Eugene Y. Chan, Toronto Metropolitan University

Walk into any classroom, scroll through TikTok or sit in on a Gen Z focus group, and you’ll hear a familiar refrain: “We care, but nothing changes.”

Across climate action, racial justice and corporate ethics, many young people feel their values are out of sync with the systems around them and are skeptical that their voices, votes and dollars alone can address deep systemic problems.

If you feel this way, you’re not alone. But are young consumers truly powerless? Or are they simply navigating a new kind of influence that’s more diffuse, digital and demanding in ways previous generations did not experience?

No one’s 20s and 30s look the same. You might be saving for a mortgage or just struggling to pay rent. You could be swiping dating apps, or trying to understand childcare. No matter your current challenges, our Quarter Life series has articles to share in the group chat, or just to remind you that you’re not alone.

Read more from Quarter Life:

• Feel like you can’t get a job? You’re not alone — but here’s how to work around it
• Moving abroad in your 20s can leave you with two identities – here’s how to cope
• ‘I have multiple side-hustles … It’s exhausting’: the challenges facing young freelance creatives

The rise of political consumerism

Political consumerism — the act of buying or boycotting products for political or ethical reasons — is on the rise among younger generations.

A 2023 study found that 81 per cent of Gen Z consumers report changing purchasing decisions based on a brand’s reputation or actions, with 53 per cent having participated in economic boycotts.

A 2022 meta-analysis of 66 studies found that political consumerism is strongly associated with liberal ideology, political interest and media use. In other words, young people who are politically engaged are increasingly using their wallets to express their values.

For many young people, consumption is increasingly an expression of identity and belief. The rise of “lifestyle politics” involves a shift from traditional forms of participation like voting or protesting to everyday acts. For many Gen Z and millennial consumers, what you buy is who you are.

The limits of ethical consumption

Yet enthusiasm for ethical consumption often meets frustration. Consumers frequently encounter greenwashing, performative allyship and corporate backpedalling.

And if everyone’s “voting with their dollar,” why does so little seem to change? The answer lies in understanding the limits and leverage of consumer power.

Advertisement

Individual action alone isn’t enough. Buying ethically can feel good, but it rarely moves the needle on its own. Research suggests political polarization has made brand preferences more ideologically charged, but also more fragmented. A progressive boycott might spark headlines, but unless it’s sustained and widespread, it often fizzles out.

At the same time, enthusiasm for ethical consumption often runs into practical limits. Buying ethically usually requires extra money and the ability to research brands, so it tends to be most accessible to people with disposable income and good access to information. This means that while many young people strongly support ethical consumption, only those with sufficient financial resources are able to practice it consistently.

Where individual choices fall short, collective action can be more impactful. Co-ordinated campaigns like #GrabYourWallet, which targets companies linked to Donald Trump, or the youth-led push to divest university endowments from fossil fuels demonstrate the power of organized consumer advocacy.

Voting still matters

Consumer activism complements, but does not substitute, traditional civic engagement. Policy shapes markets, regulation sets boundaries for what companies can get away with and elected officials determine what corporations can and cannot do.

Yet voter turnout among young Canadians remains stubbornly low. In the 2021 federal election, only 46.7 per cent of eligible voters aged 18 to 24 cast a ballot, compared to 74.4 per cent of those aged 65 to 74.

In the United States 2020 presidential election, turnout among 18- to 34-year-olds was 57 per cent compared to 74 per cent for those 65 and older.

Simiarly, in the United Kingdom’s 2019 general election, only 53.6 per cent of 18- to 34-year-olds voted versus 77 per cent of those 65 and older, showing the same generational gap seen in Canada where older voters consistently out-participate younger ones.

If young people want to influence climate policy, housing or student debt, the ballot box remains one of their most potent tools.

What actually makes a difference?

So how can young consumers move from performative gestures to meaningful change? Evidence suggests several ways young consumers can translate values into tangible change:

1. Support worker-led movements.

Advertisement

Rather than just boycotting a brand, consider supporting the workers organizing within it. Whether it’s Starbucks baristas unionizing for better labour conditions or garment workers demanding fair wages, consumer solidarity can amplify their efforts. Share their stories and respect their asks so you don’t cross picket lines, including when to boycott and when to buy.

2. Push for policy, not just products.

Advocate for systemic change such as supply chain transparency laws, supporting living wage campaigns or demanding climate disclosures from corporations. When consumer sentiment aligns with regulatory pressure, companies are far more likely to act.

3. Invest in local and co-operative alternatives.

Not all change comes from pressuring big brands. Sometimes, it’s about supporting local businesses, worker co-ops and social enterprises that embed ethics into their structure. These alternatives demonstrate what’s possible and keep money circulating in communities.

