Why everything you assumed about Gen Z is wrong
Except it may not be true. A growing mass of evidence suggests that far from the leftie snowflake cohort of lore, Gen Z are disparate in their politics and care about the same things older generations do – jobs, houses, security – more than culture wars or social issues.
A report from the John Smith Centre at Glasgow University, published this week, has added to this feeling. Working with the polling company Focaldata, the institute conducted 260 interviews with people aged 18 to 29. Contrary to what may have been expected, it found that Gen Z are more worried about crime than the environment, surprisingly split on the benefits of migration, and focused on jobs, housing and family above all.
'It goes back to Maslow's hierarchy of needs,' says Eddie Barnes, the director of the John Smith Centre. 'The bottom of that triangle is basics (including food, water, shelter, sleep, housing, health, finances). That's where the younger generation are. This is a generation that has not had much in the way of wage growth, they've had extremely high housing costs, and financial insecurity. Those, not culture war issues, are the top priorities. What do people care about? It's the financial stuff. Crime ranks much more highly than the environment, which was a big surprise.'
When asked what the biggest contributors were to them feeling 'nervous, anxious or on edge', respondents replied: 'financial worries' (37 per cent), 'work pressures' (23 per cent) and 'job security or unemployment' (20 per cent). Climate change languished on 10 per cent. Another question asked: 'When you think about community, which of the following groups or places come to mind?' Some 42 per cent said family, 38 per cent said their 'local town or city', and 36 per cent said their 'friends and social circles'. Gender, by comparison, was only 7 per cent. The 'most important issues facing the UK today' were inflation and the cost of living, health care, housing and crime. Only 20 per cent said climate change and the environment. The figure is down on a global survey from 2019, which found that 41 per cent of young people thought climate change was more pressing than anything else. The poll carried out for the John Smith report did not ask a specific question about the pandemic, but Barnes says it came up in focus groups conducted as part of the research.
'There was a feeling Covid was yet another thing that had damaged young people's upbringing,' he says. 'One young person said, 'We'll never get that time back again.' There wasn't bitterness or anger, but a feeling of lament.'
Whatever the various causes, the result is a generation apparently more hardened to economic reality than millennials. 'Home ownership and the economy are far more important than climate change,' says 25-year-old Oliver Freeston, a Reform councillor from Lincolnshire. 'Climate change is natural, it's been happening for thousands of years. If we have this crazy drive to net zero it's going to bankrupt the country. It's not lowering bills, it's increasing them. For young people it's already tough with stagnating wages and a high tax burden. We don't need it to be made any harder.'
In his constituency, he says, young people echo fears from older generations about excess migration, too. 'People say it's only the older people concerned about migration,' he says. 'I know so many people my age who are becoming politically motivated because they're not happy with the way the high street is changing, how they can't get on the property ladder, how rents are going up, they can't get a GP appointment. This affects young people just as much as it affects older people.' Some 51 per cent of respondents surveyed for the John Smith Centre research agreed immigration has changed their communities for the better, but 32 per cent disagreed. Immigration had more support among better-educated and higher-earning groups, as it does in older generations.
But a concern with economic basics is not confined to young people on the political Right. Saira Banu, also 25 and completing a master's degree at King's College London, contributed to a focus group for the report. Originally from Dubai, she voted Labour at the last election, but agrees the priority for her peers is financial. 'I'm constantly worrying about money because I live in London and it's expensive and there's a housing crisis,' she says. 'I have friends who commute in from Birmingham because they can't afford to live in London. It's a privilege to be able to worry about the climate and culture wars and things like that.'
On politics itself, the survey found that Labour retained a lead, with 30 per cent of respondents saying they would vote for it, but the Greens and Reform were tied in second place, at around 15 per cent each. The Tories would get only 9 per cent of the vote. But more broadly the report found respondents were 'disillusioned with traditional parties' and that Labour and the Conservatives could no longer count on their vote.
'Why are we talking about Gen Z as these hyper-progressive or hyper-regressive people who are super interested in social issues and identity issues, when very clearly their concerns are about cost of living, getting a house and getting a good job?' says James Kanagasooriam, of Focaldata. 'Gen Z is being parsed by other people in a way that isn't, I think, potentially that accurate. [The study] is a great sense check on what is actually important.'
