This is an edition of The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here.

The president was on the picket line, and the American public is paying attention to unions. This moment of renewed interest in organizing could energize labor activity in the U.S., but it also turns up the pressure on union leaders.

First, here are three new stories from The Atlantic:

“Every time I hear you, I feel a little bit dumber.”

Eight ways to banish misery

The best thing about Amazon was never going to last.

“A Genuinely Historic Moment”

“Unions built the middle class,” the president of the United States bellowed this week through a bullhorn emblazoned with an American flag. “You deserve what you’ve earned, and you’ve earned a hell of a lot more than you’re getting paid now.” On Tuesday, Joe Biden became the first sitting president to join striking workers on a picket line. In standing with the United Auto Workers, who have been on strike against the Big Three car companies for almost two weeks, he has picked a side. As my colleague Adam Serwer wrote today, “A president on the picket line, telling workers they deserved to share in the wealth they had helped create, was a genuinely historic moment.”

Public approval of unions is the highest it’s been in many decades. Data from Gallup last month found that, after dipping to a low of 48 percent in 2009, around the time of the recession, Americans’ union-approval rating is now at 67 percent, down slightly from 71 percent last year. Three-quarters of respondents said that they sided with autoworkers over management in their negotiations (this was before the UAW strike had actually begun), and support for striking television writers over their studios was nearly as high. A record-high number, 61 percent, said that unions help rather than hurt the economy.

Organized labor has contracted dramatically in the past 50 years: In 1981, President Ronald Reagan fired 11,000 striking Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization workers, ushering in a period of union decline that has continued since. Now a successful UAW strike could inspire other workers to stand up, potentially even serving as “a reverse PATCO moment,” says Johnnie Kallas, a doctoral candidate at Cornell University’s School of Industrial and Labor Relations and the project director of its Labor Action Tracker. Kallas’s research shows that so far this year, there have been 291 strikes involving about 367,600 workers. That is an uptick from a few years ago, when his team began documenting strikes. And beyond the numbers, there are other indicators that we are in a strong labor moment, he told me: High-profile victories at Starbucks and Amazon point to a rise in labor interest in private industries. And, of course, there’s the president on the picket line.

Recent strikes may make the public more curious about unions. Many Americans don’t fully understand the potential benefits of unions, Suresh Naidu, an economics professor at Columbia, told me. For decades, “one reason the labor movement has not had so much energy is that it’s been taken for granted that it can’t win strikes,” he said. But given how publicized the UAW’s effort has become, Naidu observed, a successful strike could send onlookers the message that “when you actually have a union that’s willing to go to bat for you, it can really deliver good wages and working conditions.” The high level of current public interest in unions also means that the pressure is on: If the UAW workers do not end up winning a strong contract, it may damage public perception of strikes, Naidu explained. And in strikes like the UAW’s, union leaders need to thread a needle: If they settle for a weak contract or let the strike drag on long enough that it significantly affects workers and their communities, they could lose public support.

As the labor movement gains momentum, workers in such seemingly different industries as Hollywood and mail delivery are making real gains, often on related issues. “We’re seeing a confluence of concerns around the high cost of living, the role of technology in degrading our work, and what people call work-life balance,” Tobias Higbie, the faculty chair of labor studies at UCLA, told me. “These strikes have a way of defining the key conflicts of a particular historical moment.” The coronavirus pandemic has changed the way many people view their lives, he added—and the role that work should play in them. The past few years have also exacerbated public concerns about income inequality, as many bosses and corporations have grown wealthier while workers have struggled with inflation.

Where America’s labor movement will go next is impossible to predict. After months of picketing, Hollywood writers returned to work yesterday with a strong contract in hand; meanwhile, UAW workers are holding the line, and may even expand their strike this week. “Any kind of negotiation is about power,” Higbie explained. “The UAW is giving a master class on how to strategically utilize the power that you do have so that you can get what you need.”

Related:

Trump didn’t go to Michigan to support autoworkers.

The Big Three’s inevitable collision with the UAW

Today’s News

As tensions continue among congressional Republicans, the U.S. government has begun notifying federal employees that a shutdown appears imminent. The House held its first hearing in the Biden-impeachment inquiry; witnesses chosen by Republicans stated that there is currently no evidence of a crime, but that more bank records from the president and his son are still needed. The Senate unanimously passed a dress-code resolution after controversy over Senator John Fetterman’s casual attire.