4. Educate, organize, repeat.

Change is slow. It requires patience, persistence and people power. It involves educating peers, organizing campaigns and staying engaged even after media cycles fade. Montréal teenager Fatih Amin exemplifies this approach, having built a climate movement through poster campaigns, recycling competitions and Gen Z-focused conferences.

From cynicism to agency

It’s easy to feel cynical. The problems are big, the systems are entrenched and the stakes are high. But young people aren’t powerless. They’re navigating a landscape in which influence is less about individualism and more about strategic, collective action.

Political consumerism is most effective when paired with civic engagement and organizational membership. That means joining movements, building coalitions and recognizing that real change rarely comes from the checkout line alone.

So while individual choices matter, they are most effective when combined with collective action and civic engagement. If you’re seeking meaningful change, you must combine purchasing choices with organized campaigns, policy advocacy and voting.

Advertisement

Eugene Y. Chan, Marketing Professor, Toronto Metropolitan University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Catherine O’Hara and the Late-Night TV That Shaped a Generation of Comedy Fans

From a personal point of view, one of my earliest memories of Catherine O’Hara doesn’t come from a movie theater or a prime-time sitcom. It comes from the quiet glow of late-night television, long after most of the house had gone to sleep.

As a youngster, I remember staying up late enough to catch Second City Television (SCTV), which aired after Saturday Night Live and Don Kirshner’s Rock Concert. That meant it didn’t come on until around 1:30 a.m. Pacific Time, deep into Saturday night and early Sunday morning. Even at that young age, I knew I was watching something different. The humor felt sharper, stranger, and somehow smarter — and Catherine O’Hara stood out immediately.

Even before I understood why it was funny, I understood that it mattered.

Late-Night Television as a Classroom

Looking back now, it’s clear that late-night television quietly shaped my taste in comedy. SCTV didn’t feel like it was aiming for the widest possible audience. It felt like it trusted the viewer to catch up. Catherine O’Hara’s performances weren’t just about delivering punchlines — they were about inhabiting characters completely, no matter how absurd, subtle, or offbeat they were.

That kind of comedy asks you to pay attention. And for a kid watching far past his bedtime, it was oddly captivating. I didn’t have the vocabulary for “character work” or “commitment to the bit,” but I recognized authenticity when I saw it. O’Hara had it in abundance.

Seeing the Through-Line Years Later

As the years went on, Catherine O’Hara kept showing up in new places — and each time, something clicked. In Beetlejuice, there was that same fearless weirdness. In Home Alone, she brought warmth and panic and humanity to what could have easily been a one-note role. She grounded the chaos without ever dulling it.

Then came Schitt’s Creek. By the time Moira Rose entered our cultural vocabulary, it felt less like a reinvention and more like a full-circle moment. The bold choices, the musicality of her voice, the unapologetic commitment — it all traced back to those SCTV performances from decades earlier.

Moira Rose didn’t come out of nowhere — she came from years of late nights, sharp instincts, and fearless comedy.

Why Those Early Moments Matter

What I didn’t realize at the time was that those 1:30 a.m. viewings were teaching me how to appreciate comedy that lingered. Not everything had to land immediately. Not every joke needed a laugh track. Some performances simply stayed with you.

Catherine O’Hara’s work did exactly that. It stayed. Through different decades, formats, and genres, her performances carried a consistency of intelligence and heart. For many of us who grew up sneaking glances at late-night television, she became a familiar presence — someone who trusted the audience enough to go all in.

A Personal Goodbye

With news of her passing, those memories feel closer than ever. Not just of Catherine O’Hara the icon, but of Catherine O’Hara the performer who helped shape how many of us learned to watch comedy. She wasn’t just funny — she was formative.

Late-night television doesn’t always get credit for the role it plays in shaping taste, curiosity, and imagination. But for those of us who were there, watching quietly while the rest of the world slept, it mattered. And Catherine O’Hara was a big part of why.

— STM Daily News

For more on her early career in comedy, see Forbes retrospective on Catherine O’Hara’s career history and influence. [oai_citation:3‡Forbes](https://www.forbes.com/sites/hannahabraham/2026/01/30/how-catherine-ohara-became-beloved-across-three-generations-from-sctv-to-home-alone-to-schitts-creek/?utm_source=chatgpt.com)

Learn about the cultural impact and awards for Schitt’s Creek Schitt’s Creek Wikipedia overview. [oai_citation:4‡Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schitt%27s_Creek?utm_source=chatgpt.com)

Advertisement

See a broad overview of her life and legacy from PBS NewsHour PBS retrospective. [oai_citation:5‡pbs.org](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/arts/catherine-ohara-emmy-winning-actor-and-comedian-of-schitts-creek-fame-dies-at-71?utm_source=chatgpt.com)

Looking for an entertainment experience that transcends the ordinary? Look no further than STM Daily News Blog’s vibrant Entertainment section. Immerse yourself in the captivating world of indie films, streaming and podcasts, movie reviews, music, expos, venues, and theme and amusement parks. Discover hidden cinematic gems, binge-worthy series and addictive podcasts, gain insights into the latest releases with our movie reviews, explore the latest trends in music, dive into the vibrant atmosphere of expos, and embark on thrilling adventures in breathtaking venues and theme parks. Join us at STM Entertainment and let your entertainment journey begin! https://stmdailynews.com/category/entertainment/

and let your entertainment journey begin!

