Not sure how I missed that Neil did the Millie post a week ago. Nothing real new here for members of this forum I guess, but anyway:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/neilhowe...n-part-6-of-7/
The Millennial Generation, "Keep Calm and Carry On" (Part 6 of 7)
"Keep Calm and Carry On" is right. I have been "raising up" a number of mid-late 80s cohorts in the work realm. This is the most mature outlook I've seen with people in their mid to late 20s at any point in my career. I had the unique perspective of having had my own business as a teen,prior to my "adult career," and therefore, I got to know workers in that age group during the entire span of the late 1970s to present. So I got to see Boomers, Xers and now Millies in that age range, in the real world, on various jobs. A number of my proteges have also been veterans and some still in the Reserves, so that may also factor in.Originally Posted by Bronco80
I'll go ahead and post his entire concluding post:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/neilhowe...p-part-7-of-7/
Born to Be Better Off Than Your Parents? A Recap (Part 7 of 7)
This is the final part of a seven-part series examining the rising (or falling) living standards of successive U.S. generations. Read part one here.
Let’s step back. What can we learn from these generational narratives?
First, the declining generational trend in median affluence is not a new development.Media stories often imply that post-2008 Millennials are the first generation of young adults to experience “downward mobility.” Most Xers already know that’s BS. Some have penned eloquent and barely printable responses pointing out that not only did Xers get “f—d over,” but that—unlike Millennials—“Generation X wasn’t surprised. Generation X was kind of expecting it.” Which is why so few of them complained, except maybe in an old Winona Ryder movie.
Yet, as we’ve seen, even Xers get it wrong: The first cohort group to fall behind was not the Breakfast Club (born in the early ‘60s), but the Madonna- and Michael Jackson-age kids at the tail end of the Boom (born in the mid-to-late ‘50s). As youth, they got buffeted young by the turmoil of the ‘60s. Coming of age, they got slammed by the Ford-Carter stagflation and ultimately started careers much later than first-wave Boomers. More recently, they’ve become 50somethings aiming to retire later in hopes of retiring comfortably—or, abandoning hope, “retiring” early in record numbers on Disability Insurance.
Five years from now, this leading edge of generational downward mobility will begin hitting retirement age. More than a decade ago, Craig Karpel foresaw that many former yuppies were destined to become “dumpies” (downwardly mobile urban middle-aged people). That era dawns. According to Pew, “early Boomers may be the last generation on track to exceed the wealth of the cohorts that came before them and to enjoy a secure retirement.”
Second, the relative affluence of today’s elderly is historically unprecedented.Behold the flip side of the declining lifecycle fortunes of younger generations. Never before have Americans age 75+ had a higher median household net worth than that of any younger age bracket. And never before have poverty rates among seniors been so much lower than among the young. In 1985, 12% of Forbes’ richest 400 Americans were under age 50—and 4% were under age 40. Today those figures are 8% and 2%, respectively. In fact, though Xers today outnumber the Silent by over 3-to-1, the Silent collectively possess nearly twice as much wealth.Total Household Net Worth in 2010 by Generation
Understandably, today’s elders have become economic backstops for their grown kids and grandkids—subsidizing them, housing them, co-signing their loans, funding extended-family vacations, and setting up college trust funds. The Silent Generation came of age in an era (the early 1960s) when the elderly were vastly more impoverished than younger Americans—hence the need to declare a federal “war” on their destitution. Today, many Silent find themselves waging their own campaign against youth poverty within their own families.
Third, Generation X is currently in the greatest danger.I began this series by asking which generation is worst off economically. The answer, I think, isn’t Millennials. Few were old enough to lose much wealth in the recent crash. And though they’re encountering a very rough start, they have decades to make up lost earnings and savings. Barring a catastrophic national future, they should be OK.
I’m more worried about Gen Xers, who were hit harder and at a more vulnerable stage in their lives—considering that a large share were not doing well to begin with. Many have become detached from the labor force. Most are used to getting by on their own without recourse to safety nets. And the oldest Xers don’t have much time left to repair their balance sheets before retirement.
