Precarious jobs, low wages, unaffordable housing and, as a cherry on top, the climate threat. This would be, in essence, the future that seems to await the new generations, as reiterated by news and reports, such as the one recently published by the Spanish Youth Council. This organization warns that young people are the second group with the highest risk of poverty, only surpassed by… childhood. A panorama that is summarized in a phrase: “The first generation that will live worse than their parents”, which began to be heard after the 2008 crisis and has become a distressing mantra.
Perhaps, given the overwhelming data, the most sensible thing would be to stop writing these lines. But is it an axiom that our children will live worse than us? Is your future an irreversible “turn it off and let’s go”? And: aren’t there things that have improved significantly? How to live in a more open, tolerant and feminist society, in which bullying and sexist violence are not accepted and in which children are increasingly desired and listened to. Children, by the way, are taller (due to better nutrition) and have enjoyed healthcare and public school and a European passport since they were born. Young people who are aware of their rights, who know English, have traveled more than their grandparents and with a life offer much greater than that of their parents. Aren’t we better, in many things?
Azahara Palomeque, a doctor in Cultural Studies from Princeton University, believes not. And she, born in 1986, is an exponent of a new batch of Spaniards who have been able to write doctoral theses in English. However, the title of her essay: Living worse than our parents (Anagrama) makes it clear what she thinks: “My book has two argumentative vectors: the economic aspect and the climatic aspect,” she explains. “My generation and the next one (Z) live worse than the previous ones, especially than the boomers; It is a mere statistical question.”
“We have lost stable jobs, majority access to housing, we are experiencing the dismantling of the welfare state and we face a future of eco-social chaos,” adds Palomeque. Although he admits that in other aspects we are better, such as reproductive rights: “Without an economic base and social rights and an ecological one, the rest fades into the air. There is little point in being able to abort if there is no water or public healthcare,” she summarizes.
Gregorio Luri, another essayist, older than Azahara, is not so forceful, for whom the mantra of “they will live worse” is still a sign of the times: “I say that we live in a therapeutic society in which if you do not show a wound “You are nobody.” For this philosopher and pedagogue, there are things that, “obviously”, are better today: “A poor person, in a Spanish public hospital, has much superior treatment than a millionaire had twenty years ago. I think that is not debatable.” Therefore, he indicates, there is “remarkable progress” there, which we could add to others, such as technological advances: “I knew the dangers of old technologies… The hoe was indeed a dangerous tool!” he jokes.
Luri is convinced that “if you ask, one by one, especially if you come from a humble family, you will hear: ‘I live like my parents never dreamed of being able to live.’” Despite this, he warns about a paradox: “The curious thing about our time is that, although there is no doubt about partial progress, when you add them up, it seems that you don’t have enough progress. There are global shadows: weapons to self-destruct, ecological problems, demographic growth… A series of issues that make you look at the future as something disturbing.”
For Mercedes Ayuso, doctor in Economics from the University of Barcelona, ??the current uncertainties at an economic and social level are very high. “But when we go back to the past, it’s hard to think that there wasn’t also uncertainty.” In any case, she adds: “It is true that at present inequalities are more perceived in these generations, especially due to the relevance of socioeconomic variables, such as educational level or the possibilities of accessing housing.”
Ayuso is a professor of Actuarial Statistics and mother of two children, born at the beginning of this century. It is “hard to believe” that they will live worse: “Above all, because being few in number—society is betting more on the “quality” than on the “quantity” of children—it is likely that the help they receive from parents , even in the form of inheritance, is greater. Although logically, this statement is not exempt from particular circumstances.”
What does concern this expert “is the uncertainty that exists among our children.” Distrust towards the welfare system, reflected in aspects such as access to housing or its pessimism about pensions: “It is a result that is systematically repeated in surveys and we should not remain immune when we see that our young people distrust what is fundamental when it comes to guaranteeing strong welfare systems.”
“On the one hand, the perception that the future will be worse than the past is typical of a conservative vision of society, which opposes the progressive idea of ??perpetual development, thanks to science and technology and, also, to the expansion of personal and collective consciousness,” says Francesco Magris. However, this professor of Economics at the University of Tours clarifies that this perception also reflects “a healthy pragmatism”, when it is supported by data.
In this case, he believes that there is a mix of both, data and alarmism, and the latter, he says, can be very toxic: “Because, founded or not, these catastrophic perceptions impact well-being: if I am afraid of being attacked or stolen when I leave the house, the quality of my life suffers, even if the risk is objectively insignificant… Keynes already spoke of ‘self-fulfilling prophecies’”, concludes the economist.