Evening Read

Paul Spella / The Atlantic

Group-Chat Culture Is Out of Control

By Faith Hill

Here’s just a sample of group chats that have been messaging me recently: college friends, housemates, camp friends, friends I met in adulthood, high-school friends, a subset of high-school friends who live in New York City, a subset of high-school friends who are single, a group of friends going to a birthday party, a smaller group of friends planning a gift for that person’s birthday, co-workers, book club, another book club, family, extended family, a Wordle chat with friends, a Wordle chat with family.

I love a group text—a grext, if you’ll permit me—but lately, the sheer number of them competing for my attention has felt out of control. By the time I wake up, the notifications have already started rolling in; as I’m going to bed, they’re still coming. In between, I try to keep up, but all it takes is one 30-minute meeting before I’ve somehow gotten 100 new messages, half of them consisting of “lol” or “right!” I scroll up and up and up, trying to find where I left off, like I’ve lost my place in a book that keeps getting longer as I read.For better or for worse, we might be in the Age of the Group Chat.

Read the full article.

More From The Atlantic

The 24-year-old who outsold Oprah this week Basil the one-eyed opossum is the perfect zoo animal. The weirdos living inside our phones

Culture Break

Fondation Henri Cartier-Bresson / Magnum

Read. These seven books for the lifelong learner may tempt you to take up a new pursuit.

Listen. Tony Bennett, who died on Friday, reportedly sang one last song while sitting at his piano. It’s also the one that made him a star.

Play our daily crossword.

Did someone forward you this email? Sign up here.

Katherine Hu contributed to this newsletter.

When you buy a book using a link in this newsletter, we receive a commission. Thank you for supporting The Atlantic.

Here’s just a sample of group chats that have been messaging me recently: college friends, housemates, camp friends, friends I met in adulthood, high-school friends, a subset of high-school friends who live in New York City, a subset of high-school friends who are single, a group of friends going to a birthday party, a smaller group of friends planning a gift for that person’s birthday, co-workers, book club, another book club, family, extended family, a Wordle chat with friends, a Wordle chat with family.

I love a group text—a grext, if you’ll permit me—but lately, the sheer number of them competing for my attention has felt out of control. By the time I wake up, the notifications have already started rolling in; as I’m going to bed, they’re still coming. In between, I try to keep up, but all it takes is one 30-minute meeting before I’ve somehow gotten 100 new messages, half of them consisting of “lol” or “right!” I scroll up and up and up, trying to find where I left off, like I’ve lost my place in a book that keeps getting longer as I read.

For better or for worse, we might be in the Age of the Group Chat. WhatsApp, the most popular messaging service worldwide, gained more than two and a half billion active users from 2012 to 2023, and is projected to grow 18 percent more by 2025; one study found that less than 2 percent of participants had only one-on-one chats on the app, and concluded that “the group chat feature is used frequently by nearly every WhatsApp user.” Of course, you can also group-chat with SMS, iMessage, GroupMe, Messenger, WeChat—or some combination of these and other platforms. In a recent survey of roughly 1,000 Americans, 66 percent said they’ve felt overwhelmed by their group messages, and 42 percent said that group chats can feel like a part-time job.

Just a few years ago, we might have done more of that chattering online. But with X (formerly known as Twitter) in a state of disarray, Facebook falling out of favor, and Instagram taken over by ads, social media is feeling less and less social. Jeffrey A. Hall, a communication professor at the University of Kansas who studies technology and relationships, calls this the “twilight of the social-media era,” in which “the distance between using it for talking to your friends and what we have now” is bigger than it’s ever been. He believes that although those sites aren’t fostering real connection—advice, inside jokes, updates, memes—nearly as much anymore, people might be reclaiming it with group chats.

[Read: Zombie Twitter has arrived]

That connection is a wonderful thing. Talking in a grext around the clock can feel like you and your fellow group members are facing the world together—and reaching out to everyone individually about all the stupid little details of your day would simply be impossible. But being kept constantly in the loop can feel unsustainable. I’m starting to learn that once you begin moving through life as but one humble node in a dense network of messagers, it’s hard to get untangled. To borrow from Dungeons & Dragons, the Age of the Group Chat seemed like it would be Chaotic Good—but it’s verging on Chaotic Evil.

