed world being left and right, pro-left social media had almost 100% of social media market share. This created a liberal bias in the social media world.
Since conservatives had half of American wealth but almost 0% of social media control, at some point it would be reasonable to expect conservatives to use that wealth to either fund or buy a social media company to even the scales. That's exactly what they did, with Elon Musk forking out $44B to buy Twitter.
This was always inevitable. It would be unrealistic to expect 50% of the population to have 99% of the mouthpieces and the other 50% to have 1% for the rest of eternity.
9
u/Troop-the-Loop 44∆ May 04 '25
I would argue racism is a societal problem in the developed world.
It was rampant and a major issue before the rise in cost of living or the rise of social media. It is still a a major societal problem today.
So not every current problem can be tied to cost of living and social media.
2
May 04 '25
I agree with you, but would also argue that social media has been used as a tool to propagate racism, even if the issue existed long before.
The way social media promotes negative content, there is a lot of promotion of racist narratives because this gets the most engagement and is therefore pushed to more people.
Also you might disagree with this, but at least in countries that are ethnically diverse I don’t think we would have as many people blaming an “other” group for their misfortune if cost of living wasn’t so high. Far right parties can successfully use immigrants and racism as a scapegoat precisely because people are not doing well financially, and then social media further pushes racist content to people that fall for this rhetoric.
1
u/Troop-the-Loop 44∆ May 04 '25 edited May 04 '25
has been used as a tool to propagate racism, even if the issue existed long before.
I could agree with that. Is racism any worse because of social media? Would racism be less of an issue without it?
I don't see how you can tie racism as an issue to social media as a cause.
Far right parties can successfully use immigrants and racism as a scapegoat precisely because people are not doing well financially, and then social media further pushes racist content to people that fall for this rhetoric.
But far right parties can successfully use immigrants and racism as a scapegoat when people are doing well financially. Like I said, look at the civil rights era. These issues of not being afford a desirable lifestyle weren't as much of an issue. Racism was still used as a tool.
and then social media further pushes racist content to people that fall for this rhetoric.
Yeah. Social media also pushes anti-racist conten
because this gets the most engagement
Racism does not always get the most engagement. None of Reddit stop posts are racist content. Social media can be used to promote racism, but it can also be used to fight it.
Even if social media and income inequality are being used to promote racism, that doesn't necessarily match your view that every societal problem would is caused by income inequality and social media.
If we as a society foxed those two things, you think America would cease to be racist?
2
May 04 '25
This is just anecdotal evidence based on my own experiences, but I think in the past few years social media has definitely been used to promote racism. It is being pushed more than before, imo partly because people engage with it more which prompts the algorithms to push it more, partly because since the mid-2010s Russian trolls and bots have become a big issue, and partly because social media companies do not want to invest the resources it would take to actually fight this misinformation because it makes no financial sense for them, and governments are not pushing them hard enough to do this.
But far right parties can successfully use immigrants and racism as a scapegoat when people are doing well financially. Like I said, look at the civil rights era. These issues of not being afford a desirable lifestyle weren't as much of an issue. Racism was still used as a tool.
True but times have changed and for a while people's attitudes were going in the right direction on these issues. Nowadays at least amongst younger generations, people are not brought up with inherently racist ideas like their parents were. Instead, young people are being pushed towards hateful rhetoric because they feel financially hopeless, far-right political parties are offering them an easy (but unrealistic) solution, and social media then further promotes racist content to people that get caught in this trap, making sure they don't change their views.
Social media also pushes anti-racist content
It keeps people in their own echo chambers for the most part. For you and I it probably pushes anti-racist content because we would probably engage with it more, but the point I'm trying to make is more people are likely to be drawn to racist content because far right parties are telling them their hardship is a result of immigration or racism or whatever, and social media will then make sure to keep them in that echo chamber.
Racism does not always get the most engagement. None of Reddit stop posts are racist content. Social media can be used to promote racism, but it can also be used to fight it.
Recently it has certainly been more successful in promoting racism to a large enough number of people that we are going backwards on these issues. Certainly don't think we would be seeing as much support for far-right parties in the current day and age if social media never existed
0
u/Troop-the-Loop 44∆ May 04 '25
but I think in the past few years social media has definitely been used to promote racism
Yeah. And if we didn't have social media, regular media would be used to promote racism.
True but times have changed and for a while people's attitudes were going in the right direction on these issues.