Magris believes that it would be good to clarify what it means to live worse, because, from an economic point of view, today the idea that well-being is linked exclusively to GDP has been overcome. Perhaps there are other parameters, he suggests: “Like the Human Development Index, by economist and philosopher Amartya Sen, which also takes into account life expectancy and literacy level.”
For sociologist Vicent Borràs, professor in the Department of Sociology at the UAB, this idea of ??“living worse” is based on material conditions, not on other aspects of society, such as rights and freedoms, in which there has been a noticeable improvement. : “Without a doubt, in terms of rights, things have advanced a lot. We live in a world that is much more accepting of diversity: today an LGTBI person has references that are not stigmatized,” he explains.
However, this positive perspective is overshadowed by other factors: “We parents believe that our children will live worse because material conditions (salaries, housing…) have also changed a lot.” In fact, Borràs points out that many children are already living worse than their parents, especially in the middle classes. The difference is that while the descendants of the “long-standing” middle classes maintain the type thanks to their parents’ income, this is no longer the case for the new middle classes: “That “worker aristocracy” that managed to have a own apartment and that his children went to university and that he is realizing that they live worse.”
“The evolution of the situation of children and adolescents in Spain in the last century has been positive. However, the challenges that girls and boys face today are enormous. In the last decade, child poverty has stagnated, which shows that it is a structural problem,” explains Ona Lorda, childhood policy technician at Save the Children.
“The evolution of the situation of children and adolescents in Spain in the last century has been positive. However, the challenges that girls and boys face today are enormous. In the last decade, child poverty has stagnated, which shows that it is a structural problem,” explains Ona Lorda, childhood policy technician at Save the Children.
The data it details are disturbing: “More than 2.2 million boys and girls in Spain (27.8%) live in poverty. 10% in a situation of severe material deficiency, reaching its historical maximum.” For Lorda, “they will live worse” is a gap not so much generational, but rather social class. Inequality, a growing phenomenon at a global level: “It affects the life path of minors, which is why it is important to promote public policies aimed at correcting them.”
Policies that must also be intensified in a crisis that, for those interviewed, represents the greatest threat to the well-being of future generations: the climate emergency. “The climate crisis is the limit, it will destroy us and, if we do not put a stop to it, it will leave our children without a future or, at the very least, on a less friendly planet,” reiterates Oriol Bartomeus, author of The Weight of Time. Account of the generational change in Spain (Debate). This political scientist is clear that we are at stake, neither more nor less, than the future of the species. “The problem is that it has become something political, from the right and the left, and, meanwhile, time passes.”
But, in other aspects, this expert in generational differences believes that the mantra of “living worse” has its nuances. “Will they live worse?… Well, it depends,” he says. “It is true that there are elements of difficulty in the new generations, such as housing, but this was already a very difficult issue for the boomers, who bought apartments, yes, but they went into debt for life.”
For Bartomeus, each generation experiences its bad point: “The post-war generation was not privileged: the majority could not study, most of them started working at 16 years old and most of them, at 20 or 25 years old. They were married, with children and at home. Traveling, they have traveled little, they have taken few vacations, and they have had a low pension… I don’t know to what extent we can say that they lived wonderfully and ‘poorly us’.”
The problem, he points out: “It is that here we start from a self-deception, which is that the world is getting better and better. And yes, it is true that there were thirty years of progress, of economic well-being, but this has not been the case for a long time. It’s not so surprising: there are moments in history that go backwards, and this is one. Does it mean that the world is going directly to disaster? Not necessarily”.
What is evident is that, for a better future, solutions are required to correct social inequalities and the climate crisis. But, although there is still time to implement real and effective policies, there is an electoral shift towards parties that defend the opposite: ideologies for which climate change does not exist and “freedom” is not paying those taxes that support the state of the economy. welfare.
This phenomenon, the progressive dismantling of the welfare state: “It is the result of the discipline of austerity that has contaminated almost all political cultures,” explains Francesco Magris. This economist is clear that paying taxes “should constitute an ethical duty.” In exchange, the state must provide a more transparent tax system and good use of public money: “Otherwise, citizens become easy prey for populist anti-tax movements, etc.”
A new populism, adds Azahara Palomeque: “That since the Trump Era has known how to channel discontent, partially helped by the logic of algorithmic communication.” Hence many people come to vote against his interests and—even more disconcerting—the interests of his children.