Policies targeted at this generation (Americans today aged roughly 35 to 55) should therefore be a national priority—and should emphasize self-help and labor force reattachment. Such policies, at relatively modest cost, might include enlarging the EITC, expanding refinancing options for underwater homeowners, allowing the nondisabled employed to buy in to Medicaid coverage, and slashing student-loan interest rates on continuing education for older adults. We need to help millions of Xers save more, find jobs, and even re-engage with our political system.
Finally, the American Dream is reimagined by each generation.There was a time when young adults defined the Dream as a bigger home and a bigger pension for everybody. Millennials don’t talk as much about homes and pensions— and certainly not for everybody. They’re more drawn to social networks and peer-to-peer sharing—things that they like, yes, but also that they know they can all afford. In recent decades, Boomers and Xers have gradually redefined the Dream as more qualitative than quanti*tative—and more private than public. As goes the Dream, so goes the direction of our nation. We’ve become an economy less focused on building things for our collective future and less interested in the prosperity of younger generations. Remarkably, despite the unprecedented relative wealth of today’s seniors, Congress continues to spend massively on them: Over one-third of the federal budget consists of benefit payments to 65+ Americans. That’s well over $1 trillion, or about $25,000 per person—mostly without regard to financial need. Meanwhile, future-related spending is getting all but squeezed out of public budgets, causing infrastructure to rust and an alarming share of today’s college students to drop out or rush to food banks out of dire need.
As a brute economic proposition, the prospects for America’s younger generations are unlikely to improve until our nation invests as much in the young for what they will do tomorrow as it rewards the old for what they did yesterday. A half-century ago, we were such a nation. Might we become one again? I expect that, in time, the American Dream will shift back again. I already see many signs of this happening among Millennials—in their higher savings rates, desire for community, and closer connection to family life. As voters and leaders, this rising generation will sooner or later galvanize a change in that direction.
Like I wrote on another thread, Millies are going to lay down the law. First they will thin out the law book, jettisoning feel-good ineffective statutes. New statutes that punish sacred cows for crimes against Humanity will emerge. A whole new generation of Archie Bunkers (but more Communitarian in nature) will take over. Boomers liked to make fun of people like Archie Bunker but people like that character were the salt of the Earth and the cycle WILL repeat. God Bless America.
Cows? I don't quite follow. So are you saying we will have a Hindu Archie Bunker? I'm confused. Then again, meathead here ;-)
Those were the dayz......
Last edited by Anc' Mariner; 09-17-2014 at 07:54 PM.
See, I told you I deserved to die because I was better off than X...
LifeCourse just put together that entire series in a document in case anyone's interested.
http://www.lifecourse.com/assets/fil...an%20Dream.pdf
And now Neil is taking on the Homies:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/neilhowe...n-part-1-of-2/
Introducing the Homeland Generation (Part 1 of 2)
They are growing up sort of lonely, especially in the middle and high income communities. The ratio of adults to kids now is huge. This will help them in interacting with older generations but will cripple them in dealing with peers. I can already see they will lack a solid generational identity (even we Xers had an identity, albeit a negative "anti-identity" - fitting of the anti-Hero archetype). Yes, neo-Silents, by another type of nomenclature.
http://www.theatlantic.com/education...ngle_page=true
Why Millennials Fucking Love Science
Seems about right to me--though by the time the 2T rolls along this could end up being a Millie weakness.Millennials are also attending college, and planning to attend graduate school, in unprecedented numbers; a 2010 Pew Research Center survey states that "millennials may be on track to emerge as the most educated generation ever." They came of age watching Bill Nye the Science Guy, and their highly involved parents (and a sluggish economy with no jobs) inspired them to pursue higher education. For people curious about the world, and with access to a lot of information, that often leads them to scientific fields. "If you see the nation’s report card and the change in scores, millennials have much greater improvement in science in math than in reading and writing," said Neil Howe, a historian and economist who has published extensively on generational shifts and society.
