What do you all think about this theory of elite overproduction from Peter Turchin? Do you feel like it applies to Gen Z today?
Here is a quote from the Wikipedia article on the subject:
Elite overproduction is a concept developed by Peter Turchin that describes the condition of a society that is producing too many potential elite members relative to its ability to absorb them into the power structure.123 This, he hypothesizes, is a cause for social instability, as those left out of power feel aggrieved by their relatively low socioeconomic status.123
However, Turchin's model cannot foretell precisely how a crisis will unfold; it can only yield probabilities. Turchin likened this to the accumulation of deadwood in a forest over many years, paving the way for a cataclysmic forest fire later on. It is possible to predict a massive conflagration, Turchin argues, but not what causes it.4 Nor does it offer definitive solutions, though it can clarify the trade-offs of various options.5 For Turchin, history suggests that non-violent reversal of elite overproduction is possible, citing the two decades after World War II in the United States, a time of high taxes on the wealthy and strong labor unions.[6]
Overview[edit]
According to Turchin and Jack Goldstone, periods of political instability have throughout human history been due to the purely self-interested behavior of the elite.7 When the economy faced a surge in the workforce, which exerted a downward pressure on wages, the elite generally kept much of the wealth generated to themselves, resisting taxation and income redistribution. In the face of intensifying competition, they also sought to restrict the window of opportunity, to preserve their power and status for their descendants.8 These actions exacerbated inequality, a key driver of sociopolitical turbulence8 due to the proneness of the relatively well-off to radicalism.9 Widespread progressive political beliefs among university graduates, for instance, can be due to widespread underemployment rather than from exposure to progressive ideas or experiences during their studies.1011 Turchin has said that elite overproduction explains social disturbances during later years of various Chinese dynasties, the late Roman empire, the French Wars of Religion, and France before the Revolution, and predicted in 2010 that this situation would cause social unrest in the United States during the 2020s.1213
In an essay, philosopher Francis Bacon warned of the threat of sedition if "more are bred scholars, than preferment can take off."14 Political economist Joseph Schumpeter asserted that a liberal capitalist society contains the seeds of its own downfall as it breeds a class of intellectuals hostile to both capitalism and liberalism, though without which these intellectuals cannot exist.15 Before Turchin, political scientist Samuel Huntington had warned about a disconnect between upward social mobility and the ability of the institutions to absorb these new individuals leading to sociopolitical decay.16 Historian John Lewis Gaddis observed that while young people had always wanted to challenge the norms of society, by investing so much in education, major countries on both sides of the Cold War practically gave the young the tools needed to inflict upon their homelands the tumultuous period that was the late 1960s and early 1970s.17
Based on previous WSO threads, the concept of elite overproduction and its potential application to Gen Z can be examined through the lens of current discussions on generational shifts and workplace dynamics. Here are some key points to consider:
Generational Shifts in Workplace Dynamics:
Economic and Social Pressures:
Impact on Career Aspirations:
Technological and Demographic Trends:
Historical Context and Predictions:
In summary, the theory of elite overproduction can be seen as relevant to Gen Z today, given the economic pressures, changing career aspirations, and the evolving workplace dynamics. The discussions on WSO reflect these broader trends and provide a context for understanding the potential implications of Turchin's theory.
Sources: Will robots replace your consulting or financial career?, Is it just me or are PE Associates garbage these days?, Is it just me or are PE Associates garbage these days?, Elite schools - Rich kid territory? / Hidden gems for social mobility, Declining Analyst Quality - Fact or Myth
Sounds like Peter is coping for being bottom bucket
There does seem to be a glut of the “elite” among gen-z and younger millennials, but only because we’ve continually lowered the bar so much that it’s practically on the floor. Stop requiring the SAT and using a discriminatory “holistic” admissions process and you get blue-haired adult children at Ivy League schools supporting terrorist groups. Or for a lesser example, banking analysts who don’t know how to send an email or make a PDF.
You’ll also see the correlation of these kids being the first to truly grow up in an always-online world. Foreign governments and other bad actors have had direct access to their brains since they could operate an iPad.
Low IQ take. Ivy League campuses have always been progressive places. I’m sure if you actually took the time to research this you would find interviews of Harvard students 10-15 years ago who sympathize with the taliban and criticize the US’ role in global issues.
There are always dissatisfied members in the society, including the Harvard grads you mentioned. The key issue is that these numbers have increased significantly over the past 10 years and the pendulum has swung too far to the left now that it’s almost reaching a boiling point. There is a reason why the far right parties are now winning several European countries and that could potentially be the case in the US. Many of my friends and colleagues who used to be left leaning Liberals are now looking to vote Republican despite none of them like Trump. There is an increase hatred towards “wokeness” among the those (mostly White and Asian males) who felt they’re being unfairly treated or not giving a fair shot because they’re not part of the favored minority groups.
