The crisis facing young men is fundamentally economic. Their declining viability as providers prevents family formation, a cornerstone of societal stability. This economic frustration leads to anger and radicalization, making the "lonely, broke young man" a uniquely destabilizing force in society.
The core threat to society and democracy is not political division but economic inequality. A lack of mobility creates a "crisis of hope," particularly in overlooked regions like rural America. This hopelessness leads to anger and irrational behavior that erodes democratic foundations.
The unemployment rate for college-educated young men has surged to 7%, matching that of their peers without a degree. This parity indicates that a traditional degree's value in securing entry-level employment is eroding for this demographic, challenged by AI automation and increased competition from experienced workers.
Young people face a dual crisis: economic hardship and a psychological barrage from social media's curated success. This creates a "shame economy," where constant notifications of others' fake wealth intensify feelings of failure, loneliness, and anxiety more than any other societal factor.
National service offers a structured "gap year" for boys, whose emotional maturity often lags their development. It acts as a "societal take-two," providing a second chance to mature and find direction without immediate academic or career pressures, specifically addressing a cohort in crisis.
Beyond economic disruption, AI's most immediate danger is social. By providing synthetic relationships and on-demand companionship, AI companies have an economic incentive to evolve an “asocial species of young male.” This could lead to a generation sequestered from society, unwilling to engage in the effort of real-world relationships.
Scott Galloway argues the far right recognized the crisis facing young men before the left. While their solutions were regressive—blaming women and minorities—their early diagnosis of the problem created a political vacuum they successfully filled, attracting a disenchanted male demographic.
Galloway posits that a significant political shift from blue to red occurred among women aged 45-64. He theorizes this is driven by mothers voting for the perceived best interest of their struggling sons or husbands, prioritizing disruptive change over other issues when their family isn't thriving.
Universal childcare, typically framed as a feminist policy, could be profoundly beneficial for men. By alleviating financial stress on young families, it could reduce divorce rates. This is critical as men are significantly more prone to self-harm and negative outcomes following a divorce, making family economic stability a key men's issue.
America's mental health crisis is largely driven by economic precarity. Systemic solutions like a higher minimum wage, affordable housing, and universal healthcare would be more effective at improving population well-being than an individualistic focus on therapy, which often treats symptoms rather than the root cause of financial stress.
The struggles and pathologies seen in young men are not just an isolated gender issue. They are a leading indicator that the broader societal belief in upward mobility—'we can all do well'—is eroding. This group is the first to react when reliable paths to success seem blocked.