The last generation to make a disproportionate number of scientific discoveries was the G.I. generation, born between 1901 and 1924. From events like the 1939 World’s Fair and the Manhattan Project, science quickly entered the social consciousness as the best way to make life better overall. Young people in the late 1940s and 1950s were "really good at solving big things," says Howe. "They thought they could make a better world because they were optimistic, community minded, and cooperative among peers. They had a vision of the future that can be proved through science."
This comparison between the G.I. generation and millennials is apt, Howe said, because of the two groups’ shared conviction that science is the way to improve the world. "What millennials really like about science is its ability to take an innovation and make the whole world, or community, a better place," Howe said. It’s a logic that’s hard to dispute: By its nature, science holds some of the only solutions that are applicable across national, religious and cultural boundaries.
[...]
Most millennials are still early in their careers, so it remains to be seen how this fascination with science will manifest itself. Howe has a few ideas. "Obviously one issue that millennials will put their talents toward solving is climate change," Howe said. "But it could be some other issue, something that comes up overnight." As an analog from the G.I. Generation, Howe referenced the Manhattan project as the "one thing the best and brightest worked on that no one knew we would need until 1941 [the start of World War II]."
Whatever millennials decide to do, sites like IFLS show that they’re already changing the way Americans look at science. As Howe puts it, "These generations are different, and they take society in different directions."
Here's the website in question: http://www.iflscience.com/
Last edited by Bronco80; 10-29-2014 at 11:16 AM.
Generation Geek, and that is stated with great fondness!
An update on the financial status of the Silent Generation:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-1...age-group.html
Consequently, 9.5 percent of Americans 65 and older were in poverty in 2013, lower than any other age group, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. That compares with 35 percent in 1959, when they had the highest poverty rate.
‘Fascinating Contrast’
Back then, “the poor people were old,” said Neil Howe, a demographer and president of Saeculum Research in Great Falls, Virginia. “That’s a really fascinating contrast with today.”
[...]
Still, the boon during their high-savings years has helped keep them afloat, said Howe.
“The Silents have done very well, and a lot of it has just been their location in history,” he said. “They planned ahead, they were risk averse, they played by the rules and the system worked for them.”
Great, and just like those Lost Generation old folks back in the 1950s and 60s, X will also be a poor set of old folks.
He just had to throw out the "militant neo-Keynesian" line, but it's still a useful article. As you know, I compare today to the 1930s all the time.
Also, for space concerns I'm omitting copying the graphs from the article. Check them out for sure--the message is that the US has done better today than during the Great Depression, but the UK and eurozone have done worse.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/neilhowe...ing-the-1930s/
Are We Reliving The 1930s?
At the close of last week’s G20 Summit, U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron warned that we’re on the verge of another global recession, citing problems like looming deflation, falling prices, and rising protectionist sentiment. This list evokes a sense of déjà vu: not about the Great Recession, but the Great Depression. That was the last time we ever seriously worried about disinflation, along with every practically other aspect of economic performance raising alarm bells today: low interest rates, weak investment, slow productivity growth, and chronic labor force detachment.
To be sure, this isn’t an easy comparison to swallow. The Great Depression is the ultimate measuring rod of economic catastrophe to which every other downturn is compared. But as time goes by and forecasts of full recovery keep getting deferred like an ever-fading mirage, it’s one worth examining. How does the Great Depression of the 1930s compare with the Great Recession of the 2010s? Let’s look at the GDPs of the U.S., U.K., and continental Western Europe from 1929 on and from 2007 on, using the base year as an index.
A few contrasts stand out. First, the Great Depression triggered much deeper drops in GDP and employment rates in the United States than in any major European country. The peak-to-trough drop in the United States from 1929 to 1933 was a stunning 26 percentage points of GDP, versus only 11 points in Europe and 6 points in the U.K. The employment drops were similar. Second, in both Europe and especially the United States, the depth of the Great Depression was much greater than the depth of the Great Recession. Only in the U.K. was the GDP loss roughly the same.
