This short article from the Slate (courtesy of David Kaiser) asks whether Unions are on their way out. The two-tiering of wages in union shops, old versus young, started in the mid-1980s just as Generation X (born 1961-1981) were entering the workforce. The young Xers were the first to get lower wages/benefits for doing the same job just because they weren’t “grandfathered” into the contract. It makes sense for the older people because, by letting the employer pay the young less, they let the employer remain competitive (say with a Japanese auto maker) while still protecting their own windfall (an economist would say “rent”). Better still, with each passing year the deal improves because the cost of your grandfathered cohorts diminish with time relative to the total wage bill. By the time you retire, you can even ask for “Cadillac” health benefits that are totally off the radar screen of what younger workers could ever imagine. Boomer (born 1943-1960)motto: Apres moi le deluge.

I’m not surprised talk of two-tiering is still going on. But now it doesn’t matter as much because the unionized share of the private workforce has shrunk so much. Last month, in fact, the number of private-sector union workers fell below the number of public-sector union workers for the first time ever.

This speech, given in 2008, has been making the rounds on the Internet.

Late-wave Boomer (born 1943-1960) in the Netherlands (b. 1963), Geert Wilders, leads a new Dutch party called “Party for Freedom” (PVV, or Partij voor de Vrijheid).  It has come out of nowhere over the last few years.  It won 17% of the Dutch vote in the 2009 EU Parliament election. According to most surveys, its strength is still climbing and it gets especially strong support from young adults.  (Good indicator: the PVV has the largest share of voters who cast their votes on line.)

It’s a radical right-wing party, but “right” in a way that is historically unprecedented in Europe: It claims to make common cause with Zionism and Israel, and it is vehemently anti-Muslim.

The speech is one he gave at a “Facing Jihad” conference in New York.  Some scary and headlong stuff is underway here, with a clash of very Manichean world views.

See last paragraph for Wilders’ very Boomerish generational riff: “My generation never had to fight for this freedom, it was offered to us on a silver platter, by people who fought for it with their lives.”

*Note that Europe’s generational cycles are somewhat delayed vs. the US. That is why Wilders (b. 1963) is categorized as a Boomer. If he were born in the US, he would be Generation X (born 1961-1981).

Related Product:

Published:Dec.1997 | Price:$15.95

The Fourth Turning: An American Prophecy

 Details and Order Info

Here is a David Brooks’ NYT piece from last month.

An interesting Pew report was just issued showing that Americans have a much darker view of the last 00s decade (27% positive, 50% negative) than any earlier decade surveyed going back to the 1960s. Notably, every age group has a negative opinion of the 00s. And every age group has a more or less positive view of every earlier decade (today’s Generation X (born 1961-1981) are esp positive about the 90s, Boomer (born 1943-1960) to the 70s; no surprise there).

Of course, this measure isn’t very objective since, maybe, people always dislike the decade they have just passed through—and look further back more favorably. But this seems extreme. The Pew survey also showed that most Americans expect the next decade to be better. But, as usual, the Boomers are the most pessimistic. For age 50-64, 42% say worse and 50% say better. Every other age group is much more positive.

Related Product:

Published:Dec.1997 | Price:$15.95

The Fourth Turning: An American Prophecy

 Details and Order Info

I’d like to tell you all a bit more about the statistics behind this article.  But, I’m feeling a bit hazy now, like a bad trip.  Maybe later when my head clears, man.

OK, this story does have a generations-and-turning connection. Haggling spread with the growth of the Third Turning (Unraveling) free-agent economy in the ‘80s and esp ‘90s (the reference to e-Bay here is appropriate). And I’ve found that, on average, Generation X (born 1961-1981) are better at it than older generations. A few hip Silent (born 1925-1942), like William Shatner, really do get it—and the guys he tutors in the tv commercials are always Xers. Just try saying “namby-pamby” to a Boomer (born 1943-1960) and see what happens.