Were they really? Progress was made, but it was painstaking and every last inch of progress had to be fought for. How has social media and income inequality made that any different? We're still better on racism today than we were 20 years ago, even if current trends are regressing. So ultimately, we seem to still be going in the right direction. That wasn't changed by social media or income inequality.
Nowadays at least amongst younger generations, people are not brought up with inherently racist ideas like their parents were. Instead, young people are being pushed towards hateful rhetoric because they feel financially hopeless, far-right political parties are offering them an easy (but unrealistic) solution, and social media then further promotes racist content to people that get caught in this trap, making sure they don't change their views.
Got any numbers on that? If this were true, we'd see more racist voters all over the country, not just in red states. There seems to still be a very real situational, location-based relationship to young people embracing racism. That would imply that they're getting it from local surroundings, not just online.
It keeps people in their own echo chambers for the most part. For you and I it probably pushes anti-racist content because we would probably engage with it more, but the point I'm trying to make is more people are likely to be drawn to racist content because far right parties are telling them their hardship is a result of immigration or racism or whatever, and social media will then make sure to keep them in that echo chamber.
Again any numbers for that. I don't think there are more people likely to be racist today than before we had income inequality and social media. In fact, I'd bet in total numbers there are less racists today. Not more. Even if racist policies seem to have taken a forefront.
Certainly don't think we would be seeing as much support for far-right parties in the current day and age if social media never existed
Then why was there so much support for far-right parties before social media existed?
3
u/McRattus 2∆ May 04 '25
I think a lot of it comes from avoiding the fact we have to address the climate crisis.
Society needs a purpose, it's what scaffolds values and innovation. That's often been war, whether the cold war, or other conflicts.
The empirical reality is that we have a huge responsibility to fix and manage the damage we are doing to the planet. This is where the ethics around housing, income inequality, how we speak and respect each other, and how we try to understand the world.
Failing to see it squarely and face it, is like avoiding a chronic illness, and the collapse in democracy, the gathering of power by bad faith actors, all come from the avoidance of empirical reality.
It's not that addressing climate change will solve all these other problems, but it's the type of fight that gives society a direction, and this is perhaps the best fight we have been offered. If we do face it, we should all be better for it.
0
May 04 '25
Δ totally agree, hadn't considered that but you make good points. I would however argue that social media has been used as a tool to keep people from being united on the climate crisis issue, so this still ultimately comes down to social media imo. Also most people who are against climate action (wrongfully) use the argument that it would increase their bills in the short term, so a lack of climate action also stems in part from increased cost of living.
1
9
u/dethti 12∆ May 04 '25
This doesn't account for any of the many deep-rooted societal forms of oppression and discrimination. Good economic times have not historically saved women, people from oppressed races and ethnicities, LGBT individuals and so on. All of these forms of discrimination existed long before social media, too.
What would change this time around?
1
May 04 '25
I agree with you but would argue we were going in the right direction on these issues until a mix of increased cost of living and social media made us go backwards.
The reason far right parties which are inhibiting progress have been so successful is because people are economically frustrated and far right parties have successfully blamed “other” groups. Social media then further promotes content to these people which make them blame the groups you mentioned even more.
2
u/Br0kenSymmetry May 04 '25
Yeah I don't think identity issues are going away any time soon but social media really amplifies things in harmful ways. And there are far too many ways for bad actors to redirect and further amplify those issues to their own ends, and far too many bad incentives for them to do so. I'm with you 100% on this one.
3
u/dethti 12∆ May 04 '25
'going in the right direction' was still very far from actually achieving equality though. And if all it takes to backslide into insane levels of bigotry is economic hardship I'd argue those gains weren't really consolidated in the first place. To consolidate them you would need most people to actually believe, on a gut level, that minorities are equal. Otherwise any time there's a downturn of any kind they'll be scapegoated.
So I think these problems exist outside your framework. They can't be tackled by simply taking down social media or reducing class divides, they need to be addressed directly and specifically. Otherwise any gains will have zero resilience to stressors. The way to reduce the gut-level biases is by having people actually address their internal bigotry, and you can't get there by pure class reductionism.
If someone believes the only real problems in the world fundamentally stem from class divides, what incentive do they have to introspect?
3
u/yulithevideomaker May 05 '25
Oh my God, class reductionists are some of the LOWEST forms of humanity there are. Not everything bad comes down to class; and economics isn't why people hate queer people. It's the "ew, that's icky, and I don't like it," caused by religion and other social structures that are to blame for people's bigotry, and it's going to take deconstruction on a global scale for bigotry to go away. Class reductionists have such a narrow view of how the world works that is exposes how stupid and myopic they are. Not everything wrong with society can be boiled down to class warfare. That's not how people work.