By definition there are only so many elites. There will not be an oversupply as you can rank relative to one another and see the dispersion always. The French Revolution was a revolt against anti-meritocratic practices (the aristocracy and the church). The elite were not allowed to rise and create due to these practices so the actual elite overthrew the existing order. If people are elite and live in a meritocracy they will rise to the top of existing institutions or create new ones. This is why meritocracies are stable from a macro viewpoint but unstable at the micro levels. Society will be maintained and improve but creative destruction will occur. Overtime successful groups create structures to benefit their successors who may not be elite. This is why we must defend meritocratic practices. Think of it like antitrust laws. If something that used to be elite uses their power unfairly to create uncompetitive dynamics they will be busted.
It's not so much about an oversupply of elites proper, but of the elite-aspirant class. Our system will face, and is already facing, increasing strain as more and more people compete for essentially the same limited number of prestigious/lucrative elite positions in society. The cream will rise to the top, but the glut of capable, ambitious people that failed to secure these positions due to ever-increasing competition will inevitably cause social upheaval.
Are people elite or simply excellent rule followers? There’s a clear difference
Facts
I read his book. The premise is compelling - you can literally see the wealth pump and elite overproduction as we’ve outsourced almost all manufacturing, which has historically driven much of the prosperity of the middle class. Things are starting to reach a boiling point.
I've owned his books for a while, but I read one of them yesterday and I can't help but think of how much harder finance recruiting is today as an example that illustrates some of his points (though I don't have the stats to prove it). Before I thought it was just public markets jobs, but now I wonder if it is just elite jobs in general. In my personal case, my own politics have dramatically shifted towards being "counter-elite" in the last two years as a result of difficulties in the labor and housing market (I was previously left leaning and progressive and now am essentially a conservative, as much as I dislike people like Trump). The psychological and sociological mechanisms that Turchin describes are things I can observe in myself. I can't help but think this has happened to others and will continue to happen to others over the next several years.
I'm extremely skeptical that the "wealth pump" will be turned off unless it is forced by extra-legal means. Turchin says calamity is avoided less than 20% of the time. I think in our case it will be dramatically delayed versus his model (due to a whole series of factors that I think will all serve to raise the boiling point), but eventually this will reach a scary boiling point. I personally see this calamity as inevitable within 10 years, but I am not sure what that means for me or anyone else aside from accepting it as a possible part of the future. Part of me thinks I will just move abroad if this happens. Sometimes such calamities can take decades to resolve.
Very worrisome as an incoming elite (currently SA at a top bank think Wells Fargo, GS, etc)
"High taxes and strong labor unions post World War II" is the foundational evidence for the Democratic Party's economic model, insofar as there is one. This, of course, fails to mention that the United States was the last major industrial power standing after WW2 and had little international competition for ~20 years as the world rebuilt using American industrial capacity. Also, this was a time with high birthrates instead of stagnate birthrates. So, pretty much nothing similar at all, making it a horrible base case for modern economic models. So, if he thinks we'll just raise our corporate tax rate to 40+% and our highest marginal rates to 70+% while we attempt to compete for international investment, then he's just crazy.
we literally inflated asset prices to the moon as a form of socialism for the ultra elite (0.1%) and we created tax laws such that the wealthiest often pay extremely low tax rates. This is what Turchin describes as a wealth pump.
the income tax rates you’re talking about aren’t the issue. The top 10% of earners pay a high marginal rate to offer welfare for the masses so that billionaires etc don’t have to do so. raising taxes for this upper middle class / educated elite segment wouldn’t make sense in solving the issue - actually, in logic a high tax rate for the WSO demographic actually is precisely the issue (it leads to intensified elite overproduction and a discontented class of highly educated people that will not get what they want). However, your knee jerk response is why the existing strategy of wealth transfer is so incredibly effective in political economy - it feels like when you tax banking analysts and VPs more that this is a “win” for the masses when really this is just taxing the upper middle class and not the elite that Turchin describes. the actual nature of the “wealth pump” that Turchin describes is harder for folks to wrap their heads around.
Praesentium vel dolorem pariatur et in fugiat voluptas. Dolor ratione debitis magni debitis. Autem enim non accusantium fuga asperiores repellendus id. Amet aperiam id expedita ea est ipsam iste reprehenderit. Autem recusandae et dolorem modi non aliquam saepe omnis. Nostrum asperiores adipisci maxime rerum quod. Explicabo non dolore omnis corporis fuga voluptas excepturi.
Molestiae est sunt ut non. Cum non aspernatur quasi magnam aliquid. Qui omnis qui a officia ratione.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...