Since Neil looks to have given up on his blog, about the only way we're going to be able to get his opinion on how his theory is going along may be through the news and articles. Every now and then, I do a Google News search on his name to see what I can find. I figured I'd start this thread as a repository for any interesting articles in which Neil is cited. I hope to contribute more often, but I'd encourage everyone to also join in if they so wish.

Anyway, here's an article that considers the role of Millennials as public servants, something that I feel has been conspicuously missing in this 4T thus far. (I may start a different thread on this later.) I'll just copy and paste the parts that Neil is quoted in.

http://www.govexec.com/magazine/feat...omorrow/81484/

Team Tomorrow

In contrast with the older Generation X, millennials are a “closer fit” in government, agrees Neil Howe, an author and economist who has conducted surveys on generational issues as president of LifeCourse Associates. “They believe in big government by more than 20 points over baby boomers and early-wave Gen Xers,” he says. “They’re involved in community service and tend to be collaborative. They’re not oriented toward individual incentives and rewards,” as are many of the Gen Xers who came of age after the conservative Reagan years and who are not fans of bureaucracies.

Indeed, age patterns show that entrepreneurial Gen Xers (those born from the mid-1960s to the early 1980s) are underrepresented in the civil service, compared with millennials and baby boomers (those born from 1946 to 1964). “Millennials are not looking to be free agents,” Howe says. “They are more risk-averse, and do prefer a single employer taking care of them on a long-term basis.”

[...]

Many government job descriptions are heavily weighted with language describing conditions of employment such as “must be a citizen, no felons, etc.,” Howe notes. But private companies tend to lead “with love-bomb introductions such as ‘we’re looking for a real special person like you,’ ” he says. “This appeals to the millennials, who were raised by boomer parents to regard themselves as special and deserving of attention.”

The problem with government, Howe adds, is that the first message it sends to a young worker is, “get a number and get in line. It’s uncaring and it’s unacceptable to millennials who think, ‘if they cared about me they’d send me little Post-it notes with smiley faces saying, ‘we love you.’ ”

Millennials are less willing than their immediate elders to “do stuff on spec . . . for little or no money at the bottom end of the totem pole,” Howe says. By and large they are eager to see the immediate fruits of their work, and their technological prowess may be key to the government’s progress. Today’s federal workforce “is the same size as in the mid-1960s, but has gotten rid of much of the clerical support and added knowledge workers and enhanced technology,” says John Palguta, vice president for policy at the nonprofit Partnership for Public Service, who spent years at the Office of Personnel Management. This should allow agencies to improve operations and offer opportunities to those with new skill sets, he says.

[...]

Millennials could be put off, Howe says, by government’s culture “in which there’s no way for really talented people to rise quickly, so you just pay your dues and wait. There’s also the slow pace of work, which tends to have longer turnover times than in the private sector.”

On the other hand, Howe adds, so few Gen-Xers have joined government that “in 20 years the boomers will be gone and millennials will really set the tone. The vacuum will suck them up, and I suspect we’ll find many quickly rising to top leadership ranks—like James Madison and Alexander Hamilton writing the Federalist Papers while in their 30s.”

Neil wrote this entire article so I might as well post it all. He's also making a lot of sense here, even outside the theory.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin...ennial-intern/

The Unhappy Rise Of The Millennial Intern

By Neil Howe — Mr. Howe is the author of numerous books on American generational trends, including Millennials Rising.

“Experience,” the Harvard Crimson argues, is the currency driving so many college- and post-college age Millennials to summer internships, paid and unpaid. As the internship application season heats up, these 20-somethings are scouring job boards for the right internship that will get them into the careers of their dreams. Famously confident of their eventual success, Millennials don’t move on to alternative career choices in response to adversity—as many young Boomers and Xers would have done. The problem is, all too many of these internships do little or nothing for those who take them.

Though especially prevalent in high-prestige creative fields like music, media, and fashion, low-paid or unpaid internships are spreading out to all sectors. From nonprofits to law firms to government, they are replacing many traditional entry-level positions. An internship, according to the Department of Labor, is a formal program providing a practical learning experience for beginners in an occupation or profession that lasts a limited amount of time. Legally, an internship can be unpaid only if the employer is a nonprofit (in which case it’s volunteering) or if the intern earns formal college credit on the job.

According to the National Association of Colleges and Employers (NACE), 97 percent of large employers in 2014 plan to hire interns. Estimates of the total number of interns range from one to two million. Ross Perlin, author of Intern Nation: How to Earn Nothing and Learn Little in the Brave New Economy, told USA Today in 2012 that 1.5 million internships are filled in the United States each year. Perlin estimates that roughly half of these are unpaid. But of course all these figures are guesses, since many—and perhaps even most—of the interns are unpaid and probably illegal. Few employers have any incentive to report them, and prestigious firms can often get around the pay requirement by finding colleges willing to give course credit for the work, whatever that work may be.

These “internships to nowhere” have evolved far from their original purpose. Prior to the 1990s, formal internships were rare. They functioned as apprenticeships in credentialed professional programs such as health care or accounting. But starting with late-wave Xers, this formality began to fade. College credit started to replace pay as more high-prestige companies offered unpaid positions, which continued to attract plenty of well-qualified applicants willing to compete for free.
The Forbes eBook: Find And Keep Your Dream Job
The Definitive Careers Guide From Forbes encompasses every aspect of the job hunt, from interview to promotion. Written by some of Forbes’ best careers and leadership writers, it is available now for download.

The first wave of Millennial graduates was generally happy with this system. Internships provided a well-marked road to employment without the risk of looking for a job. By the eve of the Great Recession, internships had become the preferred path to success. NACE reports that, from the mid-1980s to the mid-2000s, the share of college graduates participating in at least one internship rose from less than 10 percent to over 80 percent. Meanwhile, the share who got their first full-time post-graduation job through an internship rose from 5 to 30 percent.

In recent years, internships remain as prevalent as ever—but their ability to confer a real career has faded along with the economy. In 2013, NACE reported that only 63 percent of graduating students who had held paid internships received a job offer by graduation. As for unpaid internships, students who have them are today hardly more likely to get a job offer (37 percent) than those who have no internship at all (35 percent).

But Millennials’ high hopes and desire for meaningful work drive them to seek out these internships over other options. Relentless optimists, Millennials would rather hold out for the best job. Unlike young Boomers and Xers, many Millennials would rather take an internship with the hopes of scaling the ladder at an existing business rather than risk being shut out of their desired field or venturing out on their own.

This generation is also increasingly removed from the shrinking and aging world of blue-collar work. For young Boomers and Xers, college wasn’t the only ticket to success. But few Millennials see any fruitful path that doesn’t require a college degree. The growing share of Millennials with degrees expects to make use of them—and see no future in any job associated with the “old” economy. So long as they are working in a high-prestige field, they view internships—however lowly—as a better investment in their future.

To be sure, many of the Millennials taking internship after internship can only do so thanks to their parents’ resources. Plenty of young adults in less privileged positions would jump at the chance for any job that pays the bills. The spread of the low-paid or unpaid internship reflects the growing inequality between Millennial haves and have-nots, where those with enough resources can continue working for free in hopes of their “big break,” and those without have to settle.

With the help of law firms and unions, some young workers have begun to push back against unpaid internships. In the past year, several high-profile companies have been sued for failing to comply with intern labor laws. The interns, as plaintiffs, charge that they performed basic tasks normally left to paid employees, like getting coffee and making copies. The law firm Outten & Golden has chosen to specialize in persuading interns to sue their former employers. An increasing number of businesses—most notably, Condé Nast—have shut down their programs.

Yet this leaves Millennials in an uncomfortable situation. On the one hand, they would greatly prefer to see companies replace unpaid internships with permanent paid jobs. Yet they know that most of these positions won’tbe replaced—which would close the only door to the industry of their dreams. These would-be workers are left with no easy options. Meanwhile, the only winners are the employers they hope so fervently to impress.

Originally Posted by Bronco80

This generation is also increasingly removed from the shrinking and aging world of blue-collar work. For young Boomers and Xers, college wasn’t the only ticket to success. But few Millennials see any fruitful path that doesn’t require a college degree. The growing share of Millennials with degrees expects to make use of them—and see no future in any job associated with the “old” economy. So long as they are working in a high-prestige field, they view internships—however lowly—as a better investment in their future.

Which may result in blue-collar work looking more attractive down the road (i.e. when the Homelanders start making career decisions). While it's true that many manufacturing jobs won't be returning, there is a growing shortage of workers in many "skilled trade" areas (especially those that can't be outsourced overseas). Another benefit for those who don't mind the work: Unlike many white-collar jobs which can easily be held by older workers, age more readily becomes an impairment for jobs requiring physical labor (meaning that there will be less of a "gray ceiling" keeping younger folks locked out here).

Originally Posted by Kelly85

Which may result in blue-collar work looking more attractive down the road (i.e. when the Homelanders start making career decisions). While it's true that many manufacturing jobs won't be returning, there is a growing shortage of workers in many "skilled trade" areas (especially those that can't be outsourced overseas). Another benefit for those who don't mind the work: Unlike many white-collar jobs which can easily be held by older workers, age more readily becomes an impairment for jobs requiring physical labor (meaning that there will be less of a "gray ceiling" keeping younger folks locked out here).

Maybe, but if so, they'll also age like dogs and hit the scrap heap sooner.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Maybe, but if so, they'll also age like dogs and hit the scrap heap sooner.

My brother-in-law is a successful electrician; has his own business which weathered the recession 5 years ago and keeps him quite busy these days. He is healthy and extremely fit; eats nutritious food, can fit into the suit he married in 25 years ago, and exercises regularly (rides bicycle in the summer, downhill skis double diamond slopes in the winter). Even he is, in his early 50s, feeling the effects of 30 years of skilled trade labor.

A nice article in how Millie parents are living up to some archetypical traits so far in parenthood.

http://www.clarionledger.com/story/n...nting/8941417/

Neil quotes:

Historian Neil Howe, a demographer in Great Falls, Va., who along with his late co-author, William Strauss, is credited with coining the term Millennial, says Millennial mothers definitely see the value in sharing tips and responsibilities — with partners, peers and parents.


"Millennials are far more likely than moms of any other generation to be raising their kids near or even in the same house as their extended family. Many of them have their Boomer moms — the grandparents of their kids — living in the same home or living next door," Howe says.

[...]

"Millennial moms are very much into the role of being a mom," Howe says, based upon research he's done. "It's very striking how much they really identified with their 'momness' and boasted about being a mom."

I also though these other parts were telling:

"You had the feminist movement, which made it OK for women to go out of the home and go to work. Now it's coming back to it's OK for us to want to stay at home and raise our children and be with the children," says Lillywhite, who had her children at a younger age than many of her generation. "Women are realizing it's OK for them and acceptable for them to want to work, and it's acceptable for them to want to stay at home. They can choose."

Lear, of Minneapolis, says Millennials may well mark the "end of the experts."


"Boomers had Dr. Spock. Millennials have each other," she says. "They're really relying on each other for information."

The Strottman/C+R report portrays Millennial mothers as having a strong "mom" identity; a playful, hands-on approach to parenting; nostalgia for a simpler life, from toys to food to the do-it-yourself movement; and a "team family" approach that encourages everyone to pitch in rather than have Mom in the director's seat at home.

Originally Posted by Kelly85

Which may result in blue-collar work looking more attractive down the road (i.e. when the Homelanders start making career decisions). While it's true that many manufacturing jobs won't be returning, there is a growing shortage of workers in many "skilled trade" areas (especially those that can't be outsourced overseas). Another benefit for those who don't mind the work: Unlike many white-collar jobs which can easily be held by older workers, age more readily becomes an impairment for jobs requiring physical labor (meaning that there will be less of a "gray ceiling" keeping younger folks locked out here).

