Generational Differences

[Dragline]

One of my favorites -- from 1997: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYW3accapOk

[jennypenny]

One of my favorites -- from 1997: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYW3accapOk

Wow, that's almost spooky when they talk about 2005-2008. Near the end they also talked about Xers being the survivalists. They didn't mean in a literal sense, but obviously some of us are taking it to that level.

Was 2008 the crisis they talk about? Or just a preamble? That would be too soon, wouldn't it?

[Dragline]

Howe would say we went into the crisis period in 2008. Likely to last until sometime in the 2020s, and its safer if its longer.

The watchwords of the Xer generation are Honor, Liberty and Survival. Wanna bumper sticker? Or maybe a Twisted Sister pin.

[Dragline]

This one talks about more of that: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5R9sx3T7 ... 100FAA3C96

[Chad]

The interesting and scary thing is that for this crisis to last as long as they predict (based on historical norms) there has to be something else. The economic crisis should be over in a couple more years, as long as the morons in congress don't run us into the metaphorical iceberg. Even 5 more years of economic crisis, which appears too long based on current trends, doesn't even get us to 2020. There either has to be another major negative economic event (I'm doubtful) or another event/subject entirely. I'm leaning toward the last option, which could be Orwellian (NSA, out of control police, etc.) gov't vs citizens, wealth disparity, the nation state vs major corporations, or WWW3...maybe some mix.

[jennypenny]

This one talks about more of that: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5R9sx3T7 ... 100FAA3C96

That was good, although I hate to be pegged so accurately.


@Chad--I think I agree with you. If the financial crisis had lasted longer or been more severe, it might have counted. There's probably something else on the horizon.

Thinking about this stuff really brings out my inner prepper.

[Chad]

@Chad--I think I agree with you. If the financial crisis had lasted longer or been more severe, it might have counted. There's probably something else on the horizon.

Thinking about this stuff really brings out my inner prepper.

I actually think the financial crisis counts. Timelines for these types of big macro predictions usually have a fair amount of wiggle room.

Another option would be that the crisis started earlier on 9/11. This would mean a couple more years of volatility and recovery would match their predictions.

Also, where does globalization fit in? Since we are so interconnected now does Greece, Spain, etc. count in the model? I would think it does.

All these crisis really do is prime the younger generations to realize the generation (Boomers) that has been driving everything screwed up rather badly. I think it has been successful.

[Dragline]

Yes -- I am honestly most concerned about another war. Something that happens outside the U.S. that we react to. The Arab spring countries will not be stable again for a number of years. But I wouldn't be surprised if there is another financial upheaval that starts in China or somewhere else. China is a big candidate for all kinds of problems that it has dodged so far.

On the domestic side, I'd be pretty happy if not much happened. We could have a period like post-1783 where it was mostly just sorting things out. The biggest event was the enactment of the Constitution, which in the context of that time was not a document increasing personal freedom, but one that asserted more governmental control (Patrick Henry "smelled a rat"). However, it really did not have much of an impact until there were federal taxes imposed. Then you saw things like the Whiskey Rebellion that were unpopular -- and made the anti-federal side even more unpopular -- and soon put down as a consensus formed around the new government. I can see things like that happening, either over Obamacare or something else. (Then in another 200 years, patriots will point to Obamacare as what makes them free).

I thing one of the best scenarios would be if the US actually achieves energy independence first with natural gas and then with renewables through a combination of increased production and more efficient usage/living. This would likely bring manufacturing back to the US and take the foreign policy focus off of the Middle East. The 2020s and 2030s are likely going to be all about optimism re technology and the re-ascent of science. Like this Donald Fagan song about 1958 -- the IGY: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sogYgHlNnqo (get your cup of coffee and enjoy a morning groove.)

Of course we may all be high on SOMA by then -- I always thought Huxley was better on predicting dystopia than Orwell.

[GandK]

Yes -- I am honestly most concerned about another war. Something that happens outside the U.S. that we react to. The Arab spring countries will not be stable again for a number of years. But I wouldn't be surprised if there is another financial upheaval that starts in China or somewhere else. China is a big candidate for all kinds of problems that it has dodged so far.