Group texts are hardly the only demand on our time and attention these days. And yet, the researchers I spoke with agreed that they can be uniquely unwieldy. They both contribute to and reflect the complexity of our social worlds, Kate Mannell, a digital-media researcher at Deakin University, in Australia, told me. Creating a grext is so easy that you can end up with a separate chat for nearly every iteration of any group, each with its own particular dynamic. You might start with one chat, and then create another without one member who moved away, and then another to bring in a friend of a friend. (When I want to text my high-school friends in New York, I actually have to stop and think: Should I use “Big Juicy Apple” or “The Actual Big Apple”?) Compared with a one-on-one thread, in which the other party will typically pause until you respond, group chats aren’t so easy to manage. Messages can flow in all day, whether you’re free to reply or not—and if you aren’t on your phone when a particular conversation is going down, you might miss it entirely.

Those features aren’t all bad. Grexts are good at mimicking the casual back-and-forth of in-person dialogue, and the result can be more dynamic and fun than a two-person thread. Having a chat going also means you have a space to share mundane little updates throughout the day. Studies have found that group chats can contribute to group cohesion and shared fun. A group text can be a refuge, and a reminder that you’re part of something.

Some researchers call this “ambient virtual presence”: Even when you’re alone, you’re not alone. Annette Markham, a digital-culture researcher at the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, in Australia, has compared this phenomenon to echolocation, the process that some animals, such as bats and dolphins, use to locate objects: They produce a continuous sound and use the resulting echo to sense what’s around them. Humans might use technologies such as group chats in a similar way—as a call-and-response, taking in information about their social networks and locating themselves within those webs.

[Read: No one knows exactly what social media is doing to kids]

But taking in too many signals can be overwhelming. Joseph Bayer, a communication professor at Ohio State University who studies mobile technologies, told me that group chats can create a “waterfall type of effect,” where messages keep flooding in and adding up. Eventually, you’re underwater. Adding to the chaos, Katharina Knop-Hülß, a mobile-media researcher at Hanover University, in Germany, told me, different chat members all bring their own personalities, communication styles, and expectations for group norms. (“There’s a lot going on.”) Mannell noted that those norms haven’t been settled, in part because group-chatting—and texting in general—is relatively new, and its features are constantly changing. (Updates to iMessage, for instance, have granted the ability to reply in a thread to specific texts, to tag people into a message, and to “react” with a symbol such as a heart or thumbs-up.) She’s found that without a standard etiquette, people have very different ideas about what degree of responsiveness is required—which can cause real tension.  

Fear of that tension can make muting or even leaving a chat feel daunting. And anyway, you might not want to miss out, even if you are overwhelmed; the desire isn’t to exit the room so much as to crack a window. I left my friends’ Wordle chat once because I’d stopped playing, but I had to rejoin when I learned that someone had used it to share a life update; never again would I be left in the dark. Now I usually just lurk silently in the chat, occasionally reacting with an exclamation point to a good score. If group messaging is like echolocation, then disconnecting can be disorienting—like losing the “I am here” dot on a giant existential map.

Grext anxiety is hard to resolve because it isn’t really just about the group-chat form or even mobile technology in general; it’s about the eternal tension between individual and collective identity, between being our own person and being accountable to others. Ultimately, most of us do want connection, even if it involves some obligations; we’ll take an avalanche of messages when we’re busy if it means we can reach out when we’re hurting.

[Read: America is in its insecure-attachment era]

Still, we’d do well to notice when our chats are giving us more dread than joy, or when they’ve multiplied to the point that we don’t even associate them with intimacy and connection anymore. If we’re turning to group messaging as social media starts to feel less social, we should be holding on to the group chats that really help us talk to people, and perhaps relinquishing the ones that feel as simultaneously crowded and empty as my social-media feeds do now. Hall told me that of all the different ways you can use social media, the evidence suggests that actively talking to people you care about—about subjects you care about—is what’s likeliest to contribute to your well-being.

His general advice is this: Let go of “zombie” groups—grexts that are carrying on but that don’t really interest you. Turn your attention to the ones you most value. When you can, see people in person or give them a call instead.

But when you can’t, you’ll just have to accept that belonging takes some effort. “Those responsibilities often come with annoyance and interference and frustration,” Hall told me. “But that’s the nature of relationships, right?” Between “The Actual Big Apple,” “Lonely Hearts Club,” and “Wordle Warriors,” I’ve wracked up dozens of notifications while finishing this story—and ultimately, I’m happy I got them.