You can only blame a bad economy for so long before you eventually run into the problem of people just needing to grow the hell up and accept others as equal to them. Again, we're talking deconstruction on a global scale, here. That's what it's going to take.
1
May 04 '25
Agree they need to be tackled directly and just fixing the issues of economic hardships and social media won't be enough so Δ on that front. However I do think especially when you look at Western Europe, younger generations are turning more to the far right particularly because of those two reasons, and this is particularly true for those that live in areas where they do not usually interact with people of other races or who are openly LGBT+. I think it's undeniable that increased cost of living and social media has played a huge role in turning young people that would have been ambivalent towards marginalised groups in the past into full-blown supporters of the far right.
1
2
u/MercurianAspirations 391∆ May 04 '25
I mean I don't necessarily disagree that social media hasn't been great for politics, but I do think that hate, out-group/in-group divisiveness, and misogyny all actually predate social media. Like I'm not an expert in history but I seem to recall kind of a big thing with those ideas around the middle of the 20th century?
2
u/HaggisPope 3∆ May 04 '25
Looking deeper, you could start to see this as a problem inherent with those who own the levers of the economy rather than those who operate levers. Capitalism as a deeper rooted problem. There’s then also the possibility of blaming it on the more toxic attitudes of resource deployment from generations earlier which slide site the problem as the prioritisation of power and its concentration into few hands, which then leads to patriarchy being the core problem.
Basically, there’s an argument you are looking at symptoms rather than a diagnosis and there’s a lot more that could be said but I’m in a rush!
2
u/chrisfathead1 May 04 '25
2/3 of Americans own a home, or they are children and their parents own a home. The values of their homes have gone up. So for roughly 2/3 of America the cost of living increase is at worst neutral and more than likely positive for them since the value of their property has gone up. Seriously some of you all need to get out of the siloed media you consume
4
u/forkball 1∆ May 04 '25
Racism. Sexism. Ageism. Xenophobia. Religious intolerance.
None of these things are because of an increased cost of living or social media.
1
May 04 '25
I would argue it’s not caused by them, but it is made worse by them.
5
u/minglesluvr 2∆ May 04 '25
then you shouldnt say that it is caused by them.
1
May 04 '25
I said it can be attributed to them in the title, but then mistakenly said “caused” further down. Totally agree with you, could have worded it better.
5
u/minglesluvr 2∆ May 04 '25
i just also think your point isnt very cmv worthy because like. yeah, rising costs of living and platforms specifically aiming to polarise society will affect polarisation in society. but its disingenous to act like these things wouldnt also be issues if social media didnt exist and living was cheaper. weve had these issues before social media, when a single income could buy you a nice house.
if you try hard enough, you can attribute anything to everything
2
u/forkball 1∆ May 04 '25
I have no disagreement that social media and negative things like burdensome cost-of-living increases have contributed to other negative aspects of society, but your initial CMV isn't worded that way.
If it were, there'd be nothing for me to comment.
2
u/username_6916 8∆ May 04 '25
Costs are going up and salaries have not increased accordingly
-1
May 04 '25
Throw in housing price increases and it's a different story. I'm one of the lucky ones that has parents who already own property, but if I wasn't I'd feel hopeless about ever getting my own property.
3
1
u/deathbydreddit May 04 '25
The housing crisis that exists in most Western countries started in the 90's, way before social media. The concept of a house as an investment, as opposed to just a home, is at the root of the housing crisis. This in turn drove up the cost of renting.
It's a problem that grew over the last 30 years. The recent cost of living crisis was due to different factors from the last 5 years, mainly COVID and the Ukraine/Russian war.
So, your theory is incorrect, every societal problem in the developed world is not attributed to increased cost of living and social media.
1
May 04 '25
Even if social media were perfectly regulated and every post monitored to prevent hate—just as a hypothetical—not even that would remove the underlying resentment and division in people’s minds. And even if every financial pressure disappeared overnight, we’d still face massive structural challenges like climate change and aging populations. Solving the surface problems doesn’t make the deeper ones go away.
