why do young Americans embrace "Socialism" now for the first time and what does that mean for you?

That's a relief.

and the wine https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qc7HmhrgTuQ

That's not how markets work. Markets are essentially a decision made in aggregate within a large body of buyers and sellers as to the price of a good or service. A market doesn't just randomly decide that labor (or any good) is worth less; either the demand drops or the supply rises. What your anecdote shows is that demand isn't dropping. The difference is in the supply. The left constantly adopts policies that inflate the labor supply. Women joining the workforce en masse was one, mass migration of labor is another, then you have H1B visas and illegal immigration. As early as the oughts organized labor strongly opposed everything that increased a supply in the labor pool because they knew that it depressed wages. Elizabeth Warren even wrote a book about the two income trap. But labor doesn't have a voice on the left any more. Anyone who speaks the truth (that mobility of labor benefits capital, and capital funds the Democratic Party) is persona non grata. Even Bernie, who used to kill immigration bills for this very reason, has modified his stance to fit the party line. The exact opposite happened on the right for years; nobody was allowed to critize free trade and the mobility of capital. Ross Perot had to run third party to do it. This is why the rust belt swung right: because the left has become bourgeois, coastal, and upper class, and Trump adopted the rhetoric of Ross Perot and took it right to them. After being squeezed out by a corrupt establishment for decades, the white working class are now throwing their hat into the other rink. Sadly, what this means is that the Democrats will now double down even more on the policies that drove labor away in the first place. The union bosses will endorse Dems, but the union membership will bleed to the right once that voting booth curtain falls. If I were a Democrat right now, I would be really, really worried about losing some portion of the black working class voters, if not to the Republicans than to depressed turnout.

I never claimed it was random. You can see a similar effect with racism and sexism. It isn't that the job market randomly pays women and people of color less. It is that the market is made up of people, and those people decide to pay women and people of color less. As a culture, we have come to value labor less. That culture is imprinted onto everyone who gets into business. You don't need to get everyone in business to get together and plot. But over the course of years and decades, when a culture of undervaluing labor and over valuing executives creeps in, it becomes systemic. 

markets can be made to be part of a socialist system many pre marxist anarchistic types of socialism were market based where co operatives competed with coventional business

You ascribed then (and ascribe now) a level of sentience to markets which just don't exist. A market cannot decide to go against demand or supply, no matter what the people which it comprises believe. Beliefs can influence supply and demand, certainly. But the things you are proposing still don't make sense; the ruling class (capital) not wanting to pay more for labor does NOTHING to change the supply of labor, it changes the demand. The ruling class can only change the price of labor at will if it controls both demand (which can be modified by its own prejudices and policy) and supply (which they modify by changing the size of the labor force, and through things like credit, advertising, and birth control/abortion). The problem is that wages aren't just another good; in a capitalist system they are the lifeblood of families, and by impoverishing those families to benefit usurers (as we are) you eventually throw yourself into a demographic trap.

You are either misunderstanding me or human nature, i'm not certain which. You seem to be assuming that the market is neutral when that is very much not the case. The market is made up of humans, and those humans are in no way neutral. If the people who make up the upper levels of the market, for example, hated black people then the market would discriminate against black people. If enough people in the market believe the same thing then the market will reflect that belief. If enough people who control major companies create a culture where labor is undervalued, then it is undervalued in the market. 

Why are you under the impression that you need to control both the supply and the demand of labor to control the price? If I and a small group of others control most of the jobs in a town and we decided that we would not pay more than X amount. Then it doesn't matter what workers want. They will either make the amount we decided, or their families go hungry. If the culture of the people making up the market is to under value labor so they can maximize profit, it doesn't matter what the supply is. They have nowhere else to go. There is nothing they can do if everyone (or the majority of companies) are all under valuing them. So by creating a culture where you pay as little as humanly possible to employees, while simultaneously undermining any sort of unionization, companies can get away with paying as little as they can.