An op-ed by Behar suggests that a global wave of protests, primarily composed of “Gen Z” youth, is directly associated with shrinking public services and exploding private wealth. Governments cut spending on health, education, and social protection just as private wealth soars and inheritance transfers lock in inequality. According to the author, this is a breach of the social contract-young people want classrooms and clinics, not coddling a few endowed with great luxury; and if states do not respond with stronger public services and fairer taxation, unrest will continue.

The key claims, elaborated

1. Public services are being dismantled or starved of resources.

A large majority of countries reduced the share of budgets going to education, health or social protection since 2022, according to a 2024 “Commitment to Reducing Inequality Index” of Oxfam. The exact headline figure often cited is 84% of countries cutting investment in these areas. That’s the empirical basis for Behar’s claim that public services are weakening globally.

2. Private wealth has exploded, while public wealth barely grew.

Oxfam’s analysis shows global private wealth rose by around $342 trillion between 1995 and 2023, far outpacing public-wealth growth. Behar uses numbers like this to argue there’s more than enough money in the world to fund universal public services – it’s a question of political choices about taxing and spending.

3. A massive inheritance transfer will further entrench inequality.

The piece cited projections that more than $70 trillion in wealth will pass to heirs over the next decade – framed sometimes as the “great wealth transfer” or “inheritocracy” – which would freeze inequality across generations unless policy intervenes. That helps explain why young people see the odds stacked against them.

4. The protests of Gen Z are manifestations of this breakdown of the social contract.
   The op-ed points to several youth-led uprisings—Morocco, Madagascar, Nepal and others—where slogans like “we want hospitals, not stadiums” captured frustration at public-service neglect while elites spend on conspicuous luxury. The Nepal example—a social-media ban that ignited mass youth protests, violence and political fallout—is a concrete case showing how quickly governance crises can erupt.
5. Privatization & “private finance first” are the wrong answers.

Behar warns against handing essential services to private actors-privatization, commercialization, and financialization-on the grounds that privatized health/education benefits primarily those who are well-off and leaves most people either uninsured or excluded. The warning is framed as being both pragmatic-worse outcomes for most people-and political-fuel for unrest.

Evidence and sources (short)

• Oxfam’s CRI 2024 and related analyses — backing the 84% figure and the private /public wealth comparison.
• Oxfam analysis of private-wealth growth: +$342 trillion (1995–2023).
• Reporting on the protests by Nepal Gen-Z: social-media ban → mass protests → political crisis/deaths/resignation patterns.
• Coverage of projected inheritance transfer of $70tn and the risks of inequality.

Why this matters (implications)

• Political stability: Where basic services fail, trust in institutions collapses. Behar warns that continued austerity and unequal wealth will produce repeated unrest — Gen Z protests are a canary in the coal mine.
• Lost human potential: when education and health are rationed by money, entire cohorts – potential scientists, teachers, health workers – are lost to the system forever. That hits economic growth and resilience over decade
• Policy choices, not scarcity: the moral and policy point the piece is making — that governments choose to underfund public services while allowing private fortunes to grow — so the remedy is political and fiscal (taxation, public investment), not purely economic inevitability.

What Behar suggests–Policy direction

• Tax the super-rich and close loopholes to make the extremely wealthy pay a fair share of their income to the state. He points to momentum from proposals led by countries such as Spain and Brazil.
• Rebuild public wealth & services — invest in universal health, education, social protection rather than outsourcing essential services to private finance.
• Reject the austerity framing which presents public services as unaffordable rather than as politically underfunded.

Possible counterarguments & limits

• Fiscal constraints and debt: Some governments argue debt or low revenue forces spending cuts; Behar (and Oxfam) counter that revenue could be raised by taxing wealth and corporations more fairly. See the CRI findings showing spending cuts are a policy choice.

•Efficiency arguments for private provision: Pro-privatisation proponents say private actors are more efficient; critics say that when profit is the motive, access and equity suffer and costs rise for ordinary people. Behar frames health/education as public goods that need universal provision.

Concrete examples mentioned / implied

• Nepal 2025: a social media ban sparked large Gen Z protests, violent clashes and political fallout, in dramatic demonstration of the dynamics Behar warns about.
• Thailand & Africa (examples in the op-ed): Thailand has a widely praised universal health system, and many African nations expanded free primary education — used as examples of the feasibility of strong public services. (Behar cites such cases to show these are policy choices, not impossibilities.)
  Short, practical take-away
  Behar’s op-ed is a clear, evidence-based political argument: current global policy choices – cuts to public services; low taxation of extreme wealth; growing inheritances – are producing intergenerational inequality and political instability. The remedy he proposes – rebuild public wealth by taxing the rich and reinvesting in universal services – is simple in concept but politically hard. If policymakers ignore the demands of Gen Z for schools and hospitals, the social contract, and social peace will be at risk. – If you want, I can: * create a 1-page bulleted explainer you can print/share (with the five key data points and sources), or *Map this argument onto a country of your choice, showing local spending trends, protests, and likely policy levers. Which of those would help you next? “Gen Z are demanding schools and hospitals.