But the main reason I’m posting this is simply that you might find it interesting and possibly useful. Note btw the digital phone app that can scan the barcode while you’re in the store and give you an instant price comp to negotiate with! That is dynamite.

Three great—and gorgeous—actresses of the Silent (born 1925-1942), all born in 1929: Audrey Hepburn, Grace Kelly, and Jean Simmons. Now the last of them has passed away. (Grace Kelly, while certainly as gorgeous, OK, maybe wasn’t as great an actress as the other two, but come on: Her career pretty much ended upon her enthronement at age 26.)

Interesting how the serial parade of marriages and divorces of this cohort of actresses (typically starting, as with these three women, with older G.I. (born 1901-1924) manly men) presaged the later divorce revolution of their entire generation. What was OK only in Hollywood in the 1950s became OK in Peoria by the 1970s. Ditto for the alcoholism and drug abuse. And cigarettes, though this addiction spread through the generation a lot earlier. Note that Simmons died of lung cancer.

Not surprisingly, many of their films dealt thematically with people trying to break out of repressive social, religious, and (especially) family environments. Some of these were comedies, like “Roman Holiday.” Many were a lot darker, like “Two for the Road” or “A Nun’s Story” (Hepburn) or “The Happy Ending” or “Home After Dark” (Simmons). There are probably others. I’m not the film critic.

They all knew how to play (as this article notes) “the demure helpmates” of strong leading men. They were outstanding for their decency, humanity, and attention to emotional subtlety and nuance of manners. Here they really outshone their Lost and G.I. elders. Wonderful quote here by one reviewer of “Home After Dark”: “Jean Simmons gives a reserved, beautifully modulated performance that is so much better than the material that at times her exquisite reading of the rather mediocre lines seems a more tragic waste than her character’s wrecked life.” Not often we hear that about Generation X (born 1961-1981) actresses coping with Boomer (born 1943-1960) and Silent Generation scripts!

And of course they came of age at a time when the veil of modesty wrapped over anything erotic was considerably more opaque than it is today. Though who is to say that this did not actually intensify the longing and the desire? There is a great line in a People story on Simmons in 1987: “For men of a certain age, the memory of seeing Simmons naked from the back in the 1960’s ‘Spartacus’ ranks high among their early carnal thrills.”

A fascinating anecdote from Geraldine Ferraro in this article by Anne E. Kornblut.

KEY QUOTE:

Mothers and grandmothers who saw themselves in Clinton and formed the core of her support faced a confounding phenomenon: Their daughters did not much care whether a woman won or lost.

This article on “The Greenest Generation” makes some interesting points. But you have to understand that this whole idea of changing the world by  changing people’s consciousness and thence changing their individual consumer habits is inherently Boomer (born 1943-1960)/Generation X (born 1961-1981) are of the opinion that if you really want to  change overall social behavior, impose a universal constraint or incentive—otherwise, leave it alone.  Require it of everyone and allow no gaming… otherwise, leave everyone alone.

I guess what I’m saying is that I’m not surprised at the incoherence of the Millennial response to this particular line of questioning.  Millennial approach: Try to be absolutely certain about the link between individual behavioral cause and negative social effect; quantify that link; assess universal incentives needed to  change behavior and balance losses against gains; finally, enact the solution and police for violators.  Boomer/Xer approach: Suggest some personal activity that carries high symbolic resonance (like re-using bags at a supermarket), and then using hortatory language to get many on board.  I’m not saying the second approach is bad; it’s sets the table, so to speak.  But the Millennials are looking for something different.

Implementing the Millennial solution, you will get maximum results with relatively little individual sacrifice (since everyone will be sacrificing).  Implementing the Boom-X solution, you will get disappointing results even with constant haranguing that makes everyone feel miserable.

Related Product:

Published:Sep.2000 | Price:$14.00

Millennials Rising: The Next Great Generation

 Details and Order Info

I just saw Avatar in 3D, and was struck by the generational themes.  Yes, the computerized graphics (a la Lord of the Rings) are spectacular, and the avatar framework (a bit like the Matrix) has a cutting-edge feel on the IT front.  Hollywood spent a zillion dollars producing this film.  It does have a big-movie and definitely big-budget feel to it.  I’m sure it will make lot of money, especially abroad.