Agreed. It seems like every 6 months I read a new study on China's "bare branches" and how the skewed gender ratio there is eventually going to lead to global Armageddon. Here's the underlying premise:

http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~hapr/winter ... hudson.pdf (3 pages)

[Chad]

Even with the skewed male to female ratio in China the chance of a big war is unlikely. Both the US and China are built on business and business wouldn't like that kind of war (yes, a few would, but not enough). I find the "hollow" China (hidden liabilities and problems) idea to be the bigger risk in any scenario that includes China.

We are still a good 2-3 decades off of the Chinese military being a threat to the US military. In reality, the British could basically stop any push out by China at this point, without US help.

[Seneca]

One of my favorites -- from 1997: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYW3accapOk

Refreshing, I ended up watching several of their interviews last night, will have to go get the book, thanks.

As a very late X-er, and an optimist at heart, I've always pretty much despised all the Gen X negativity and talk. You also hear about how much more tech savvy Millenials are, which normally elicits a good laugh from me.

I guess as Jenny points out, hating to be pigeonholed is exactly one of our defining traits according to Howe though isn't it.

If we are relying on the millenials to "save us" like we hear so often, I couldn't be more pessimistic about the future. I just don't see them as a group so much smarter/wiser/savvier than anyone else, not worse either mind.

Manufacturing was brought up...while cheap energy would be an enabler, the current enabler of "onshoring" has been the rise of the third world middle class and attendant automation, both likely to continue. Freeing of commerce laws in countries like China also seems to have peaked, they're adding more bureaucracy back every year. Rapid manufacturing also is going to play a huge role. I don't see manufacturing ever regaining it's place as the core employer of middle class America, people hoping for this are likely to be sorely disappointed. I see it to be more like farming, employed numbers continuing to decline even as America increases output.

I'd love to see the power breakthroughs discussed here, mainly for geopolitical reasons, but don't see them as the make/break of American manufacturing.

[Chad]

If we are relying on the millenials to "save us" like we hear so often, I couldn't be more pessimistic about the future. I just don't see them as a group so much smarter/wiser/savvier than anyone else, not worse either mind.

Neither of them suggest that millenials are smarter, but that they just are different. They will move us from our current extreme of "anything goes as long as we make a dollar" to something more community/group oriented. Of course, this will probably go to far, but we are NO where near that right now.

Freeing of commerce laws in countries like China also seems to have peaked, they're adding more bureaucracy back every year.

Increase in bureaucracy an opinion or from some source?

[Seneca]

Increase in bureaucracy an opinion or from some source?

The source is me...in the course of my job I have to deal with various aspects on how to get electronics components made within a factory we have there, and exported/imported to China hubs for distribution to customers.

Even just getting a visa to go there has gotten worse in the last decade.

[Ego]

How does this jive with Taleb's notion that the world is by and large unpredictable?

Right now it appears that a large portion of the Millennial generation is refusing to move out of the basement and the Boomers are reverting to childhood. It is very possible that Millenials will refuse their roles as heroes and Boomers might never die, they'll just grow older and older without dignity, shame or cognizance that anything is wrong with the picture. It seem the whole proposition rests on each generation's willingness to assume their assigned role. What happens if they don't follow the script?

Technology is advancing faster than we can fathom. And it is accelerating. Clark's third law did not exist for my great-grandfather who at the age of thirty-three with five children died of TB. To say that his generation and mine will follow the same historic arc seems, well, hard to believe.

[Chad]

You have a point Ego. Though, I think the same basic human characteristics force us to repeat history over and over. The only difference really seems to be the speed/acceleration of it all.

There is one abherration in US history: The Civil War.

"According to the above chart, generational types have appeared in Anglo-American history in a fixed order for more than 500 years, with one hiccup in the Civil War Saeculum. The reasons for this is because according to the chart, the Civil War came about ten years too early; the adult generations allowed the worst aspects of their generational personalities to come through; and the Progressives grew up scarred rather than ennobled."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strauss%E2 ... nal_theory

I don't think it was just because it came too early. I think the bigger issue is that they were killed in droves.

[jennypenny]

There is one abherration in US history: The Civil War. ... I don't think it was just because it came too early. I think the bigger issue is that they were killed in droves.

I suppose eliminating a generation can change things. Hasn't that happened several times before though? Most wars eliminate a large percentage of the young men. Or is Howe's theory only applicable to the US? Even so, didn't WWI and the 1918 flu pandemic eliminate a large percentage of young men?

Maybe eliminating the women instead of the men, like in GandK's Bare Branches example, changes the dynamic? I don't think losing a generation of young women has happened before, has it?

