Scott Galloway proposes solutions to the wrong problems
Consider some of his proposals, but don't buy in to his cynicism
On the same day earlier this week I experienced the serendipity of a Millennial UT McCombs School of Business faculty member and a Gen Z extended family member both asking me what I thought about NYU Stern School of Business marketing professor Scott Galloway's new TED Talk, "How the US Is Destroying Young People's Future," which opens with the provocative question "do we love our children?" I had a listen to his talk six days after posting when it already had 3.4 million views.
The essence of Scott Galloway's talk is that America has broken its social contract with younger generations by transferring wealth and opportunity from the young to the old and to corporations. He claims that rising costs, stagnant wages, and misguided policies around higher education, social security, business bailouts, and social media are damaging the prosperity and well-being of young people. Galloway argues that the resources exist to fix these problems, proposing a slate of 19 progressive economic and social reforms, questioning whether the nation has the will to enact them in order to live up to the ideal of caring for the next generation.
At the bottom of this post I provide my own very brief perspective on each of Galloway's 19 policy proposals. Consistent with his rhetorical approach, Galloway's proposals lack important context, detail, and nuance. All of his proposals are worthy of thoughtful discussion, but while Galloway suggests his proposals are simple to implement, know that the reality is rife with various economic, cultural, and legal challenges. In sum, I agree with the theory of 11 of his proposals, disagree with 7 of his proposals, and 2 are just too complicated to take a clear position.
Scott Galloway's TED talk purports to be a well-researched, data-driven analysis of how the social contract in America has been broken, transferring wealth from young to old. But for all his charts and statistics, Galloway relies on emotional appeals, oversimplifications, faulty analysis, and false choices to make his case that Baby Boomers and Gen X have presided over “America’s War on the Young.”
From the very start, Galloway eschews nuance in favor of provoking an emotional reaction. He uses charged and crude language, such as "capital has been kicking the shit out of labor" and "we're public servants, not f***ing Chanel bags." This style builds superficial rapport with the audience, but contributes nothing of substance. Likewise, gratuitous personal anecdotes about making bongs in college aim to boost his relatable credibility, yet left me wondering how it relates to the actual issues?
The “America’s War on the Young” graphic is sourced to “Prof G analysis” which I assume is intended to convey a sense that Professor Galloway is offering factual data that “America” has violated “social contract” with our children. It is undeniable that since 1980 the cost of higher education has risen 1200% when the Consumer Price Index rose 236% during the same frame, but as I will show below, the income data is misleading because it excludes transfer payments. Galloway isn’t wrong higher education costs have grown too rapidly, mainly due to rising administrative overhead, but Americans have tolerated these cost increases because higher education generates so much value. In her 2023 book, “Generations: The Real Differences Between Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, Boomers, and Silents—and What They Mean for America's Future”, Jen Twenge highlights the increasing gap in household income between high-school and college graduates.
Galloway selectively presents his data. Below is a graph of data from the Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis and the US Census Bureau of the US median household income to Case-Shiller Home Price Index ratio from 1955 to present. The home price to income ratio declined from 1955 to 1975, was mostly stable until 2000, soared during the housing bubble, settling back down until rising rapidly in just the past three years. Whereas Galloway creates an impression that home price to income ratio has structurally risen to the detriment of younger generations, the ratio has actually varied significantly over time. There has been a long term increase in housing prices for reasons including Galloway’s “once you own a home, you become very concerned with traffic, and you make sure that there's no new housing permits...” But Galloway’s representation of the income to housing pricing ratio soaring from 3x to 7x, is another house price bubble caused by high interest rates keeping people in their current homes, more likely a short-term extreme then trend.
When it comes to the data, Galloway presents alarming-looking trend lines showing skyrocketing college costs, deaths of despair, and so on, but he consistently fails to put these selective data points in a broader context or grapple with confounding variables. Frequently, the causal connections Galloway asserts between his cherry-picked statistics are assumed rather than demonstrated.
For instance, with his claim that "for the first time in the US's history, a 30-year-old is no longer doing as well as his or her parents were at 30..." you have to squint to make out the footnote that the source is a 2016 analysis from Science magazine. Why an analysis from 2016, eight years ago? Because it supports his narrative. Eight years ago, younger adults had lower earnings coming out of the Great Recession and they attended graduate school at much higher rates than Gen X and Baby Boomers. Eight years later, we have the recession behind us and that extra graduate school has paid off with higher incomes. As reported in The Economist last month, a February 2024 working paper by Kevin Corinth with the American Enterprise Institute and Jeff Larrimore with the Federal Reserve Board shows that, including government transfer payments, Gen Z and Millennials are earning higher median incomes than their parents and grandparents did at the same age. Beyond being eight years more current, the data reported in The Economist includes transfer payments, various government benefits, that were left out of Science in 2016.