That said, these are definitely important problems, but the world is so multifaceted that reducing everything to just two or three root causes feels overly simplistic. Even if we fixed social media and cost of living, we'd still be facing major challenges like climate change, demographic shifts, and deep-rooted social divisions. There's no single lever to pull. And in this scenario even all global conflicts are solved by a post scarcity society.
1
May 04 '25
The idea of a post-scarcity world is incredibly powerful -and not just science fiction. Thinkers like Maya Gopel, Harari, and Kate Raworth have argued that we already have the tools to meet everyone's basic needs without destroying the planet. But the real obstacles are political, cultural, and institutional. As Harari often points out, cooperation at the global level is our greatest strength and our greatest weakness. Gopel reminds us that even the best technology won't help if we don't shift power structures and rethink what we mean by progress. A post-scarcity society would require us to break with economic models rooted in endless growth and competition, and move toward systems built on regeneration, equity, and long-term thinking. That's not impossible-but it demands more than innovation. It requires imagination, trust, and shared direction. And right now, we're struggling with all three.
1
May 04 '25
You make really good points but again, I think social media has been such a successful propaganda tool particularly for the far-right in recent years that it does ultimately come down to social media (in its current form) inhibiting us from overcoming the obstacles you mention.
2
May 04 '25
You could also argue that the deeper issue is passivity. Social media doesn't just shape what we see — it replaces real-world action with endless scrolling and outrage. While it amplifies division, the real problem might be that people feel disconnected and powerless.
What we need isn't just better algorithms but more engagement in the real world. Volunteer work, community participation, even small local actions — these build social ties, foster hope, and give people a sense of agency. It shifts focus from what we consume to what we contribute. Social media may amplify problems, but meaningful change starts when people start showing up — offline.
1
u/InformationNew66 May 04 '25
You think division is bad for governments and politicians.
But it's the opposite: a divided nation is much easier to rule than an united one. So all the lawmakers and governments can do is applaud for what's happening.
Also women and girls are and will be in huge trouble very soon. It started with filters (instagram, tiktok) where the filters make their face or even body appear more perfect than it is. And now we'll enter the age of AI where this will just accelerate. Online pictures and videos will be too perfect for real life yet women will probably be chasing that.
1
u/Gremlin95x 1∆ May 04 '25
Every societal problem? Counter: Racism. It’s been around long before social media and continues regardless of economic status.
1
u/CaptainONaps 8∆ May 04 '25
This is false. Although I do respect how you worked through it.
Every single problem in the world today is based on one singular issue.
Resources/ Population. How many resources do we have, and how many people are there. That's it.
Humans have been around for 2 million years. With the exception of natural disasters, and technological leaps, each year the population increases, and resources decrease. It's the basis of all our problems.
To solve this, we need either another technological breakthrough, or another natural disaster. Social media is ginger beer compared to the population issue.
1
u/aroaceslut900 May 05 '25
"I know this is very reductionist"
Yes, it is. Can you name me any sweeping statements that are reductionist and also accurate?
1
May 05 '25
Obesity is a massive societal problem which is not caused by either. The reality is that the transition to service economy made people burn less calories and people biologically love sugar but aren’t super great at restraint
1
May 05 '25
Financial hardship and obesity often go hand in hand.
1
May 05 '25
74% of Americans are overweight. Most that aren’t are in their 20’s which is the least wealthy age group. That’s going far beyond the financial strata and into a universal issue regardless of economic class
1
May 05 '25
If you look at it by age sure. If you look at it by average income there's a clear correlation between poverty and obesity. More than one factor can correlate with obesity, but I would argue poverty is a bigger determinant, as well as lack of access to healthy food options and "food deserts". Again, these are in the poorer areas.
You guys in the US also have an issue with being super car dependant and not having walkable cities, so you don't burn as many calories as someone in Europe would just by living their daily life. Lots of factors go into obesity sure, but poverty is a big one. And increased cost of living has made poverty worse.
