Generational Dynamics
Fourth Turning Forum Archive


Popular links:
Generational Dynamics Web Site
Generational Dynamics Forum
Fourth Turning Archive home page
New Fourth Turning Forum

Thread: Evidence We're in a Third--or Fourth--Turning - Page 163







Post#4051 at 09-19-2002 12:21 PM by Child of Socrates [at Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort joined Sep 2001 #posts 14,092]
---
09-19-2002, 12:21 PM #4051
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort
Posts
14,092

Well, a little searching found this from the good Governor Moonbeam. ;-)







Post#4052 at 09-19-2002 12:53 PM by [at joined #posts ]
---
09-19-2002, 12:53 PM #4052
Guest

Is this a generational thing?

Quote Originally Posted by Kiff '61
My own household is deeply split. My Boomer husband, who once worked on Jerry Brown's presidential campaign, wants us to go in there and kick the s*** out of Saddam. I understand where a lot of the pro-war sentiment is coming from, but my gut is also telling me that this is wrong...

Is this a generational thing?

"I Didn?t Raise My Boy to Be a Soldier"

This song, published in 1915, was a big hit as America contemplated entry into the "Great War", a time -- if Strauss and Howe are right -- reflected roughly the same generational constellation as the year, 2002. The words were written by Alfred Bryan (1871-1958), and the music by Al Piantadosi (1884-1955). The singer? Lost, of course, Edward Morton.

HTH. :wink:







Post#4053 at 09-19-2002 02:16 PM by Glass Joe [at la France joined Sep 2002 #posts 135]
---
09-19-2002, 02:16 PM #4053
Join Date
Sep 2002
Location
la France
Posts
135

the florida primary election, at least, seems very 3T - almost like a recap of 2000 (including players Janet Reno and JEB Bush); i just have the feeling that if it were 4T, the anomalous election system in Florida would be taken seriously and decisive action would be taken to combat it instead of people making jokes about and putting Band-Aids on the problem







Post#4054 at 09-19-2002 02:24 PM by Number Two [at joined Jul 2002 #posts 446]
---
09-19-2002, 02:24 PM #4054
Join Date
Jul 2002
Posts
446

Re: Is this a generational thing?

Quote Originally Posted by Marc Lamb
Quote Originally Posted by Kiff '61
My own household is deeply split. My Boomer husband, who once worked on Jerry Brown's presidential campaign, wants us to go in there and kick the s*** out of Saddam. I understand where a lot of the pro-war sentiment is coming from, but my gut is also telling me that this is wrong...

Is this a generational thing?

"I Didn’t Raise My Boy to Be a Soldier"

This song, published in 1915, was a big hit as America contemplated entry into the "Great War", a time -- if Strauss and Howe are right -- reflected roughly the same generational constellation as the year, 2002. The words were written by Alfred Bryan (1871-1958), and the music by Al Piantadosi (1884-1955). The singer? Lost, of course, Edward Morton.

HTH. :wink:
same generational lineup (87-year gap)? seems like a little bit of a stretch to me... (does the math)
Previous saeculum's Gilded generation: 1822 - 1842; this would place this saeculum's *LOST* generation at 1909 - 1929 (the last few years may be Civic/GI) - all right, this may be a little anomalous due to the Civil War anomaly)
Previous saeculum's Progressive generation: 1843 - 1859; this would place this saeculum's Silent generation at 1930 - 1946 (again those first few years may be Civic/GI); fairly reasonable
Previous saeculum's Missionary generation: 1860 - 1882; this would place the Boomers at 1947 - 1969 (seriously here, how many LATE 60s cohorts consider themselves Boomers?); these numbers get even worse if you consider the next few cohorts to be more missionary than lost
Previous saeculum's Lost generation: 1883 - 1900; this would place the Xrs at 1970 - 1987, but again, keeping in mind that definitely the first few (2 or 3 at least, possibly more) "GI" cohorts are more Nomadic, this places 1989 cohorts into Generation X - I just don't see that happening :-)
and finally, previous saeculum's GI generation: 1901 - 1924; this would cause Millies to keep on being born past 2010!

these numbers DO seem a bit late...







Post#4055 at 09-19-2002 03:04 PM by Stonewall Patton [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 3,857]
---
09-19-2002, 03:04 PM #4055
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
3,857

Live, in concert: JUNIOR!!!!!!!









Post#4056 at 09-19-2002 03:54 PM by Stonewall Patton [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 3,857]
---
09-19-2002, 03:54 PM #4056
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
3,857

http://reuters.com/news_article.jhtm...toryID=1471464

(For educ. and discussion)


U.S. Slams German Minister for Bush-Hitler Comment

September 19, 2002 01:41 PM ET


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush's spokesman on Thursday expressed outrage that Germany's justice minister drew a link between Bush's saber-rattling on Iraq to the tactics used by Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler.

Spokesman Ari Fleischer said the United States and Germany have long had a strong relationship, "but this statement by the justice minister is outrageous and is inexplicable."

The regional Schwaebisches Tagblatt newspaper quoted German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder's justice minister, Herta Daeubler-Gmelin, as saying "Bush wants to divert attention from his domestic problems. It's a classic tactic. It's one that Hitler used."

The Bush administration has been none too pleased that criticizing the United States over Iraq has been a key campaign plank for Schroeder in his re-election battle but has refrained from publicly commenting on the issue.







Post#4057 at 09-19-2002 07:57 PM by Mikebert [at Kalamazoo MI joined Jul 2001 #posts 4,502]
---
09-19-2002, 07:57 PM #4057
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Kalamazoo MI
Posts
4,502

Quote Originally Posted by Justin '77
Mike,

I can't help but notice the utter lack of units on your graph's y-axis. Are you comparing apples to oranges? Do you even know for sure what it is you are comparing?

Consider: A decent set of clothes and sandals in Roman times cost about 1 oz of gold. A suit and shoes today (roughly the same function -- much higher quality) costs about the price of an ounce of gold. 'Price' has remained stable, but the quality has gone way up. It's still not a terribly good comparison, but I've yet to see any data which contradicts myearlier statement.
The y axis is a the log of a price index. It is labeled as such. Price indices are dimensionless quantities, the value they have is entirely arbitrary. How can one take a logarithm of a dimensional quantity. What is the logarithm of a quart?

For a price index some arbitrary year is defined as "100", "1" or whatever, and the index proceeds from there. The actual value of the log of the price index means nothing in and of itself. The whole point was to look at the shape of the plot.

How much do you know about economics?







Post#4058 at 09-20-2002 12:52 AM by Justin '77 [at Meh. joined Sep 2001 #posts 12,182]
---
09-20-2002, 12:52 AM #4058
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Meh.
Posts
12,182

Quote Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59
The y axis is a the log of a price index. It is labeled as such. Price indices are dimensionless quantities, the value they have is entirely arbitrary. How can one take a logarithm of a dimensional quantity. What is the logarithm of a quart?

For a price index some arbitrary year is defined as "100", "1" or whatever, and the index proceeds from there. The actual value of the log of the price index means nothing in and of itself. The whole point was to look at the shape of the plot.

How much do you know about economics?
A fair bit. I also know a fair bit about statistics. I also know a fair bit about the use and generation of dimensionless numbers.

That said, your dimensionless 'price index', to be at all meaningful, must bear some relation to the real world. "Price"?!? might I ask -- of what? in what? to whom?
Is this "price" the average sale price of all goods sold at time x? Does it take into account garage sales? Barter? Exchanges within money markets?

When I comment on the lack of a unit on the y-axis, I'm not criticizing your mathematics. Rather, I'm questioning the basis of your model. What does it tell us? Where did it come from? Is it a 'good' model?
"Qu'est-ce que c'est que cela, la loi ? On peut donc être dehors. Je ne comprends pas. Quant à moi, suis-je dans la loi ? suis-je hors la loi ? Je n'en sais rien. Mourir de faim, est-ce être dans la loi ?" -- Tellmarch

"Человек не может снять с себя ответственности за свои поступки." - L. Tolstoy

"[it]
is no doubt obvious, the cult of the experts is both self-serving, for those who propound it, and fraudulent." - Noam Chomsky







Post#4059 at 09-20-2002 07:36 AM by AlexMnWi [at Minneapolis joined Jun 2002 #posts 1,622]
---
09-20-2002, 07:36 AM #4059
Join Date
Jun 2002
Location
Minneapolis
Posts
1,622

Re: Is this a generational thing?

Quote Originally Posted by Number Two
same generational lineup (87-year gap)? seems like a little bit of a stretch to me... (does the math)
Previous saeculum's Gilded generation: 1822 - 1842; this would place this saeculum's *LOST* generation at 1909 - 1929 (the last few years may be Civic/GI) - all right, this may be a little anomalous due to the Civil War anomaly)
Previous saeculum's Progressive generation: 1843 - 1859; this would place this saeculum's Silent generation at 1930 - 1946 (again those first few years may be Civic/GI); fairly reasonable
Previous saeculum's Missionary generation: 1860 - 1882; this would place the Boomers at 1947 - 1969 (seriously here, how many LATE 60s cohorts consider themselves Boomers?); these numbers get even worse if you consider the next few cohorts to be more missionary than lost
Previous saeculum's Lost generation: 1883 - 1900; this would place the Xrs at 1970 - 1987, but again, keeping in mind that definitely the first few (2 or 3 at least, possibly more) "GI" cohorts are more Nomadic, this places 1989 cohorts into Generation X - I just don't see that happening :-)
and finally, previous saeculum's GI generation: 1901 - 1924; this would cause Millies to keep on being born past 2010!

these numbers DO seem a bit late...
Okay, if you actually line up the turning dates, (estimating a 2005 crisis, if you think it was 9/11 do your math) here is what you get:
GIs were 1901 to 1924, which would make Millies 1977-2000.
Silents were 1925-1942, which would make New Silents 2001-?.
Lost were 1883-1900, which would make Xers 1961-1976.
Missionaries were 1860-1882, which would make Boomers 1929-1960 (this is because of the shortness of the Civil War). If you just go 5 years back from 1946, you get 1941-1960.
Before then it gets tricky because of the civil war.
1987 INTP







Post#4060 at 09-20-2002 08:31 AM by Mikebert [at Kalamazoo MI joined Jul 2001 #posts 4,502]
---
09-20-2002, 08:31 AM #4060
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Kalamazoo MI
Posts
4,502

Oh I see what you meant. The data before 1264 is a an unweighted average of several agricultural prices, wheat, sows, barley, oxen and a couple of others. The data is understandably spotty way back then. I constructed the index myself from the prices themselves. A Canadian historian wrote a series of articles on 12th and 13th century prices in England back in the 1950's (I don't have the reference handy and I forget his name).

The data after 1264 is the famous index of British consumables by Phelps-Brown and Hopkins http://www.eh.net/hmit/ppowerbp/poundsource.php

I also have an index of consumer prices that begins in the mid 1700's that is based on Lord Beveridge's work. This index is averaged in with the Phelps Brown index on an equal-weight basis. In the 19th century I shift to American price indices. After 1913 the index is the familiar BLS CPI index.

I also have indices of British commodity prices, producer prices, and agricultural prices from the 16th ot 17th century forward. I did not combine these indices in the price index I plotted since what I am presenting is a type consumer price index, but they also show the same general shape with the major "price revolutions" at the same time.

The 16th century and Medieval "price revolutions" are well-known phenomenon. The American historian David Hackett Fischer has written an interesting book on them:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...qid=1032521244

Having gone through this I note you apparently are making the is/ought error. You made a general assertion about how prices behave. You provided no evidence for such a claim, you merely asserted it as if it was a well-known fact. What you were really saying was that prices ought to go down over the long haul, because this comports with what I believe.

I presented data on what historically recorded prices have done over time that shows basically a rising trend over time. I don't have any beliefs about what prices ought to do, I am interested in what they are going to actually do You question the data (the "is") because it does not agree with what "ought" to happen according to you beliefs.

The Ph.D. economists Glassman and Hassett (who I believe are libertarian-inclined) published a book in 2000 called Dow 36,000, in which they predicted that the Dow was undervalued and that it would rise to around 36,000 within five years or so. What they were really saying was that the Dow ought to rise to 36,000, according to their belief system.

I also wrote a book in 2000 which was subtitled "why stocks won't beat money markets over the next twenty years". My book was based on what stocks actually had done in the past, not on what I think they ought to do. I figure stocks are going to do whatever they will, regardless of what I or anyone else thinks is proper for them to do.

If the Dow reaches 36,000 anytime in the next 10-15 years they can still be right and I wrong. Only time will tell, but I will say I've won the first round







Post#4061 at 09-20-2002 11:06 AM by Justin '77 [at Meh. joined Sep 2001 #posts 12,182]
---
09-20-2002, 11:06 AM #4061
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Meh.
Posts
12,182

Mike,

Let's ignore the politics for the moment. The guys who wrote Dow 36000 were pretty deluded -- though, like yourself, they were just "looking at the historical data", from a much smaller period, granted. I argue two things. First, that you, too are falling into the same trap. What is it the mutual funds say? "Past performance is not an indicator of future returns"? Your data is interesting (now that I have some inkilng of what it is), but what does it tell us? Merely that, over an 800 year (or so) period, weighted indices of prices trended upwards. Without knowing and accounting for all the variables from that entire period, any general economic themes you draw which go outside descriptive history are as meaningful (though perhaps more plausible) as Dow 36000. And the nature of complex systems (such as economics -- the whole of humanity taking purposeful action) is such that you cannot account for (or even necessarily identify) all the variables.

That said, what is left? Economics, like geometry and mathematics, is based on axioms. Certain tautologies (such as the pythagorean theorem or the time preference) are elaborated as a means to understanding more intricate situations. Discovering and understanding the axioms involves the study of things as they are. The bible gives the value of pi a long time ago as exactly three. Geometry doesn't care.

Econometrics is a great way to make graphs, and does fairly well at maintaining trendlines. It cannot (and Dow 36000 is a great example, thanks) deal with changes to variables which it hasn't taken into account.
"Qu'est-ce que c'est que cela, la loi ? On peut donc être dehors. Je ne comprends pas. Quant à moi, suis-je dans la loi ? suis-je hors la loi ? Je n'en sais rien. Mourir de faim, est-ce être dans la loi ?" -- Tellmarch

"Человек не может снять с себя ответственности за свои поступки." - L. Tolstoy

"[it]
is no doubt obvious, the cult of the experts is both self-serving, for those who propound it, and fraudulent." - Noam Chomsky







Post#4062 at 09-20-2002 05:28 PM by Bob Butler 54 [at Cove Hold, Carver, MA joined Jul 2001 #posts 6,431]
---
09-20-2002, 05:28 PM #4062
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Cove Hold, Carver, MA
Posts
6,431

Quote Originally Posted by Justin '77
The bible gives the value of pi a long time ago as exactly three. Geometry doesn't care.
I'm not sure if the Bible cares, either. Divine Truth being Divine Truth, any conflict between God and mere man should always be presumed to be won by God, whether man knows this is so or not? ;-)

Do you have a book and verse refrence for the biblical psi = 3? I've heard several times that the Louisiana state legislature declared psi is 3 once long ago, but I'd never heard that God beat them to it.

Excuse me, gotta go, assuming the tires of my car havn't become hexagons...







Post#4063 at 09-20-2002 08:14 PM by Mikebert [at Kalamazoo MI joined Jul 2001 #posts 4,502]
---
09-20-2002, 08:14 PM #4063
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Kalamazoo MI
Posts
4,502

Look, this is what you wrote (emphasis mine):

"You can't starve a government which possesses a central bank. Where direct taxation is not feasible, a lowering of interest rates (ratcheting up the influx of 'credit' money into circulation) or otherwise debasing the currency will always provide the gov't with a source of additional funds.... In fact, you've got to wonder how much of its income the federal government derives from just such means. Considering the fact that the natural order of economics overall is a gradual decline in prices, yet currently a couple percent yearly inflation is considered normal, well... let's just say it's pretty clear Argentina's not alone."

It seems to me you are saying that in the absence of a central bank prices would fall naturally. Did I misinterpet what you said?

All I pointed out was that secular inflation can certainly happen (and has happened) without a central bank. That's all.

You then questioned whether or not this price inflation did occur. Now you say "Your data is interesting (now that I have some inkilng of what it is), but what does it tell us? Merely that, over an 800 year (or so) period, weighted indices of prices trended upwards."

This was precisely my point, that rising prices occurred during eras lacking central banks.

Then you write "Without knowing and accounting for all the variables from that entire period, any general economic themes you draw which go outside descriptive history are as meaningful (though perhaps more plausible) as Dow 36000."

But I am not trying to draw up a general economic theme. You are, with your statement that the natural order of economics overall is a gradual decline in prices. I simply presented the descriptive historythat prices have risen over time and that this inflation has happened both before and after central banks were on the scene. I also inferred that you must be using some sort of model to make your statement about price trends, since it was apparent you were unfamiliar with the history.

Then you make this statement: "Economics, like geometry and mathematics, is based on axioms." I am not sure I follow you here. Do you believe the natural sciences are based on axioms also? If not, why?

*******************************
About Dow 36,000. No, these authors were not deluded. And they did not use history to make their argument. Their argument was that history doesn't apply, it is different now. They did not say why they believed it was different now.







Post#4064 at 09-20-2002 11:34 PM by Starkk [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 61]
---
09-20-2002, 11:34 PM #4064
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
61

Bush Proposes U.S. Shift to First-Strike Military Policy

Bush Proposes U.S. Shift to First-Strike Military Policy


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp..._security_dc_4

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States should maintain forever its global military superiority and defeat terrorism by "destroying the threat before it reaches our borders," the Bush administration said on Friday in a new strategy document.

The report summarizes a doctrine that has evolved since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States and lies behind President Bush ( news - web sites)'s campaign to oust Iraqi President Saddam Hussein ( news - web sites).

The doctrine places fighting terrorism at the center of U.S. security policy and moves away from Cold War policies of deterrence and containment. It seeks to prevent terrorists from acquiring weapons of mass destruction and calls for pre-emptive strikes when necessary.

"The gravest danger our nation faces lies at the crossroads of radicalism and technology," the report says. "As a matter of common sense and self-defense, America will act against such emerging threats before they are fully formed."

It vows to defeat terrorists "by identifying and destroying the threat before it reaches our borders."

The report was made under a 1986 law that requires presidents to report on their security strategy to Congress.

The United States will work with allies to smash terrorist networks and punish states which harbor them, but will act alone "when our interests and unique responsibilities require," it says.

Bush said on Thursday the United States will act on its own against Iraq if he fails to get United Nations ( news - web sites) backing.

The report casts the United States as caught up in a battle within the Muslim world. Washington blames the Sept. 11 attacks on the al Qaeda network of Islamic militant Osama bin Laden ( news - web sites), and says extremists have "hijacked" Islam.

"The war on terrorism is not a clash of civilizations. It does, however, reveal the clash inside a civilization, a battle for the future of the Muslim world. This is a struggle of ideas and this is an area where America must excel," it says.

MILITARY SUPERIORITY

The United States will maintain the clear military dominance it has held since the end of the Cold War, the report says. "Our forces will be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military buildup in hopes of surpassing, or equaling, the power of the United States," it says.

In particular, it cautions China against a military expansion. "In pursuing advanced military capabilities that can threaten its neighbors in the Asia-Pacific region, China is following an outdated path that, in the end, will hamper its own pursuit of national greatness," it says.

Nevertheless, the report portrays Washington's Cold War rivals China and Russia as diminished threats, and said the policies of deterrence and containment that marked the Cold War have less significance in the battle against terrorism.

"Traditional concepts of deterrence will not work against a terrorist enemy whose avowed tactics are wanton destruction and targeting of innocents," the report says. "The overlap between states that sponsor terror and those that pursue WMD (weapons of mass destruction) compel us to action."

A U.S. official said on Friday that while the principles outlined in the strategic review were universal, the case against Iraq was unique and there were no other states now seen as targets for potential military action.

The United States will use its power to encourage "free and open societies on every continent," the report says.

It says the United States will promote democracy and economic openness and champion human dignity. U.S. officials cite these goals in discounting suggestions the Bush strategy describes an overbearing, unilateralist superpower.

"When countries see the values expressed in that document, the way America has helped the world to enjoy more freedom and democracy and prosperity, they'll recognize that America uses its strength for the purpose of pursing peace and spreading opportunity around the world," White House spokesman Ari Fleischer ( news - web sites) said.







Post#4065 at 09-21-2002 01:49 AM by Rain Man [at Bendigo, Australia joined Jun 2001 #posts 1,303]
---
09-21-2002, 01:49 AM #4065
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
Bendigo, Australia
Posts
1,303

Bush Adminstration's vision for World Peace

Now this is a interesting 4T sign

I predicted a week back GW Bush might have a vision for the United States using it's hegemon status and her power like the British Empire did in the 1815-1914 era.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/...054963259.html

The report the article was quoting from.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/2002/09/21/nss.pdf

Note, the very interesting goal GW Bush outlined was that no country should have the economic clout of the United States, this was very interesting I have no idea why the adminstration should fear the economic power of it's competitors. I would assume as long as they are democratic they would be natural friends of the United States a democracy herself.







Post#4066 at 09-21-2002 04:25 AM by Racer X [at Dallas joined Sep 2002 #posts 1]
---
09-21-2002, 04:25 AM #4066
Join Date
Sep 2002
Location
Dallas
Posts
1

Kiff '61-

In response to your question, "is this a generational thing?", let me first of all say that this is my 1st entry into this website. Please forgive me for not being as savvy on this site as the other entries I've seen.

I read this book and was fascinated by it about 2 years ago. I visited here right after 9/11 to look at several opinions regarding the attack; been meaning to get into the discussions for a while, and now a year later, here we go.

I seem to remember in the book, that the boomer's are destined to be the old sage/prophet type during 4T. To me, it means being right on about principles in life and being able to exert that influence from the sidelines. Being an older gen., it needs younger gen's to actively bring about moral changes into current society. But, it seems a lot easier to believe in those things when one will not be called upon to face direct hardship and sacrifice in order to bring about or preserve these principles. Therefore, at this stage in his life, it is more clear to him what needs be done, as opposed to his past, where it sounds like he campaigned for a gentleman strongly against war of any kind. To him, ridding the world of an evil tyrant who supports organizations whose purpose is to destroy/harass/suppress peoples of his own country and others is now a no brainer. In that, I agree. But it will be the Gen M that will suffer directly as the GI Gen did in WWII. For this, their generation will gain great respect as a whole. I think no less of him for his apparent change in outlook as he grew older/wiser. That is the way it seems for most boomers; fighting a great cause from great halls of gov't, not the trenches. But without their steadfast sticking to principles and high ideas, the needed changes would never take place (ex: revolutionary war).

[/quote]







Post#4067 at 09-21-2002 02:25 PM by Steven McTowelie [at Cary, NC joined Jun 2002 #posts 535]
---
09-21-2002, 02:25 PM #4067
Join Date
Jun 2002
Location
Cary, NC
Posts
535

David,

Welcome to the site. From reading your post it seems to me that you have savvy of the theory and can contribute much!

I'll answer Kiff's question, too - I think Boomers tend to be anti-Saddam, in contrast to Silents. But Saddam Hussein is pretty easy to hate; he emulates Joseph Stalin, for crying out loud.

I remember back in the mid-90s when I started a new job and met a fifty-ish coworker with a classic "hippie" past. He talked about how we should take out Saddam before he grew too powerful, and I was shocked! This was one of my first lessons that Boomer does not mean pacifist.







Post#4068 at 09-21-2002 04:50 PM by Number Two [at joined Jul 2002 #posts 446]
---
09-21-2002, 04:50 PM #4068
Join Date
Jul 2002
Posts
446

Re: Is this a generational thing?

Quote Originally Posted by AlexMnWi
Quote Originally Posted by Number Two
same generational lineup (87-year gap)? seems like a little bit of a stretch to me... (does the math)
Previous saeculum's Gilded generation: 1822 - 1842; this would place this saeculum's *LOST* generation at 1909 - 1929 (the last few years may be Civic/GI) - all right, this may be a little anomalous due to the Civil War anomaly)
Previous saeculum's Progressive generation: 1843 - 1859; this would place this saeculum's Silent generation at 1930 - 1946 (again those first few years may be Civic/GI); fairly reasonable
Previous saeculum's Missionary generation: 1860 - 1882; this would place the Boomers at 1947 - 1969 (seriously here, how many LATE 60s cohorts consider themselves Boomers?); these numbers get even worse if you consider the next few cohorts to be more missionary than lost
Previous saeculum's Lost generation: 1883 - 1900; this would place the Xrs at 1970 - 1987, but again, keeping in mind that definitely the first few (2 or 3 at least, possibly more) "GI" cohorts are more Nomadic, this places 1989 cohorts into Generation X - I just don't see that happening :-)
and finally, previous saeculum's GI generation: 1901 - 1924; this would cause Millies to keep on being born past 2010!

these numbers DO seem a bit late...
Okay, if you actually line up the turning dates, (estimating a 2005 crisis, if you think it was 9/11 do your math) here is what you get:
GIs were 1901 to 1924, which would make Millies 1977-2000.
Silents were 1925-1942, which would make New Silents 2001-?.
Lost were 1883-1900, which would make Xers 1961-1976.
Missionaries were 1860-1882, which would make Boomers 1929-1960 (this is because of the shortness of the Civil War). If you just go 5 years back from 1946, you get 1941-1960.
Before then it gets tricky because of the civil war.
ok, you're saying that Heroes begin to be born 7 years before the Unraveling, Artists 4 years before the Crisis, Nomads 3 years before the Awakening, and Prophets 5 years before the beginning of the Crisis basing your assumptions on S&H birthyears and turning years for previous events?

1960|1961 makes sense as a cutoff (as does 2000|2001; the last one might have to be modified if it takes a few more years for a Crisis) but all the others seem way off... 1941 babies were three years too old to get drafted for Vietnam, were almost definitely settled down by the JFK assassination (let alone the Summer of Love, etc.), and at Woodstock were likely saying, as Craig '84 put it, "There those younger kids go" :-) (of course, they still might have tried to pick up Boomer women in typical Silent fashion...) - however, going 5 years from 1949 or 1950 (which might be a better time for the beginning of the High), the Boomers begin in 1944 or 1945

similarly, Millies beginning to be born in 1977? That's nearly as ridiculous as... well... GI's beginning to be born in 1901 :-)
again, 1907 has been shown to line up better with 1987 than with any other year (Marc Lamb said as much multiple times) - so the differential would likely be a "+80" in any case; making 1904 or 1905 the last Lost year (which seems to be the consensus around here, as convincing as the arguments for 1906 seem) would make the last year for the Xrs either 1984 or 1985 - the "Class of 2003"

putting it all together (with the three alignments next to each other):
Marc Lamb AlexMnWi Number Two
Silent <1947 <1941 <1945
Boomers 1947 - 1969 1941 - 1960 1945 - 1960
Xrs 1970 - 1987 1961 - 1976 1961 - 1985
Millies 1988 - 1977 - 2000 1985 - 2000?
New Silents NYA 2001 - 2001? -







Post#4069 at 09-21-2002 07:50 PM by AlexMnWi [at Minneapolis joined Jun 2002 #posts 1,622]
---
09-21-2002, 07:50 PM #4069
Join Date
Jun 2002
Location
Minneapolis
Posts
1,622

Re: Is this a generational thing?

Quote Originally Posted by Number Two

putting it all together (with the three alignments next to each other):
Marc Lamb AlexMnWi Number Two
Silent <1947 <1941 <1945
Boomers 1947 - 1969 1941 - 1960 1945 - 1960
Xrs 1970 - 1987 1961 - 1976 1961 - 1985
Millies 1988 - 1977 - 2000 1985 - 2000?
New Silents NYA 2001 - 2001? -
I didn't actually believe in the alignments I posted; I was just "correcting" your alignments. Here's what I really believe for the generations:


Marc Lamb AlexMnWi Number Two
Silent <1947 <1943 <1945
Boomers 1947 - 1969 1943 - 1960 1945 - 1960
Xrs 1970 - 1987 1961 - 1981 1961 - 1985
Millies 1988 - 1982 - 1985 - 2000?
New Silents NYA NYA 2001? -

And Marc, don't call me an Xer again, kapish?
1987 INTP







Post#4070 at 09-21-2002 08:26 PM by Steven McTowelie [at Cary, NC joined Jun 2002 #posts 535]
---
09-21-2002, 08:26 PM #4070
Join Date
Jun 2002
Location
Cary, NC
Posts
535

Since this topic is just about the most active one on the site, and it's appropriately on-topic anyway, pardon me while I make another plug of the turnings survey at Generation Watch, and send out another plea for votes. If you've already voted, thank you, and if not, well, what's the harm? It's easy! It's fun! Also, the survey need more data points.

Follow this link, then make your choice and click the "Vote" button-

http://www.generationwatch.com

Ok, back to your regularly scheduled discussion.







Post#4071 at 09-21-2002 08:28 PM by Number Two [at joined Jul 2002 #posts 446]
---
09-21-2002, 08:28 PM #4071
Join Date
Jul 2002
Posts
446

Re: Is this a generational thing?

Quote Originally Posted by AlexMnWi
Quote Originally Posted by Number Two

putting it all together (with the three alignments next to each other):
Marc Lamb AlexMnWi Number Two
Silent <1947 <1941 <1945
Boomers 1947 - 1969 1941 - 1960 1945 - 1960
Xrs 1970 - 1987 1961 - 1976 1961 - 1985
Millies 1988 - 1977 - 2000 1985 - 2000?
New Silents NYA 2001 - 2001? -
I didn't actually believe in the alignments I posted; I was just "correcting" your alignments. Here's what I really believe for the generations:


Marc Lamb AlexMnWi Number Two
Silent <1947 <1943 <1945
Boomers 1947 - 1969 1943 - 1960 1945 - 1960
Xrs 1970 - 1987 1961 - 1981 1961 - 1985
Millies 1988 - 1982 - 1985 - 2000?
New Silents NYA NYA 2001? -

And Marc, don't call me an Xer again, kapish?
sounds about right (even if Marc won't admit it ;-)) - i know you believe in S&H's numbers exactly (I could easily point out that is classic Millie behavior ;-))

on the other hand, although 1985 could be the cusp year it could easily be a lot earlier (maybe even 1977) - although the current economic situation is making early eighties babies feel like unwanted Xrs (or even part of a new generation... the Lost Generation :-)) a crisis could still make us into cherished, respected Millies







Post#4072 at 09-21-2002 10:05 PM by [at joined #posts ]
---
09-21-2002, 10:05 PM #4072
Guest

Re: Is this a generational thing?

Quote Originally Posted by Number Two/AlexMnWi
putting it all together (with the three alignments next to each other):
Marc Lamb AlexMnWi Number Two
Silent <1947 <1941 <1945
Boomers 1947 - 1969 1941 - 1960 1945 - 1960
Xrs 1970 - 1987 1961 - 1976 1961 - 1985
Millies 1988 - 1977 - 2000 1985 - 2000?
New Silents NYA 2001 - 2001? -

And Marc, don't call me an Xer again, kapish?

sounds about right (even if Marc won't admit it ;-)) - i know you believe in S&H's numbers exactly (I could easily point out that is classic Millie behavior ;-))
I'll admit here that I more than a little bit lost on all of this. First, on just who is who.

Al, I'm ok with, but "Number Two"? Is that William, born in 1984? And what's this little number, "And Marc, don't call me an Xer again, kapish?" Being a big fan of Robert Reed, I don't think I've ever suggested toying with the S&H 1982 kickoff. But I could be wrong.

This I do know, I hold that the new Silents won't kickoff till ~2004.

Other than that, you two guys, with your near Bios-type minds, probably lose me as much as I lose you! Golly, you're so damn fast... it's like watching Blazing Saddles played at a speed of about one gigahertz. :-?

Slow down guys, posit your notions at a speed us old geezers can comprehend. :wink:







Post#4073 at 09-21-2002 11:18 PM by Number Two [at joined Jul 2002 #posts 446]
---
09-21-2002, 11:18 PM #4073
Join Date
Jul 2002
Posts
446

Re: Is this a generational thing?

Quote Originally Posted by Marc Lamb
Quote Originally Posted by Number Two/AlexMnWi
putting it all together (with the three alignments next to each other):
Marc Lamb AlexMnWi Number Two
Silent <1947 <1941 <1945
Boomers 1947 - 1969 1941 - 1960 1945 - 1960
Xrs 1970 - 1987 1961 - 1976 1961 - 1985
Millies 1988 - 1977 - 2000 1985 - 2000?
New Silents NYA 2001 - 2001? -

And Marc, don't call me an Xer again, kapish?

sounds about right (even if Marc won't admit it ;-)) - i know you believe in S&H's numbers exactly (I could easily point out that is classic Millie behavior ;-))
I'll admit here that I more than a little bit lost on all of this. First, on just who is who.

Al, I'm ok with, but "Number Two"? Is that William, born in 1984? And what's this little number, "And Marc, don't call me an Xer again, kapish?" Being a big fan of Robert Reed, I don't think I've ever suggested toying with the S&H 1982 kickoff. But I could be wrong.
yeah... that's me all right :-)

of all the 20th century generational boundaries the '1982 kickoff' is the only one you refused to comment on (at least in the 1 year-plus that i've been on this board); i was just applying your arguments to determine what years would make more sense as that 'kickoff' based on your logic; anyway Robert Reed is VERY unrepresentative of his cohort; not only was he a total outcast in school but he couldn't remember anything until 8 years of age (into the 90s)!

This I do know, I hold that the new Silents won't kickoff till ~2004.
let's just wait and see :-)


Other than that, you two guys, with your near Bios-type minds, probably lose me as much as I lose you! Golly, you're so damn fast... it's like watching Blazing Saddles played at a speed of about one gigahertz. :-?

Slow down guys, posit your notions at a speed us old geezers can comprehend. :wink:
if you look closely, you'll see that my posting rate has fallen to below 4 posts a day (so it's only about half of what i was doing a while back)







Post#4074 at 09-22-2002 11:22 AM by buzzard44 [at suburb of rural Arizona joined Jan 2002 #posts 220]
---
09-22-2002, 11:22 AM #4074
Join Date
Jan 2002
Location
suburb of rural Arizona
Posts
220

Mr. Barrera: This is to inform you that having voted 28 times already and still not able to decide whether we are in a 3T or a 4T, I think that this is enough. Please don't ask me to do it again. THank you.
Buz Painter
Never for a long time have I been this
confused.







Post#4075 at 09-22-2002 11:33 AM by Steven McTowelie [at Cary, NC joined Jun 2002 #posts 535]
---
09-22-2002, 11:33 AM #4075
Join Date
Jun 2002
Location
Cary, NC
Posts
535

Quote Originally Posted by buzzard44
Mr. Barrera: This is to inform you that having voted 28 times already and still not able to decide whether we are in a 3T or a 4T, I think that this is enough. Please don't ask me to do it again. THank you.
Very well, Buz, you are hereby excused - until next year! :lol:
-----------------------------------------