[Chad]

There is one abherration in US history: The Civil War. ... I don't think it was just because it came too early. I think the bigger issue is that they were killed in droves.

I suppose eliminating a generation can change things. Hasn't that happened several times before though? Most wars eliminate a large percentage of the young men. Or is Howe's theory only applicable to the US? Even so, didn't WWI and the 1918 flu pandemic eliminate a large percentage of young men?

Maybe eliminating the women instead of the men, like in GandK's Bare Branches example, changes the dynamic? I don't think losing a generation of young women has happened before, has it?

They said it's not just in the US, but if I remember correctly not all countries are at the same part of the cycle? It's been a while since I read it.

I wasn't 100% sure on the numbers, so I went back and looked:

Spanish Flu - 500k-675k died against a total population of 106M (1920)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1918_flu_pandemic

Civial War - 620k-850k died (seems like they lean towards the bigger number) against a population of 38M (1870)

http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/faq/

and population source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographi ... ted_States

The Spanish Flu killed .6% (at 675k) of the population and the Civil War killed 2.2% (at 850k) of the population. Even if you add the 116k of WWI you still only get .75% of the population. While, the Spanish Flu did hit people under 65 harder than normal, it is still spread out to some extent into the really young and really old more than Civil War casualties probably were.

Plus, the Civil War is the only major war fought on US soil, which resulted in a massive disruption in life for people in the South.

[Ego]

Though, I think the same basic human characteristics force us to repeat history over and over. The only difference really seems to be the speed/acceleration of it all.

Are they suggesting that inherited genetics create the characteristics of each generation (ie, prophets begat nomads) or is it learned (ie, prophets teach their children to become nomads)?

If these turnings are driven by psychological archetypes, how would those archetypes be affected by the drastic changes taking place in psychology. Discontent is a major driver of change. Does the drugging of the discontented skew the turnings? 1 in 5 adults in the US is taking some sort of psychiatric drug. If I am drugged into complacency would I feel compelled to rebel against the previous generation? It seems that that rebellion is a key element.

Also, the number of children growing up in fatherless homes has exploded since the Silent Generation was born. Those who grow up in fatherless homes are statistically very different from those who do not... http://thefatherlessgeneration.wordpres ... tatistics/

Changes in.... mothers working outside the home, daycare, breastfeeding, attachment parenting, overprotective parenting .... these are all fundamental changes in how we are brought up. These changes have occurred in a very short period of time.

The only way these changes would not influence the generational archetypes is if the archetypes are the result of genetics alone.

[Chad]

I don't know if they (Strauss and Howe) even suggest one way or the other. I would doubt it's genetic. Probably more learned. Where it just slowly leads from one cycle to the other.

Those issues might mess up the cycle. I must say, I'm a little doubtful the drugs do it. We have drugged ourselves for a long time. From lead poisoning to alcohol to cocaine, we seem to be able to find some substance to hurt ourselves with. I would guess much of the 1900's was self-medicating with alcohol on a higher level than we do today.

The single parent households seems like it would have a better chance to disrupt the cycle. Though, again, it's really hard to do high quality studies in psychology. Should we be comparing fatherless families too all families, normal decent functioning families, or families that have two adults that are completely dysfunctional? Many of these single parent households have at least one adult, if not both, who are really unfit to be parents. Would it really help if they were included in the family?

Or, maybe this is just all part of the cycle? We go through the high level of single families and divorces, and the next generation promises themselves they won't let that happen. This is what seems to be happening with the Millennials. They also seem to be reducing their use of heavy drugs on a voluntary basis, as opposed to my generation who did it to just give everyone the bird.

[Ego]

I must say, I'm a little doubtful the drugs do it. We have drugged ourselves for a long time. From lead poisoning to alcohol to cocaine, we seem to be able to find some substance to hurt ourselves with. I would guess much of the 1900's was self-medicating with alcohol on a higher level than we do today.

Good point. That's true.

The single parent households seems like it would have a better chance to disrupt the cycle. Though, again, it's really hard to do high quality studies in psychology. Should we be comparing fatherless families too all families, normal decent functioning families, or families that have two adults that are completely dysfunctional? Many of these single parent households have at least one adult, if not both, who are really unfit to be parents. Would it really help if they were included in the family?

I would guess there would be certain individuals who ferment the changes we later view as historical inflection points. We should probably be studying them on a apples to apples basis.