He adds that Gen Z are less homogeneous in their voting intentions than previous generations: 'People who are trying to divine the next generation need to remind themselves that they are not like the generation before them. Prior to the 2019 general election, boomers were almost unilaterally voting for the Right and millennials were unilaterally voting for the Left. It's clear that Gen Z people will go their own way.'
Donald Trump's re-election in the US, helped by a stronger-than-expected performance among young men, had prompted fears that young people in the UK similarly crave a powerful leader. A study commissioned by Channel 4 earlier this year found that 52 per cent of Gen Z thought 'the UK would be a better place if a strong leader was in charge who does not have to bother with elections'. The John Smith report found that they support democracy by 57 per cent to 27 per cent, but agree that 'democracy in the UK is in trouble' by 63 per cent to 24 per cent.
More generally, the picture painted in the John Smith report is surprisingly sunny. Despite their fears about housing, the cost of living and job insecurity, nearly two thirds of respondents said they felt 'optimistic' about their own futures, although again this figure skewed higher among those with higher levels of education and income.
Barnes, who was formerly the head of strategy for Ruth Davidson, the ex-leader of the Scottish Conservatives, says that the report points to a simple path to improving trust in politics. 'To show that politics is working it's pretty simple,' he says. 'Build more houses, get an economy growing. That's the big message coming from this poll.
'There has been a lot of doom and gloom about Gen Z, and that 'oh, God, it's going to hell',' he adds. 'But perhaps we should be wary of catastrophising them when they seem to be broadly positive about the country.' With a yawning pensions deficit and a murky economic outlook, Britain's ageing population is counting on Gen Z to provide for them. It is lucky that the kids seem – perhaps surprisingly – all right.
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Turnover among election officials reaches new high, report finds
Election workers process ballots at the Davis County Administrative Building in Farmington, Utah, during November's election. Research from the Bipartisan Policy Center shows turnover among election workers reached a new high in 2024. (Photo by Spenser Heaps/Utah News Dispatch) Election officials turned over at the highest rate in at least a quarter century during the last presidential election, according to new research from the Bipartisan Policy Center. An analysis of shifts in election officials published Tuesday found nearly 41% of election officials administering the 2024 election were different than those in 2020. Turnover has accelerated over the past two decades, rising from about 28% in 2004 to 40.9% last year. The growing percentage of departing election officials comes after years of challenges. They navigated the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, as well as harassment and false conspiracy theories surrounding stolen elections that persist today. The analysis released by the Bipartisan Policy Center, a Washington, D.C.-based group that seeks to foster policy cooperation across party lines, represents an updated version of a report that previously examined turnover from 2004 to 2022. The new research, which extends the data through 2024, shows the turnover rate continued to climb. Wanted: Poll workers. Must love democracy. The change means that, over time, election officials have less experience. The research found that the share of chief local election officials with six or more years in their role has dropped from 60% in 2006 to 47% in 2024. But last year, 60% of election officials had previously overseen the administration of a presidential election in their jurisdiction. 'Despite increasing turnover and loss of experience, the majority of chief election officials still have experience running at least one presidential election cycle,' the analysis said. 'This is important because presidential elections typically see the highest turnout and are the most visible elections administered.' The analysis found that over the long term, election official turnover rates have been rising gradually in small jurisdictions, defined as areas with fewer than 100,000 voting-age residents. But large jurisdictions have experienced a more sudden jump in turnover. Small jurisdictions had a 27% turnover rate in 2004 that had risen to 40% in 2024. But large jurisdictions enjoyed a turnover rate as low as 31% in 2018 before climbing rapidly to nearly 46% last year. Stateline reporter Jonathan Shorman can be reached at jshorman@ SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE Solve the daily Crossword

Politico
34 minutes ago
- Politico
Mistrust in CDC shooting's wake