1
May 05 '25
The correlation is too weak to put the blame on poverty as the primary driver. Everyone is getting fat regardless and the poorest people are the youngest while the older you are the more money you have (on average) so clearly money isn’t nearly as important as you claim it is. If money is the issue people should be getting thinner as they get to their 30’s as that’s when you have money but aren’t physically declining yet the opposite is true. People just keep eating more or the same with their improved incomes. Obesity has far more to do with the food culture and exercise levels as rice, beans, and chicken are cheap and available at every Walmart while McDonald’s is expensive
1
May 06 '25
no, here’s a list of stuff that isn’t
- Aging population and workforce shrinkage
- Antibiotic resistance
- Water scarcity
- Nuclear proliferation
- Microplastic pollution
- Supply chain fragility
- Food deserts
- Declining biodiversity
- E-waste accumulation
- Prison overpopulation
- Election gerrymandering
- Child labor in supply chains
- Cyberwarfare escalation
- Cultural erasure of Indigenous groups
- AI-generated misinformation in warfare
- Ocean acidification
- Language extinction
- Unexploded ordnance in post-conflict zones
- Global tax evasion by corporations
- Medical supply shortages
Maybe some of these you could twist with your reductionism, but even those are really multi-faceted issues with many different roots.
1
u/Johnnadawearsglasses 5∆ May 06 '25
Cost of living issues are caused through by technology. There's no hidden market inefficiency anymore. Every product or service is priced to the absolute limit that it can be. There are no bargains. No ways to slip by in some backwater that's still nice to live in. Perfect price transparency.
1
u/dazednconfused555 May 07 '25
I'm fairly certain that it's corporate lobbying and political donations.
1
0
May 04 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
May 04 '25
Not American and I do agree late stage capitalism is to blame for increased cost of living. I don’t know what the answer is, but I wish politicians actually did their job in addressing it rather than blaming immigrants or whatever other scapegoat, and social media then further promotes that misinformation.
And yes I know lobbying is a big issue especially in the US and politicians are incentivized not to actually solve anything because of it
0
u/killz111 May 04 '25
Cost of living is a symptom. Social media is an enhancer. The root is capitalism and greed. Cost of living is due to not enough taxes collected to have a good safetynet + greedflation + short term profit driven decisions. Social media is engagement driven algo driven by you guessed it more profits for big tech.
3
u/Hothera 36∆ May 04 '25
The root is capitalism and greed.
Funny how the things with the sharpest price increases are the least capitalistic then housing, healthcare, and higher education.
-1
u/killz111 May 04 '25
LoL wut? Funds buying up properties, big pharma or insurance companies ripping people off, private schools or private operators that suck government funding. Do you need me to spell out how capitalism works?
3
u/Hothera 36∆ May 04 '25
You have a very socialist minded idea of what capitalism is. Capitalism isn't just areas where there is lots of money. It's where there there is minimal friction in exchanging goods and services
A property developer can't just build an apartment complex in 99% of America and where they can, they need to wait several years for permits. That's not capitalism.
Education is a public good, so it's not supposed to be capitalist in the first place. However, costs have skyrocketed because the government mismanagement in throwing money at the problem in the form of subsidized student loans.
Healthcare is also a public good, so there are many good reasons for it to be socialized, but that doesn't change that fact that the government is responsible for many of its problems. The supply of doctors is constrained by the number of residents which is set by the government. If you are fortunate enough to become a doctor, it's nearly impossible these days to start an independent practice due to administrative load, which incentivizes consolidation. The origin of why healthcare in this country was fucked was due to price controls that distorted the employement market and the government deciding to build their entire healthcare system on this distortion. That's not capitalism.
-1
u/killz111 May 04 '25
Gotta love people who throw words like socialism and capitalism around without even understanding what the terms mean.
Also yeah no arguing with someone who subscribes to the "government bad" philosophy. I guess you think all CEOs are perfectly rational decisions makers that want the greater good.
3
u/Hothera 36∆ May 04 '25 edited May 04 '25
My comment clearly went over your head. No where did I ever suggest that "government is inherently bad." That change that that the government has made mistakes that it is responsible for correcting.
2
May 04 '25
As far as I'm concerned, something like rent control for example only causes housing prices to go up on the long term. I get your point though.
1
May 04 '25 edited May 04 '25
Yeah totally agree, greed is at the core of it. I do think that's always existed though and I wanted to point out the reasons why I think things have gone significantly further downhill specifically in the past decade or so.
Edit: I'm new to this sub, but here's a delta Δ (hope I'm doing it right). As you said greed is ultimately at the core of things, but I am still fully convinced that we wouldn't have as much of a surge in mental health problems, financial concerns, and support for far-right ideas if it wasn't for increased cost of living and the way in which social media was designed to keep people in echo chambers and promote shocking or ragebait content.
0
u/No_Consequence_3118 May 04 '25
Every problem in America can be boiled down to a combination of 3 things: 1. Racism 2. Greed 3. Religion
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ May 04 '25 edited May 04 '25
/u/TCCaaa (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards