Here is the feature article, written from the persona of Dr. Aris Thorne.
*
It all starts with a burrito bowl.
Think about it. That simple choice—chicken or carnitas, black or pinto beans, mild or hot salsa—has become an economic indicator, a canary in the coal mine of our entire social structure. When Chipotle’s CEO, Scott Boatwright, announced that young people are skipping their restaurants not for competitors, but for their own kitchens—a trend detailed in the Fortune report Chipotle CEO Scott Boatwright: Gen Z, millennials are cutting back on dining out due to student loans, unemployment—it wasn’t just a note for investors. It was a system alert. A critical error message flashing on the screen of our society, telling us that the underlying code is failing.
For decades, we’ve operated on a shared socio-economic program, a kind of social operating system built for the 20th century. It had a clear user path: get an education, land a stable job, buy a home, and pay into a system that would support you in retirement and provide a baseline of community services for everyone. But that system is crashing. We’re seeing it in the data about Gen Z’s credit scores, in the anxiety of “job hugging,” and yes, in the decision to make a burrito at home because a $12 lunch is a luxury you just can’t justify.
This isn’t just an affordability crisis. It’s a full-blown system incompatibility. We are running 21st-century lives on a 20th-century operating system, and the friction is generating an immense, unbearable heat.
The error messages are popping up everywhere. You see it in the quiet desperation of a generation where over 20% report skipping meals to make rent. You see it in the fact that the unemployment rate for young people is nearly three times that of their older counterparts. These aren’t just statistics; they are symptoms of a deep, systemic breakdown. The career ladder that was supposed to lead upward is, as one JPMorgan Chase report put it, “getting flatter.”
And the divide goes deeper than just money. It’s about how we even perceive value. A recent survey found that nearly a third of Gen Z considers using physical cash to be “cringe,” a sentiment explored in the CNBC report This money hack is 'cringe' to Gen Z, but has helped older generations save. For them, money is an abstraction, a number on a screen. For older generations, cash is tangible, “real.” This isn’t just a preference; it’s a fundamental schism in the user interface of our economy. It’s like two groups of people looking at the same screen, but one sees in binary code and the other sees in high-definition video. How can they possibly agree on what they’re looking at?
This whole situation reminds me of trying to run modern, complex software on an old machine from the 90s. The core programming—the social contract—wasn’t designed for the pressures of today. It wasn't built for a world of student debt measured in the trillions, a gig economy, or the existential threat of AI displacing entry-level jobs. So, what happens? The system lags, it freezes, and eventually, the users start trying to uninstall features they think are slowing it down.
And that’s exactly what’s happening right now.
The battle over property taxes is the most dangerous manifestation of this system crash. On one side, you have Boomers, many on fixed incomes, watching their property values—and their tax bills—explode. They feel like they’re being punished for their success and forced to fund services, like schools, that they no longer use. When I first read about an AI-generated 20-track album designed to rally support for eliminating property taxes in Ohio, I honestly just sat back in my chair, speechless. It’s a perfect, almost surreal example of using 21st-century tools to try and dismantle 20th-century social structures.
On the other side, you have Millennials and Gen Z, many of whom are priced out of homeownership entirely. They rely on the schools, the fire departments, and the libraries that those property taxes fund. For them, this isn't about "starving the beast"; it's about starving their own communities.
This isn't a simple case of generational greed. It’s the logical, albeit terrifying, outcome of a broken system. Each generation is trying to optimize for its own survival within a framework that no longer serves anyone effectively. The velocity of this disconnect is just staggering—it’s not a slow drift but a rapid fragmentation of the social contract that held things together for decades, and it’s forcing us to ask fundamental questions we haven’t had to confront in a century.
What is the social contract, exactly? It’s this implicit agreement we all have—in simpler terms, it's the idea that we all chip in for a society that works for everyone, even if we don't personally use every single service our taxes pay for. My income taxes today help pay for Social Security benefits for seniors. Their property taxes help pay for the schools that will educate the next generation of innovators. It’s a transfer of resources and trust across time.
But what happens when that trust erodes? You get a full-blown revolt against the system itself. The danger, as one historian noted, is that this fosters a "radically individualistic and antisocial attitude." It’s the moment we stop seeing ourselves as part of a collective project and start seeing each other as competition for scarce resources. This is the kind of social decay that precedes the collapse of much larger systems. And that brings us to our most critical responsibility: we cannot just patch the bugs. We have to be willing to write new code.
This breakdown, as alarming as it is, is also a profound opportunity. It is the necessary catalyst for a complete system redesign. We can’t just argue about who pays for what within the old framework. We have to ask: What is the new framework? What does a 21st-century social contract look like?
Imagine a system where education doesn't automatically mean a lifetime of debt. Imagine a tax structure that doesn't pit generations against each other but instead aligns their interests toward shared, long-term prosperity. Imagine a housing market that prioritizes community and access over speculative investment.
This isn’t a utopian dream. This is a design challenge. It requires the same kind of bold, first-principles thinking that led to the internet, to reusable rockets, to mRNA vaccines. The conflict we’re seeing isn’t the end of the story. It’s the end of the preface. Now, it’s up to us to write the next chapter. The question is no longer whether the old system is broken. The question is: what are we going to build in its place?