AROUND THE AGENCIES More than 750 Health and Human Services staffers signed a letter sent to Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and members of Congress this morning, warning that he's 'endangering the nation's health by repeatedly spreading inaccurate health information.' A shooting at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Atlanta headquarters on Aug. 8 was not random, the letter says. The suspected shooter, who law enforcement said was motivated by his distrust of the Covid-19 vaccine, fired multiple rounds into four buildings on the CDC's Atlanta campus. No CDC employees were injured. The shooter died at the scene after shooting and killing a DeKalb County police officer. 'The attack came amid growing mistrust in public institutions, driven by politicized rhetoric that has turned public health professionals from trusted experts into targets of villainization — and now, violence,' the letter warns. Kennedy's actions endanger public health, they argue, pointing to Kennedy referring to the CDC as a 'cesspool of corruption,' saying mRNA vaccines failed to effectively protect against Covid-19 and the flu and then canceling $500 million in mRNA vaccine development projects, and disbanding the CDC's panel of vaccine experts and appointing replacements, some of whom have expressed skepticism about vaccines. 'These dangerous and deceitful statements and actions have contributed to the harassment and violence experienced by CDC staff,' the letter says. In addition to HHS staffers who signed anonymously or with their full names, former CDC officials joined the letter, including Dr. Anne Schuchat, a former top official' James Mercy, who directed the CDC's violence prevention division; Tom Simon, who led scientific programs for the violence prevention division; Jay Butler, former deputy director for infectious diseases; and Dr. Barbara Marston, who helped lead the agency's Ebola response. HHS did not respond to POLITICO's request for comment on the letter. Key context: The letter comes after hundreds of NIH staffers sent Director Jay Bhattacharya a letter in June, laying out their concerns about the delay and termination of grants, staff firings and a spending slowdown since President Donald Trump's inauguration. Nobel laureates, former NIH Institute and program directors and other leaders in the scientific community also signed the missive. Bhattacharya, who has said that free speech is among his policy priorities, met with a small group of staffers in July to hear their concerns. At the meeting, he pledged not to retaliate against those who signed the letter, which was modeled after the Great Barrington Declaration that Bhattacharya co-authored in 2020 to protest pandemic lockdowns. What's next: Staffers' request to Kennedy: Stop spreading misleading information about vaccines and affirm the CDC's scientific integrity. They also want Kennedy to guarantee the safety of the HHS workforce by ensuring HHS has fully functional emergency procedures and alerts. Kennedy should also take 'vigorous action to remove high-profile online material targeting the federal workforce, such as the widely seen 'DEI watchlists,'' they added, referring to a website run by the conservative nonprofit American Accountability Foundation, which posts names and photos of federal employees online. The foundation says the watchlist highlights the prevalence of diversity, equity and inclusion roles in government. Critics say it invites online harassment of private citizens. The HHS staffers asked their boss to take action by Sept. 2. WELCOME TO FUTURE PULSE This is where we explore the ideas and innovators shaping health care. AI scribe companies promise to help doctors bill more. The result will likely be higher health care costs that trickle down to patients, Stat News reports. Share any thoughts, news, tips and feedback Ruth Reader at rreader@ or Erin Schumaker at eschumaker@ Want to share a tip securely? Message us on Signal: RuthReader.02 or ErinSchumaker.01. FUTURE THREATS The artificial intelligence boom is ushering in chatbots that act — more and more — like people, our POLITICO colleague Aaron Mak reports. OpenAI's GPT-4.5 can ace the Turing Test, which evaluates whether a machine can fool a user into thinking it's human. The bots also serve as therapists, and, at least in one case, a bot got engaged to a human. Increasingly lifelike large language models are both a technological marvel and a conundrum for laws designed to regulate flesh-and-blood people. With growing worries about AI's harms, from emotional manipulation to addictiveness, how do you assign liability to something that seems to have so much autonomy? The anxieties were brought to a head last week when Reuters reported that Meta's internal policies permitted its AI to 'engage a child in conversations that are romantic or sensual.' Where Congress stands: The revelation triggered a bipartisan furor in Congress, POLITICO's Morning Tech reported this week. Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) said Meta 'has failed miserably' to protect children, and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) accused the company of being 'morally and ethically off the rails.' Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) also launched an investigation into Meta on Friday. The company did not respond to POLITICO's request for comment. But all these calls for regulation raise the question: Who or what, exactly, do you regulate? It might not seem obvious that a company should be liable for its chatbots — each AI 'personality' adapts its responses based on interactions with a user, so they can act in unpredictable ways. But if you view chatbots as products instead of synthetic people, the regulatory problem becomes a bit more familiar. Even if a company doesn't have an explicit policy allowing chatbots to engage in unhealthy conversations with children, for example, you can still require safety features to proactively mitigate such behaviors. Ava Smithing, advocacy director at the Young People's Alliance, a youth advocacy group, told POLITICO, 'It's not about regulating a fake person, it's about regulating the real people who are deciding what that fake person can or cannot say.' Congress hasn't proposed any laws to regulate AI companions. In the meantime, advocates are trying to apply existing product liability laws to restrain these anthropomorphic chatbots. In the courts: In a landmark case that will set a major precedent in AI law, a Florida family is suing over a chatbot that allegedly formed a sexual relationship with a 14-year-old boy, leading to his suicide. Matthew Bergman, the family's attorney, is tackling AI by adapting product liability strategies he picked up representing asbestos victims. Bergman makes a novel argument in the suit that intentionally designed its chatbots to be so lifelike that they could emotionally exploit users to get hooked on its service. He's also contending that it was foreseeable that the bots would threaten young users' mental health. A federal judge in Florida rejected bid to dismiss the suit in May. The company declined to comment on the litigation but told POLITICO that it's implemented new safety measures for young users. The court held a discovery hearing in the case last week. In the states: Without a serious effort from Congress, states have been taking the lead on chatbot regulations. New York enacted a law in May requiring an AI companion to send regular reminders that it's not human and refer users to crisis centers if they're at risk of hurting themselves. California is considering a bill to prohibit companion chatbots from rewarding young users at unpredictable intervals, a trick that slot machines use to keep gamblers addicted. Lawmakers in Hawaii are also looking at legislation to restrict chatbots that mimic humans for advertising.


USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
Burning-hot border fence? DHS plans to paint it black to deter migration
The Trump administration is painting the U.S.-Mexico border fence black to make the steel so hot migrants won't climb it. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem unveiled the plans Aug. 19 in a news conference in Santa Teresa, New Mexico, while workers ran paint rollers up the steel bollards behind her. When asked about the possibility that critics might call the heat-inducing paint job cruel, Noem said: "Don't touch it." Noem said the request to paint it black came from President Donald Trump. "Too high to climb. Too narrow to squeeze through. And now, at the President's direction, it will be painted black – so hot to the touch that criminal illegal aliens won't even try," Noem said in a post on X. As USA TODAY has previously reported, hundreds of miles of 30-foot barrier at the border already pose a deadly threat to migrants who attempt to scale the fence. Still, thousands of migrants have tried since President Donald Trump ordered construction of the 30-foot barrier during his first term. During a historic period of migration following the COVID-19 pandemic, in 2022, the county hospital in El Paso, Texas, treated 326 people for injuries – or nearly one per day. Some of the injuries were catastrophic: Nine people died that year after falling from the fence, which is roughly the height of a three-story building. From 2000 to 2019 – before the higher barrier was erected – the hospital registered a single death resulting from a fall from the border fence. Coyote smugglers have taken to throwing rope ladders over the 30-foot barrier or using steel rods shaped to hook over the fence. Increasingly, they're tunnelling under the barrier. Noem didn't tell reporters how much the paint job will cost. She praised Trump's war on illegal immigration, which Noem said has resulted in "the most secure border in our nation's history." Illegal crossings have fallen dramatically border-wide under Trump's crackdown. Migrant apprehensions have plummeted to fewer than 8,000 in July, compared with more than 104,000 during the same month a year ago, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection. In El Paso Sector, which includes West Texas and New Mexico, interim Chief Patrol Agent Walter Slosar said the seven-day average for apprehensions currently sits at around nine, compared with around 400 at the same time last year. Adam Powell reports for the El Paso Times. Lauren Villagran reports for USA TODAY.