We could see a commonplace transition from strictly-physical work to strictly-mental work as a career norm. Physical demands of blue-collar work are obvious. People will, as always, wear out. What follows will be white-collar work -- strictly mind work but rarely having much of a challenge except to master the art of bowing and scraping. One might go from being a warehouse worker to a worker in a call center. Conditions will be very proletarian, and the workforce will be extremely hierarchical in nature. The usual career trajectory will be from overworked and underpaid to simply underpaid.

I assume that managerial elites will tend, much like the Soviet nomenklatura, to become hereditary in all but name. The spoiled brats raised in the households of managerial elites will exploit connections and establish rigid ceilings for others as did their parents. Economic elites invariably do such.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

We could see a commonplace transition from strictly-physical work to strictly-mental work as a career norm. Physical demands of blue-collar work are obvious. People will, as always, wear out. What follows will be white-collar work -- strictly mind work but rarely having much of a challenge except to master the art of bowing and scraping. One might go from being a warehouse worker to a worker in a call center. Conditions will be very proletarian, and the workforce will be extremely hierarchical in nature. The usual career trajectory will be from overworked and underpaid to simply underpaid.

I assume that managerial elites will tend, much like the Soviet nomenklatura, to become hereditary in all but name. The spoiled brats raised in the households of managerial elites will exploit connections and establish rigid ceilings for others as did their parents. Economic elites invariably do such.

Physical work is not all mind-numbing and back-breaking. A sculptor has a physical job, and no one thinks of a sculptor as blue-collar. So you can have ditch-digging on one extreme and sculpting on the other, but many crafts fall neatly in the middle. That's even more-so now, with all the specialized tools we have at our disposal. All that gingerbread trim work on Victorian homes doesn't just jump up there on its own, but it isn't nearly as hard to do it as it once was either.

I don't see the trades ever going away, in fact, just the opposite.

White collar jobs are always an if-then statement or auto populate function away from being reducable. At my job now we're woefully understaffed, but the thing is that once we roll out our new software package in completion, we'll be cutting out half the activity of what we do (the mind numbing repetitive part), so we're just going to have to be understaffed for a little while, because it'd be pretty wrong to hire all these people in this position, and then pull the rug out from under them in 6 months to a year, because half the people can do more than the work available.

Originally Posted by Kepi

White collar jobs are always an if-then statement or auto populate function away from being reducable. At my job now we're woefully understaffed, but the thing is that once we roll out our new software package in completion, we'll be cutting out half the activity of what we do (the mind numbing repetitive part), so we're just going to have to be understaffed for a little while, because it'd be pretty wrong to hire all these people in this position, and then pull the rug out from under them in 6 months to a year, because half the people can do more than the work available.

We already do more with the workforce at hand than we actually need to do. The argument is: we will find new things to do that will be needed or at least desired, and we'll all stay busy and emplyed. Isn't that what we're doing already? I have a hard time seeing how we build a viable economy on a plethora of expensive personal services and cheap goods, but that may be the next model. Even cheap goods cost something, and we have to get the money to buy them somewhere.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

We already do more with the workforce at hand than we actually need to do. The argument is: we will find new things to do that will be needed or at least desired, and we'll all stay busy and emplyed. Isn't that what we're doing already? I have a hard time seeing how we build a viable economy on a plethora of expensive personal services and cheap goods, but that may be the next model. Even cheap goods cost something, and we have to get the money to buy them somewhere.

I don't think we will all stay employed. There's no need for it and increasing the amount of people employed just to keep people employed makes for a really petty justification for employment. Nobody wants their cost of living increased just so Bob can join the donut and meetings class. Those people are going to have to figure out how to deal with free time.

Originally Posted by Kepi

I don't think we will all stay employed. There's no need for it and increasing the amount of people employed just to keep people employed makes for a really petty justification for employment. Nobody wants their cost of living increased just so Bob can join the donut and meetings class. Those people are going to have to figure out how to deal with free time.

If we reduce our labor force, how are those who've been "reduced" out of the labor force going to get the wherewithal to pay for housing, food, clothing, etc.... i.e. consume?

I know you favor a return to the 1950s model with a one-wage-earner family. However, with fewer of us living in traditional families with children, that's not a viable model. Single person households are a huge and growing part of our demographic.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

If we reduce our labor force, how are those who've been "reduced" out of the labor force going to get the wherewithal to pay for housing, food, clothing, etc.... i.e. consume?