Yet these figures don’t mean that the Depression was definitely worse. Though it was deeper, it was also shorter than the Great Recession in the U.K. and in Europe—and it likely will be shorter than the Great Reces*sion in the United States. The recovery in the ‘30s occurred much faster than it has in recent years. In the U.K., GDP was already back above its 1929 level by 1934, five years after the recession began. Europe met that milestone by 1935, six years after their recession began. Today, Eur*ope is going into its seventh year of recession and still has not regained its 2007 GDP level. In the United States, we remain better off today (relative to before the crash) than during the Great Depression, but that’s due to the severity of the early drop.
What’s more, from 1933 on, U.S. GDP grew at a blistering average rate of over 8% per year for the next eight years. And that includes one recession year: 1938. By 1941, 12 years after the Great Depression began, U.S. GDP was 41% higher than its pre-downturn figure. This is almost certainly a much higher level, relative to 1929, than the United States will see by 2019, relative to 2007.
My point is not to diminish the magnitude of the Great Depression. It was certainly more terrifying, especially in its early years and in the social restlessness and political radicalism it spawned. But we can no longer think of it as longer-lasting: Bad times are shaping the temperament of a new rising generation around the world today just as surely as the original Great Depression did back then.
So perhaps a new nomenclature is in order. Instead of calling this the “Great Recession,” maybe we should call it the “Long Depression.” Paul Krugman, who has often pointed how much worse Europe is doing today than it was in the 1930s, coined the term “Lesser Depression” for our post-2007 experience. Brad DeLong, Krugman’s kindred spirit at UC Berkeley, also adopted this expression—until inventing yet punchier ones, like “The Second Great Depression” and “The Greater Depression.”
For Krugman and DeLong, such dire relabeling has (at least in part) one very specific objective: to shock voters and leaders into supporting the sort of massive fiscal stimulus they have long advocated. But you don’t have to be a militant neo-Keynesian to see the numbers for what they are—and to appreciate that the world has entered an era of grinding economic crisis since 2008 whose social and political consequences have yet to fully unfold.
Seeing the two “depressions” as historically and generationally comparable, makes it easier to recognize other similarities between the 1930s and the 2010s. Many are economic, as we have seen. But others are demographic (falling fertility, migration, and mobility). Still others are social (growing localism, income inequality, and distrust of elites; stronger families; and declines in personal risk-taking). And still others, ominously, are geopolitical (rising isolationism, nationalism, and authoritarianism, and the unraveling of any “world order” consensus).
The confluence of all these trends is not accidental. In general, each trend happens because most of the others are happening at the same time. The era as a whole, therefore, has its own internal logic, which doesn’t allow the component pieces to change much until the whole system changes and transforms into a new era. In my writings on generations and history, I call these sequential eras “seasons” or “turnings.” And right now, America and most of the rest of the world is in the winter season or the “Fourth Turning.”
These parallels between eras are so numerous and striking that they are hard to miss once we look broadly at the direction of events. That’s why connecting the economic challenges of the 1930s with those of the 2010s, and seeing them as comparable in some respects, makes a difference. When we are connected to history, we can comprehend better what else is happening in the 2010s, predict better what is likely to happen next, and to figure out, if necessary, how we can avoid an outcome that we regard as especially dangerous.
Chilling.
And this time around the nukes (and in the case of Axis countries, proscribed chemical and biological weapons as well) are already deployed, and ready for the start of real war.
I was finally getting around to tallying up the generational results of the 2014 election (now that I'm in a better mood about it), and while I was doing so Neil finally got around to his take on it:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/neilhowe...nate-congress/Incoming Gen Xers Rejuvenate Congress
The midterms are over and a Republican tsunami has wiped out Democrats from Capitol Hill and many state governments. These results were largely expected. What was unexpected was the sharp decline—against trend—in the average age of Congress. A new influx of 40-something Gen-X Republicans is rejuvenating America’s political leadership. The rise of this surprisingly conservative generation of politicians is part of a broader narrative, foreshadowing a future—lasting over at least the next decade— in which Boomer leaders are stepping down and Millennials are not yet old enough to take the helm.
The midterm results represent a historic victory for the Republican Party.The last time the GOP held such a large majority in both houses of Congress was in 1928. For state legislators and state legislative chambers, it was 1920. And the GOP’s treasure trove of 32 governorships is just short of the record 34 they held in 1922.
A variety of factors converged this election cycle that practically guaranteed a banner year for Republicans. For starters, Democrats couldn’t shake Obama’s dire approval ratings or the midterm penalty this election cycle. They also faced an uphill battle with more Senate seats on the chopping block, pushing the odds in the GOP’s favor. And midterm turnout generally favors GOP-leaning groups—a pattern evident in the final turnout numbers of men, whites, and older voters. What’s more, some traditionally Democratic-leaning groups shifted support to Republicans, namely Asians and Millennials in their early 20s. And finally, voter turnout was unusually low at only 36.4%—the lowest for a national election since 1942.
While pundits obsessed over the dimensions of the GOP victory, very few noticed a striking downturn in the average congressional age. In recent decades, this number has been generally rising. In 2009, the 111th Congress was the oldest in U.S. history, with an average age of 57.4 in the House and 63.4 in the Senate. This is a far cry from 1814, when the average Representative was 44.9 and Senator was 46.2. In part, this trend simply reflects the overall aging of the population. But in the past couple of elections, we’ve witnessed a reversal in this trend. For example, the average age dropped from 62.8 to 61.7 in the 113th Senate. Furthermore, the new entrants are getting younger. The average age of the 113th congressional freshmen was 52.3 and this year’s batch was 50.6. (If you’re interested in these age-of-leadership numbers, check out our American Leadership Database.)
A closer look at both parties reveals that the GOP has been driving this age drop. While Democrats continued to age up, Republicans became younger. This started with the 113th freshman class: Averaging the ages of both Senators and Representatives, Republicans and Democrats came in at 51.7 and 52.4, respectively. The average age of this year’s pack of young Republicans is 49.9—even further below the Democratic average (52.3). These young GOP entrants are also replacing older congressmen. This year’s new Senators are 16 years younger than their predecessors on average. Indeed, some of these 40ish Xers are decades younger than the 70ish Boomers and Silent they are replacing. The partisan gap is even more striking among the dozen or so party leaders in each chamber. The average age of Democratic House leaders is 64, over a decade older than the average age of Republican House leaders (53).
So why are today’s incoming batch of younger leaders so disproportionately Republican? To some extent, a major victory naturally favors the younger leaders of the winning party. But that’s not all: GOP affiliation seems to be a generational trait among Xer politicians. It turns out that Xers as elected leaders, born in the ‘60s and ‘70s, have consistently leaned Republican since they began running for office in the ‘90s. Of all Xers who have ever served in the House, 60.2% are Republican. Among state governors, that rises to 70.6%.
Xer leaders also tilt Republican because their generation as a whole has tended to vote Republican over the course of their lives—certainly more than first-wave Millennials or Boomers. This voting preference has no doubt been shaped by their location in history. Ever since they grew up as latchkey kids in the ‘70s and came of age under Reagan in the ‘80s, Xers (first-wavers, especially) have prided themselves on their pragmatism, survivalism, and skepticism of big institutions—traits that align better with the GOP than the Democratic Party. New York Times columnist David Brooks suggests that the Republican tilt of Gen-X leaders may be further accentuated by their strong connection to conservative cornerstones like churches, small businesses, and the military.
Notwithstanding, the recent election does hold some signs of hope for Democrats—particularly those on the Elizabeth Warren side of the party. This year, voters in Oregon, Alaska, and Washington, D.C. legalized marijuana, rallying many libertarian Xers to the Democratic ticket. Meanwhile, voters in four red-leaning states passed legislation to raise the state-level minimum wage. The passage of these liberal initiatives—some winning with as much as 69% of the vote—is a glimmer of hope for Democrats struggling toward 2016.
Ultimately, however, this election could be a sign that the next decade will be dominated by Xer voters and leaders. And thus far, these voters and leaders have leaned Republican. One sign of this partisan edge is how many Republican presidential hopefuls under age 55 are crowding up to run in 2016. The GOP’s starting lineup is likely to feature a string of relatively youthful and nationally prominent governors and congressmen, including Chris Christie (52), Rand Paul (51), Scott Walker (47), Marco Rubio (43), Bobby Jindal (43), Ted Cruz (43), and Nikki Haley (42). Meanwhile, the Democratic bench, featuring Boomers and Silent like Elizabeth Warren (65), Hillary Clinton (67), Jim Webb (68), Joe Biden (72), and Bernie Sanders (73), looks a little empty—and gray.