How City Hall Quietly Undermined LA’s Own Height Limits

The Knowledge Series | STM Daily News

For more than half a century, Los Angeles enforced one of the strictest building height limits in the United States. Beginning in 1905, most buildings were capped at 150 feet, shaping a city that grew outward rather than upward.

The goal was clear: avoid the congestion, shadows, and fire dangers associated with dense Eastern cities. Los Angeles sold itself as open, sunlit, and horizontal — a place where growth spread across land, not into the sky.

And yet, in 1928, Los Angeles City Hall rose to 454 feet, towering over the city like a contradiction in concrete.

It wasn’t built to spark a commercial skyscraper boom.
But it ended up proving that Los Angeles could safely build one.

A Rule Designed to Prevent a Manhattan-Style City

The original height restriction was rooted in early 20th-century fears:

• Limited firefighting capabilities
• Concerns over blocked sunlight and airflow
• Anxiety about congestion and overcrowding
• A strong desire not to resemble New York or Chicago

Los Angeles wanted prosperity — just not vertical density.

The height cap reinforced a development model where:

• Office districts stayed low-rise
• Growth moved outward
• Automobiles became essential
• Downtown never consolidated into a dense core

This philosophy held firm even as other American cities raced upward.

Why City Hall Was Never Meant to Change the Rules

City Hall was intentionally exempt from the height limit because the law applied primarily to private commercial buildings, not civic monuments.

But city leaders were explicit about one thing:
City Hall was not a precedent.

It was designed to:

• Serve as a symbolic seat of government
• Stand alone as a civic landmark
• Represent stability, authority, and modern governance
• Avoid competing with private office buildings

In effect, Los Angeles wanted a skyline icon — without a skyline.

Innovation Hidden in Plain Sight

What made City Hall truly significant wasn’t just its height — it was how it was built.

Advertisement

At a time when seismic science was still developing, City Hall incorporated advanced structural ideas for its era:

• A steel-frame skeleton designed for flexibility
• Reinforced concrete shear walls for lateral strength
• A tapered tower to reduce wind and seismic stress
• Thick structural cores that distributed force instead of resisting it rigidly

These choices weren’t about aesthetics — they were about survival.

The Earthquake That Changed the Conversation

In 1933, the Long Beach earthquake struck Southern California, causing widespread damage and reshaping building codes statewide.

Los Angeles City Hall survived with minimal structural damage.

This moment quietly reshaped the debate:

• A tall building had endured a major earthquake
• Structural engineering had proven effective
• Height alone was no longer the enemy — poor design was

City Hall didn’t just survive — it validated a new approach to vertical construction in seismic regions.

Proof Without Permission

Despite this success, Los Angeles did not rush to repeal its height limits.

Cultural resistance to density remained strong, and developers continued to build outward rather than upward. But the technical argument had already been settled.

City Hall stood as living proof that:

• High-rise buildings could be engineered safely in Los Angeles
• Earthquakes were a challenge, not a barrier
• Fire, structural, and seismic risks could be managed

The height restriction was no longer about safety — it was about philosophy.

The Ironic Legacy

When Los Angeles finally lifted its height limit in 1957, the city did not suddenly erupt into skyscrapers. The habit of building outward was already deeply entrenched.

The result:

• A skyline that arrived decades late
• Uneven density across the region
• Multiple business centers instead of one core
• Housing and transit challenges baked into the city’s growth pattern

City Hall never triggered a skyscraper boom — but it quietly made one possible.

Why This Still Matters

Today, Los Angeles continues to wrestle with:

Advertisement

• Housing shortages
• Transit-oriented development debates
• Height and zoning battles near rail corridors
• Resistance to density in a growing city

These debates didn’t begin recently.

They trace back to a single contradiction: a city that banned tall buildings — while proving they could be built safely all along.

Los Angeles City Hall wasn’t just a monument.
It was a test case — and it passed.

Further Reading & Sources

• Los Angeles Department of City Planning – History of Urban Planning in LA
• Los Angeles Conservancy – History & Architecture of LA City Hall
• Water and Power Associates – Early Los Angeles Buildings & Height Limits
• USGS – How Buildings Are Designed to Withstand Earthquakes
• Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety – Building Code History

More from The Knowledge Series on STM Daily News