I know you favor a return to the 1950s model with a one-wage-earner family. However, with fewer of us living in traditional families with children, that's not a viable model. Single person households are a huge and growing part of our demographic.

A deflationary environment is one in which jobs are declining along with prices. The winners are those who have cash.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Physical work is not all mind-numbing and back-breaking. A sculptor has a physical job, and no one thinks of a sculptor as blue-collar. So you can have ditch-digging on one extreme and sculpting on the other, but many crafts fall neatly in the middle. That's even more-so now, with all the specialized tools we have at our disposal. All that gingerbread trim work on Victorian homes doesn't just jump up there on its own, but it isn't nearly as hard to do it as it once was either.

Of course, some white-collar occupations, like teaching, can involve considerable physical activity. I would encourage any schoolteacher to get physically fit. If one is any good as a schoolteacher one will move around a lot.

I don't see the trades ever going away, in fact, just the opposite.

I agree. There will always be infrastructure to maintain and reconstruct. Such work cannot be done by a robot as can much assembly line work.

He has an article up at Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/sites/neilhowe...y-the-numbers/

Want to hire someone on a hunch? Good luck convincing your Gen-X boss. To make your case, you’ll need proof—and it better be qualitative. Under the direction of Xer managers, many of whom assumed leadership roles in business during the Great Recession, the workplace is becoming more numbers-driven than ever.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

If we reduce our labor force, how are those who've been "reduced" out of the labor force going to get the wherewithal to pay for housing, food, clothing, etc.... i.e. consume?

I know you favor a return to the 1950s model with a one-wage-earner family. However, with fewer of us living in traditional families with children, that's not a viable model. Single person households are a huge and growing part of our demographic.

Look around. Those people will have to team up, either with each other or someone else. This individualized style of life of far too unstable. People don't get to choose their model, reality happens and they make a model to conform with reality.

Our technology is supposed to save us time and labor. But so far, it has just meant that the bosses can make us more productive and work longer hours, and fire more people. The key is to move away from the free market model. That ideology says that the people through their government should not interfere with the economy, and the bosses should be allowed to get rich and do whatever they want, so that the benefits will trickle down. But the benefits don't trickle. We need to "interfere;" we need to act together to create the economy that we want. We need to require the bosses to share the benefits of technology through higher wages, so we can earn more by working fewer hours, since fewer hours are needed to accomplish the tasks that need to be done; thanks to the technology which the bosses did not invent and did not develop. That also means making unions stronger and encouraged rather than discouraged by law, and instituting fair trade policies and a stronger safety net.

There are other measures we need to take, such as more employee ownership, and more sustainable lifestyles and values; but that's a big one. Educate people about the falsehood of the trickle-down model. Ditch the free market model by throwing its apologists (Republicans and DINOs) out of office. End gerrymandering so this can be done in a fair vote, not in a system in which politicians draw their own district boundaries in order to perpetuate themselves in office.

Originally Posted by Dan '82

He has an article up at Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/sites/neilhowe...y-the-numbers/

"We have met the enemy and he is us" quoth the burned out, org-flattened, overworked, underpaid, oblivion-bound, Xer low level manager. Is that heart burn, or .... ???

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Our technology is supposed to save us time and labor. But so far, it has just meant that the bosses can make us more productive and work longer hours, and fire more people. The key is to move away from the free market model. That ideology says that the people through their government should not interfere with the economy, and the bosses should be allowed to get rich and do whatever they want, so that the benefits will trickle down. But the benefits don't trickle. We need to "interfere;" we need to act together to create the economy that we want. We need to require the bosses to share the benefits of technology through higher wages, so we can earn more by working fewer hours, since fewer hours are needed to accomplish the tasks that need to be done; thanks to the technology which the bosses did not invent and did not develop. That also means making unions stronger and encouraged rather than discouraged by law, and instituting fair trade policies and a stronger safety net.