The Nomads are simply crashing out at the GOP's apartment out of expediency. If there were an actual party that truly embodied Nomad sensibilities the Nomads would be all over it and the GOP would be history. Well since there is not such a party maybe all these new Nomads (and eventually new Millies) will co-opt the GOP and transform it into something else.
I didn't think this was one of Neil's strongest pieces, at least with respect to the theory, so I'm just going to link it here.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/neilhowe...llennials-win/
If Comcast Loses, Millennials Win
I'm nearly 20 years older than the oldest Millies ... however ....
- Too far out in the sticks for DSL ... and stuck with Comcast ... check
- No TV usage, to speak of ... check
- Stream content frequently ... check
- Suspicious to hell of Comcast ... check (the only time I've ever doubted VPN is when running it through Comcast infrastructure. I have long suspected that Cisco and Comcast did a secret deal whereby Comcast got a backdoor into VPN ... in order to be able to throttle anyone's data flow at will).
Same here. I chucked cable because:
1. When I get home on the weekends @2:00 AM, nothings on except for inane "paid programming". Do folks actually buy the crap that's being hawked?
2. The History Channel should be renamed the tin foil hat channel.
3. Too many tropes involving dumb guys messing with dangerous wild animals.
4. Too many tropes involving "what is this old piece of crap"? American Pickers/Pawn Stars
5. Worthless MSM
MBTI step II type : Expressive INTP
There's an annual contest at Bond University, Australia, calling for the most appropriate definition of a contemporary term:
The winning student wrote:
"Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a piece of shit by the clean end."
I've witnessed the demise of the history channel for the last 10 painful years. I had already lost A&E and TLC, but I never though I'd lose the history channel. It started kind of slowly, lots of "Monster quest" entertainment. Then the ghost hunters and aliens invaded, next came the stupid job reality shows, then the old junk shows, now they're at the weird redneck reality stage. I fear what's coming next.1. When I get home on the weekends @2:00 AM, nothings on except for inane "paid programming". Do folks actually buy the crap that's being hawked?
2. The History Channel should be renamed the tin foil hat channel.
3. Too many tropes involving dumb guys messing with dangerous wild animals.
4. Too many tropes involving "what is this old piece of crap"? American Pickers/Pawn Stars
5. Worthless MSM
The only channel that ever shows history is H2 and at like 4 in the morning. They usually show their older programs from the 90s.
The science channel is heading in the same direction. I mean I love space shows, but that's practically all they ever show these days when they're not showing ancient aliens or some conspiracy crap.
Oh yeah, someone wrote a really amusing blog about this:
http://www.aoltv.com/2008/01/21/tv-1...ened-to-aande/
I think extended cable led to this ironically. So many niche channels with different subjects, eventually regular cable ended up becoming very formulaic in order to keep the remaining audience it had. Now extended cable is heading in that direction because the internet is stealing away their viewers.
Just as I suspected. Pay TV is becoming just like broadcast TV. Why pay just for more crap, and more commercials too? Our culture is dying.
Lately there has been talk of cable providing al la carte packages. People are getting fed up with 400 channels all showing the National Junk Network aka Antiques Road Show. I still don't think getting away from bundling i going to save them long term however.
Last edited by herbal tee; 12-18-2014 at 10:40 AM.
Cable has three markets:
- Broadband. Until the idea finally sinks-in that broadband is better handled by anyone other than a telco or cable company, they own this market for most of us.
- Sports. Most of the premium service sports packages are still cable/satellite only - because the fans are willing to pay.
- Movies. You can go the Redbox route, or you're stuck with streaming (see item 1) or cable/satellite.
All other programming is superfluous, including news. If we ever decide that we need broadband that's as good as it is in Seoul Korea (13 seconds to download a 2-hour HD movie), Comcast, Verizon and all the rest will be screwed.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.