In terms of wealth accumulation, Millennials and Gen Z are off to a strong start as well.
I agree with Galloway's perspective that affirmative action should be based more on socioeconomic status than race. He argues, "You would rather be born gay or non-white, in the United States today than poor. And that's a sign of our progress and our need to recalibrate who we give advantage to… Affirmative action is a wonderful thing, and it should be based on color: it should be based on green. How much money you have or don't have." Shifting affirmative action to be more income-based could help expand opportunity for economically disadvantaged people of all backgrounds.
Overall, Galloway wields his blizzard of data to create a sense that his progressive policy proposals are not just one perspective, but the only possible moral choice for anyone who cares about the fate of young people. Those who disagree with his ideas on college subsidies, wealth redistribution, regulating social media, and so on, are painted as selfishly "attacking the young" and not "loving our kids."
This framing shuts down room for good-faith debate on these complex issues. Caring people can agree with Galloway's diagnosis of the problems facing younger generations without necessarily endorsing his prescriptions. By presenting a false dilemma - adopt my controversial policies or condemn our kids - Galloway reveals his aim is more demagogic than genuinely democratic.
The challenges of expanding opportunity, reducing inequality and improving well-being for young people deserve serious, reasoned discussion. Unfortunately, Galloway's brand of emotionally provocative, faux-academic "thought leadership" generates far more heat than light. Grappling with these issues in good faith requires acknowledging their true complexity - not just playing on the public's anger, anxiety and partisan shibboleths for likes and applause. I assume that Galloway sincerely believes his own rhetoric, but his TED talk ultimately reveals the limitations of trying to tackle nuanced, fraught issues in the shallow, manipulative style of a marketer, even one in professor's clothing.
Peace through understanding.
Scott Galloway Proposals (with my response)
Economics
Increase minimum wage to $25/hr (disagree, there is overwhelming evidence that minimum wages reduce employment for the least skilled, and $25 is arbitrary, this would make setting wages a matter of government policy that government is not equipped to handle, this is also not required if we adopt a negative income tax)
AMT for high income and corporations (disagree, taxes should be paid by individuals who receive the benefit of corporate incomes)
Re-fund the IRS (agree, this is overdue, tax compliance requires high likelihood of detection when cheating)
Reform Social Security (agree this must be done, but how? the only options are either raise taxes or reduce benefits, Galloway's proposal of a needs test for benefits is contrary to what three generations of Americans were promised when they paid in to Social Security)
Negative income tax (agree, simplify taxes, eliminate deductions, anyone with income below a set level receives monthly payments to level up)
Eliminate capital gains exemption (disagree in isolation, Galloway uses a Marxist argument that "sweat" is more valuable than capital, but capital is what drives investment to pay for the sweat, agree if this is part of a negative income tax and tax simplification)
Technology
Remove 230 protection for algorithmically-elevated content (not clear, probably agree, but there are free speech implications when we start to control algorithms by law and the courts)
Identity verification (agree so long as it is implemented in a way the preserves privacy)
Break up Big Tech (disagree, how does Meta get broken into pieces and there is no benefit for doing so, US antitrust law is written to block anticompetitive behavior, just being big is not anticompetitive)
Age-gating (agree in theory that restricting content on the basis of age is beneficial, but seems difficult to implement and enforce)
Social Policy
Universal pre-K (agree so long as it is a voucher program as families will have different goals for pre-K, but pre-K generates a positive benefit for families and society)
Reinstate expanded child tax credit (disagree, this is another contradiction with negative income tax which should provide everyone with a basic income)
Term limits (agree so long as it is implemented nationally so no state has an advantage)
Income-based affirmative action (agree, allocating benefits on the basis of skin color without consideration of need is always morally wrong)
Expand college enrollment & vocational programs (agree, we get a big return on our investment in low cost college and vocational programs)
Mental Health
Ban phones in schools (agree, only good comes from this)
Invest in 3rd places (disagree, refers to the idea of investing in community spaces that serve as social surroundings separate from home and work, there is no shortage of such places as cafes, parks, and other public spaces where people can gather and interact informally)
Big Brothers/Sisters programs (not clear, probably agree, but there is some research that these programs can do more harm than good)
National service requirement (agree, but this is a big cultural change for USA)