There are other measures we need to take, such as more employee ownership, and more sustainable lifestyles and values; but that's a big one. Educate people about the falsehood of the trickle-down model. Ditch the free market model by throwing its apologists (Republicans and DINOs) out of office. End gerrymandering so this can be done in a fair vote, not in a system in which politicians draw their own district boundaries in order to perpetuate themselves in office.

I believe most of us are already educated about said falsehood. But they feel they have nowhere else to turn and literally no choice. Sad but true, but unless one has accumulated a vast amount of savings, they're right! And when was the last time it was really in vogue for us to be savers? Don't believe it's been in my lifetime although the GI's were probably better at it than those who have succeeded. And since interest on savings is taxable, there is really little incentive to do so. The years ahead are going to be like a test with a tough question. And the way I see it that tough question is: What are our options for getting the obstacles and problems we now face?

Originally Posted by Kepi

Look around. Those people will have to team up, either with each other or someone else. This individualized style of life of far too unstable. People don't get to choose their model, reality happens and they make a model to conform with reality.

Not a viable option. Jobs can be destroyed much faster than the workforce can adjust. It only took three years to reduce a 3,000 person workforce to 600, with a target of 200 not far off. This is order-of-magnitude type declines. Buddying up can't fix that, and starvation will not be found acceptable, so count on the great leveler: crime ... and lots of it.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Our technology is supposed to save us time and labor. But so far, it has just meant that the bosses can make us more productive and work longer hours, and fire more people. The key is to move away from the free market model. That ideology says that the people through their government should not interfere with the economy, and the bosses should be allowed to get rich and do whatever they want, so that the benefits will trickle down. But the benefits don't trickle. We need to "interfere;" we need to act together to create the economy that we want. We need to require the bosses to share the benefits of technology through higher wages, so we can earn more by working fewer hours, since fewer hours are needed to accomplish the tasks that need to be done; thanks to the technology which the bosses did not invent and did not develop. That also means making unions stronger and encouraged rather than discouraged by law, and instituting fair trade policies and a stronger safety net.

There are other measures we need to take, such as more employee ownership, and more sustainable lifestyles and values; but that's a big one. Educate people about the falsehood of the trickle-down model. Ditch the free market model by throwing its apologists (Republicans and DINOs) out of office. End gerrymandering so this can be done in a fair vote, not in a system in which politicians draw their own district boundaries in order to perpetuate themselves in office.

Dumping the capitalist model is a viable answer, but easier said than done. We just had a major disruptor in 2008, and the capitalist are doing even better now than before. Getting human beings to vote in their own self interest seems simple enough, but that isn't happening either. Demographics seem to favor a change, but not soon.

Have a beer. You'll need it, and it will fill some of the wait time.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Dumping the capitalist model is a viable answer, but easier said than done. We just had a major disruptor in 2008, and the capitalist are doing even better now than before. Getting human beings to vote in their own self interest seems simple enough, but that isn't happening either. Demographics seem to favor a change, but not soon.

Have a beer. You'll need it, and it will fill some of the wait time.

First, please reference my post of an hour or so ago as to what I feel is the big question for our times.

Second, the "we have met the enemy" reference on this thread also seems apropos as so many have indeed voted against their best interests. But the more I think about it the more I feel that the primary reason for this is because the Republithugs or whatever you wish to call them lured them in hook, line and sinker with their gospel of lower taxes, which is something everybody likes the thought of. No one, regardless of political stripe, will admit to wanting to give more to the government than they absolutely have to.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Not a viable option. Jobs can be destroyed much faster than the workforce can adjust. It only took three years to reduce a 3,000 person workforce to 600, with a target of 200 not far off. This is order-of-magnitude type declines. Buddying up can't fix that, and starvation will not be found acceptable, so count on the great leveler: crime ... and lots of it.

Except neither rent, nor crime has raised. The speed doesn't seem to be a major factor.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Not a viable option. Jobs can be destroyed much faster than the workforce can adjust. It only took three years to reduce a 3,000 person workforce to 600, with a target of 200 not far off. This is order-of-magnitude type declines. Buddying up can't fix that, and starvation will not be found acceptable, so count on the great leveler: crime ... and lots of it.

I'm an example of that reduction.