Originally Posted by Eric the Green

This reminds me of a brief discussion I had with James50, over "productivity" being a principle cause of today's unemployment. He said productivity is good because it means higher wages.

Just want to make a note on this.

The reasoning behind the idea that high productivity = high wages is that employers pay employees what they are "worth" according to some standard based on how much a worker can produce. That isn't the case. An employee is paid what the employer has to pay to get the necessary work done, and like all prices this is set by supply and demand. Increased productivity, by reducing the demand for labor, tends to drive wages down, not up.

Now, it also increases the supply of goods, which can drive prices down, too, so the net effect may be a small increase in employee buying power (or effective wages). But the result over time is an increasing decline in the wage/productivity ratio, which is where a capitalist economy breaks down.

That doesn't make increased productivity a bad thing! Obviously, as productivity rises, the economy as a whole becomes wealthier. This, coupled with good distribution of wealth (and there's the rub), gives us higher consumption or more leisure time or both. But the tendency is for the gains to concentrate at the top, among the owner class, which prevents the potential from being realized.

In the long run, as M&L said, the only way that distribution will be possible is through a socialist economy, in which most people are unemployed (but quite well off), and paid through a socialized owner's share of the means of production. The image is of a population whose needs and wants are supplied by machines, and who devote themselves to art, science, entrepreneurship, or in many cases simply to play.

It's either that, or a capitalist economy in which most people are unemployed (and quite poor), and paid through miserly government welfare out of a severely contracted economy that operates at a tiny fraction of its productive potential. And that is a situation asking for a revolution.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

But your insistence that 9/11 HAS to be the catalyst runs smack into this fact:

In 2001, the youngest Silent were 59 -- six or seven years short of elderhood.

In 2001, the oldest Boomers were 58 -- there were NO Boomers anywhere near elderhood.

In 2001, the oldest Xers were 40 -- there were NO Xers anywhere near midlife.

In 2001, the oldest Millennials were 19 -- NO Millennials had as yet come of age.

I'm not sure what this has to do with my post, but I addressed this issue specifically in a recent thread, using math to prove the point. The generational alignment in 2001 was considerably closer to that called for by S&H than the alignment in 2008. The precise point you would have expected given their predictions was somewhere around 2003-2005. I think it's reasonable to argue that 9/11 or Fall 2008 were events worthy of being considered a catalyst. If the choice is between the two, 9/11 wins hands down for being better aligned. If you want to make an argument for some other event in between, go ahead. But it won't match up with the real world.

HERE is the previous post in question.

Originally Posted by Odin

Sorry, Eric, but that is a really disgusting post. I've had my own run--ins with the Nanny State and it F*CKING SUCKS.

Says the Hugo Chavez fan?

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

I'm not sure what this has to do with my post, but I addressed this issue specifically in a recent thread, using math to prove the point.

Ah, math again -- your nemesis.

What it has to do with your post is that it illustrates that you don't really understand the saecular theory. Of course your mistake on this thread is different, but this illustrates the problem you have clearly.

The generational alignment in 2001 was considerably closer to that called for by S&H than the alignment in 2008.

That's absurd.

At the end of each Turning, including a Third Turning, the four main generations (which for the 3T means Silent, Boom, X, and Millennial) each fully occupy their respective phases of life (which for the 3T means Silent in elderhood, Boomers in midlife, Xers in young adulthood, and Millennials in childhood). At the 3T/4T cusp, we should see the first few Boomer cohorts in elderhood (age 66+), the first few Xer cohorts in midlife (age 44+), and the first few Millennial cohorts in young adulthood (age 22+). The Crisis is ready to happen when those thresholds are reached, not before.

I already showed above that in 2001, none of the generations had begun to move into their new phases of life. Another way of saying the same thing is that none of the generations had fully occupied their respective phases of life: lots of younger Silent were still middle-aged, not old; lots of Boomers were still in late young adulthood and none were old; the youngest Xer cohorts were still below coming of age and no Xers had reached midlife; no Millennials had come of age and some were still being born (although that last is circular of course).

In 2005:

The youngest Silent were 63 -- still not in elderhood, although close.
The oldest Boomers were still 62 (still not in elderhood), and the youngest 45 (just barely in midlife).
The oldest Xers were 44 (just barely in midlife), and the youngest 24 (just barely in young adulthood).
The oldest Millies were 23 (just barely in young adulthood).

So at this point the generations did fully occupy their life phases, and the bare leading cohorts had begun to move to the next phase. So unlike 2001, a 2005 catalyst was at least possible. But normally, the 4T does not start until a few more cohorts than that have moved into the next phase. If you look back over the previous saeculae, you'll see that this is normally the case, the only apparent anomaly being the Civil War. In 1929, for example, the oldest Missionaries were 69, the oldest Lost 46, and the oldest GIs 28.

Of the three points argued, 2008 is the one that fits the generational pattern best. 2005 is not unarguable. 2001 is extremely unlikely.

I think it's reasonable to argue that 9/11 or Fall 2008 were events worthy of being considered a catalyst.

Of course, but the catalyst isn't what makes the Crisis. Almost anything can be a catalyst. In 1860, it was a national election. In 1773, it was a ridiculous piece of guerrilla theater. If the 9/11 attack had come in 2005 it might have touched off the Crisis, and in 2008 it almost surely would have. In 2001 it didn't, because we weren't ready for that.

EDIT: Oh, I see what you did. You made the phases of life too short, 20 years each instead of 22. That explains your mistake.

40 years old is NOT middle aged. Just think of it that way. And 60 certainly isn't old.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

EDIT: Oh, I see what you did. You made the phases of life too short, 20 years each instead of 22. That explains your mistake.

I used the life stages as stated by S&H in The Fourth Turning. In your rush to paint anyone who disagrees with you as stupid, you have gotten many facts wrong. Thereby reversing the charge without much effort on my part.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

I used the life stages as stated by S&H in The Fourth Turning.

They did not claim those stages of life are only 20 years long each. You are simply wrong.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

They did not claim those stages of life are only 20 years long each. You are simply wrong.

Huh?

I opened up the book and copied them directly out of it. Odin listed them correctly on the previous page. I suggest you check it before you embarrass yourself further*.

*Page 83

I no longer have a copy of the book, but I do know the concept of the saeculum includes the fact that it is the length of a long human life, 80-100 years long. Only at the short end does that divide cleanly by 4 into 20. Nor, as I pointed out above, is a 20/40/60 phase-of-life division consistent with the dates for historical Turnings and the ages of the generations as they happened. Nor in fact does it make any sense.

Whatever you read on page 83, you have misunderstood.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

I no longer have a copy of the book, but I do know the concept of the saeculum includes the fact that it is the length of a long human life, 80-100 years long. Only at the short end does that divide cleanly by 4 into 20. Nor, as I pointed out above, is a 20/40/60 phase-of-life division consistent with the dates for historical Turnings and the ages of the generations as they happened. Nor in fact does it make any sense.

Whatever you read on page 83, you have misunderstood.

Yes...I don't understand...because I take the word of the authors about their own theory instead of Brian Rush...who doesn't own the book.

All I can say is...wow. Nowhere to go from there.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Yes...I don't understand...because I take the word of the authors about their own theory instead of Brian Rush...who doesn't own the book.

You may feel free to ask others here. You may also feel free to message Neil Howe and ask him if he believes a phase of life is exactly 20 years long. I'm quite confident what he will answer.

What I would really recommend, though, is that you read the entire book for comprehension of the overall concepts, rather than picking out isolated facts in support of your own pre-held conclusions. You are seriously lacking in that overall comprehension. The most obvious proof of this is your statement in this thread that the saeculum theory conflicts with the idea of linear progress, when it does nothing of the kind. You do not understand what kind of cyclic change is being referenced. You do not understand what it means that the saeculum is a modern phenomenon or that ancient and medieval or "traditional" societies are referred to as pre-saecular.

You simply don't understand the theory very well.

The life stage roles are just rough sketches. Mr. Rush said 59 was no where near elder hood. It was 3 or 4 years. 2001 was early according to the book and he used the youngest that means a good portion of them were in their elder hoods. My silent gen grandparents are in their 80s and 9 years ago in their 70s. That's elder hood no matter how you slice it.

The generational theory only requires that a generation takes a hold of that life role during the crisis. 9/11 is about as early as you get and are still within the boundaries of the theory. So it only requires a portion of the the generation to be in their respective roles. 2001 is pretty early. I think the generational alignment is closer to the 2008, but that other factors contributed. Mainly the Bush election, turn of the millennium and the dotcom bubble. A lot of stuff happened at that time very rapidly and I believe it was enough to change the public mood into crisis mode.

I've been itching to quote this, but there is as good a place as any. It's from a "The Simpsons" episode from the mid 00s.

Lisa Simpson

Welcome to the 21st century it's a lot like the 20th only everyone is afraid and the stock market is a lot lower.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

You may feel free to ask others here. You may also feel free to message Neil Howe and ask him if he believes a phase of life is exactly 20 years long. I'm quite confident what he will answer.

What I would really recommend, though, is that you read the entire book for comprehension of the overall concepts, rather than picking out isolated facts in support of your own pre-held conclusions. You are seriously lacking in that overall comprehension. The most obvious proof of this is your statement in this thread that the saeculum theory conflicts with the idea of linear progress, when it does nothing of the kind. You do not understand what kind of cyclic change is being referenced. You do not understand what it means that the saeculum is a modern phenomenon or that ancient and medieval or "traditional" societies are referred to as pre-saecular.

You simply don't understand the theory very well.

You see, on p.83 of The Fourth Turning, there's this chart. On the Y axis, it has the life stages. On the X axis it has the turnings. It shows how the turnings progress as each generation moves through the life stages. The life stages, as listed, are:

Elderhood (Age 63-83)
Midlife (Ages 42-62)
Young Adulthood (Ages 21-41)
Childhood (Ages 0-20)

But hey, what do I know?

As for linear vs. cyclical, while S&H certainly don't entirely rule out linear change, they do spend a great deal of the early part of the book heartily insulting those who hold a linear view, and essentially denigrating them as small-minded for failing to embrace the cyclical nature of history. I don't recall any point in the book where they had anything positive to say about the linear view, but there may be some examples.

Originally Posted by pizal81

The life stage roles are just rough sketches. Mr. Rush said 59 was no where near elder hood. It was 3 or 4 years.

I would make it about six years away. But yes, the boundaries are just rough sketches.

2001 was early according to the book and he used the youngest that means a good portion of them were in their elder hoods. My silent gen grandparents are in their late 80s and 9 years ago early 80s. That's elder hood no matter how you slice it.

In 2001, the oldest Silent were 76, not in their 80s; however, 76 is certainly within elderhood. But the youngest Silent were still in midlife, which means that this generation had not fully occupied that phase of life; neither had Boomers, Xers, or Millennials. Normally this would mean that the Third Turning still has a while to go.

So it only requires a portion of the the generation to be in their respective roles.

The phase of life roles for a 4T are: Idealist entering elderhood, Reactive entering midlife, Civic entering young adulthood, Adaptive being born. At the beginning of the 4T, only the first few cohorts have moved into this new phase; most of the generations remain in the phase prior. But SOME of them need to have begun the transition. In 2001, the oldest Boomers were only 58, the oldest Xers 40, and the oldest Millennials 19. There were no elder Idealists, no middle-aged Reactives, and no young-adult Civics yet. That makes it very unlikely the 4T could start at that point.

JPT: You're reading too much into that chart in isolation. You need, as I said, to understand the overall concepts. You DO NOT understand the authors' views on linear time; but then, anyone who thinks that linear progress makes cycles of history impossible is just as wrong as you are, and deserving of a certain amount of scorn.

To understand the interaction, please consider the earth orbiting the sun, while the sun moves on a trajectory through space. The sun's forward motion and the earth's cyclic motion are perfectly compatible. Similarly, there is nothing incompatible about having linear progress that's punctuated by a saecular rhythm. Permanent changes have been made during past 4Ts -- independence from England, abolition of slavery, creation of Social Security -- and also in 2Ts. This Crisis is (unfortunately) having to revisit some issues from the last one, but also to deal with new issues. It's a 4T, which is a cyclic recurrence, but it's a DIFFERENT 4T than prior ones. We have both linear and cyclic change.

[QUOTE=Brian Rush;342447]I would make it about six years away. But yes, the boundaries are just rough sketches.

In 2001, the oldest Silent were 76, not in their 80s; however, 76 is certainly within elderhood. But the youngest Silent were still in midlife, which means that this generation had not fully occupied that phase of life; neither had Boomers, Xers, or Millennials. Normally this would mean that the Third Turning still has a while to go.

Yeah that was a mistake. At any rate my silent grandpa was born in 1927.

I still think 2001 is about as early as possible.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

JPT: You're reading too much into that chart in isolation. You need, as I said, to understand the overall concepts. You DO NOT understand the authors' views on linear time; but then, anyone who thinks that linear progress makes cycles of history impossible is just as wrong as you are, and deserving of a certain amount of scorn.

To understand the interaction, please consider the earth orbiting the sun, while the sun moves on a trajectory through space. The sun's forward motion and the earth's cyclic motion are perfectly compatible. Similarly, there is nothing incompatible about having linear progress that's punctuated by a saecular rhythm. Permanent changes have been made during past 4Ts -- independence from England, abolition of slavery, creation of Social Security -- and also in 2Ts. This Crisis is (unfortunately) having to revisit some issues from the last one, but also to deal with new issues. It's a 4T, which is a cyclic recurrence, but it's a DIFFERENT 4T than prior ones. We have both linear and cyclic change.

You're making yourself look foolish. Again. Do yourself a favor. Buy the book and read it.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Do yourself a favor. Buy the book and read it.

I said I no longer own a copy, not that I haven't read T4T. I have read the book at least four times. I see no need to reread it yet again. I understand the concepts very well, which you do not, and the data in it were not precise enough to require using it as a reference. Everything I've said so far is true, and much of what you've said is not. I'm not the one making himself look foolish.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

I said I no longer own a copy, not that I haven't read T4T. I have read the book at least four times. I see no need to reread it yet again. I understand the concepts very well, which you do not, and the data in it were not precise enough to require using it as a reference. Everything I've said so far is true, and much of what you've said is not. I'm not the one making himself look foolish.

Everything you've said so far is true...including where you contradict and/or disagree with S&H. In other words, whatever Brian Rush invents in his mind is the truth, and anybody who disagrees is stupid. Got it. You've demonstrated this bizarre, megalomaniacal, magical thinking enough now that I don't think it really needs further comment. You seem determined to live in some kind of fantasy world of your own invention. I'm not going to try to dissuade you, as it is clearly pointless.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Says the Hugo Chavez fan?

WTF does Chavez have to do with this? still having trouble distinguishing liberty with letting the Corporatists dominate others, eh?

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Everything you've said so far is true...including where you contradict and/or disagree with S&H.

That has not happened on this thread. Where I have disagreed with them, I of course believe that I'm right and they're wrong.

Unlike your typical conservative, I'm not an authoritarian thinker.

But as I said, on this thread nothing's come up where I disagree with them, so the issue doesn't arise.

I'm not going to try to dissuade you, as it is clearly pointless.

Of course it's pointless, because you're clueless. But I'll believe you when I see you actually not trying.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Everything you've said so far is true...including where you contradict and/or disagree with S&H. In other words, whatever Brian Rush invents in his mind is the truth, and anybody who disagrees is stupid. Got it. You've demonstrated this bizarre, megalomaniacal, magical thinking enough now that I don't think it really needs further comment. You seem determined to live in some kind of fantasy world of your own invention. I'm not going to try to dissuade you, as it is clearly pointless.

Lotta projection goin' on in this post!

I have both Generations and T4T and Brian is absolutely right. The saeculum does not exist is a traditional society in which there is no change and social advancement except when sudden small-c crises occur in such societies, creating a temporary saeculum that eventually stops, something S&H explain clearly in T4T. Obviously YOU haven't read the damn book.

Originally Posted by James50

Congratulations! You live in the perfect US state for your philosophy.

James50

Do I? How do you know?

CA isn't that much different, as the recent votes on CA propositions would show you.

I know that in SF they are trying to regulate what restaurants serve, and this has gone further in NY City.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Huh?

I opened up the book and copied them directly out of it. Odin listed them correctly on the previous page. I suggest you check it before you embarrass yourself further*.

*Page 83

The life-phases are 21 years long each, not 20.

Every society in every time has its own definitions of "coming of age" and "midlife" and "elderhood" (relative to cultural influence!) and these oscillate within the saeculum. At one point, early nomads and jonesers were facing the coming of age at 16-18 as they got kicked or abused out of the house younger than average. Later millies might take the longest before the economy starts recovery and the trend reverses again.

In the private sector, 50-55 is generally the peak of career influence and the average CEO age. That is already a few years older than it was two decades ago, so this is after adjusting for longer lives and productive careers.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

I used the life stages as stated by S&H in The Fourth Turning.

I remember that in T4T it is stated that archetypally a generation is 21 years, and a saeculum 84 (by coincidence, the same as the Uranus cycle around the Sun). They didn't say a generation has to be a particular number of years long; they gave the Boomers only 18 years, though they could do that because there were so many. The GIs were 24 years. Those are the extremes among American generations I think. The Lost was also only 18; the Missionaries longer than 21. I think the Millennials will come to be seen as about 23 years long. It's only a theory, and generation/turning dates are subject to debate.

JPT's confusion with Odin's dates may be that he sees "0 to 20" and "21-42" and thinks "20 years." Young adulthood, for example, is 21-41, inclusive. That means 21 years.

I think it's perfectly reasonable that, for whatever reason, some turnings end a bit early, or late, because of events. But in the long run, in the whole cycle, the lengths of turnings average out to about 21 years. So our 3T was longer, since our 1T was shorter. The lynchpin of the cycle is the decision point (maybe the crisis climax, I'm not sure) where the cycle of our birth crisis return comes around. That does not seem (so far) to change, even by a few days.

Maybe we can blame Lee Harvey Oswald for the confusion.

Originally Posted by Odin

Sorry, Eric, but that is a really disgusting post. I've had my own run--ins with the Nanny State and it F*CKING SUCKS.

We may disagree on a few things in regard to this, but the principle way that the people act like children, is in the way they conduct business (economics). Most of the complains we hear about the "nanny state" are about so-called "socialist" programs.