Thematically, however, this movie is not Millennial (born 1982-200?)at all.  It’s a Boomer (born 1943-1960)  blue-zone culture war script.  The thinly veiled allegory has the U.S. military killing innocent, close-to-Gaia aliens on behalf of a “dying civilization” that has ”already killed mother earth” on our own planet.  The sound track sounds like Enya.  We (the audience) are supposed to be moved by naked aborigines who hold hands and sing kumbaya-like in communion with the great spirit—and cheer when they kill large numbers of uniformed U.S. soldiers in combat.  The movie’s biggest villain is a hands-on career noncom officer who has dedicated his life to service and speaks in the vernacular of the USMC.  The analogy to U.S. troops in Asia is pounded home mercilessly—from references to “shock and awe,” to the rare mineral the Americans are seeking to extract from this planet, to the way alien women are shown ululating in support of their male warriors.  The viewer is constantly reminded of what this film is “really” about.

In this movie, Barack Obama (to say nothing of George Bush) is cast in the role of Curtis LeMay.  Launch another predator missile, anyone?  Some Boomers applauded vigorously at the end of the movie, the last time I’ve seen that since “V for Vendetta.”

Many Millennials, especially urban bi-coastals, will love this movie.  But I doubt that most Millennials want to see something so laden with moralizing self-condemnation.  They certainly don’t want to see their own peers and nation existentially portrayed as a force of evil.  (That was a Boomer youth script.)  As for those Millennials who now serve in the Marine, Army, and Guard units doing tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, I have talked with many of them.  They truly believe, more than young Generation X (born 1961-1981) soldiers ever did, that they are making the world a better place.  They really like the brand-new Navy recruiting slogan: “America’s Navy: A Global Force for Good.”  I guarantee you these Millennial soldiers won’t be applauding Cameron’s movie.

For what it’s worth, I took along my 10th-grade son to see the movie.  His only terse comment, upon exiting, was: “OK, that’s three hours I’ll never get back.”  On the way home, he purged himself of all the Enya by listening, loud, to his Linkin Park and Incubus.

Related Product:

Published:Mar.2006 | Price:$49.00*

Millennials and the Pop Culture: Strategies for A New Generation of Consumers – *Quantity discounts available

 Details and Order Info

Very nice piece in the NYTimes by an officer who is almost certainly a Generation X (born 1961-1981) (he started serving too early to be a Millennial (born 1982-200?), and he is not high enough ranking to be a Boomer (born 1943-1960)). Any survey of generational divisions in today’s the armed forces uncovers Xer officers who feel bollixed by their Boomer superiors. The Xers want to decentralize decision making, reduce the bureaucracy, give more initiative to leaders on the ground, make decisive choices, and embrace risk rather than shun it.

Why all the smothering oversight? To reduce American casualties, of course, say Boomer and Silent (born 1925-1942)elders. To create an idiot-proof (Boomer-speak for Xer-proof) safeguard against bad headlines for political leaders back at home. But, counter the Xers, what if this approach simply ensures that America’s effort is ineffectual and that we are still there ten years from now, still slogging around and suffering casualties?

Speaking of the Nomadarchetype at war, I am reminded of the memorable scene in the movie “Patton.”  Omar Bradley (who was given all the best lines because he advised the director) got owned in one exchange after castigating George for being too aggressive in a particular attack in the Sicilian campaign and suffering needless casualties. Patton’s response—and I loosely paraphrase from memory: “Sure, Brad, some died. But we broke through, didn’t we? We brought this war closer to an end, didn’t we? If we did it your way, we might still be pinned down there, dying as we speak.” It is an interesting question whether the war would have been over in Europe in 1944, instead of 1945, if Patton had remained Bradley’s superior during and after D-Day. Germany might never have been divided, and the Soviet postwar domination of Central Europe would have been much weaker.

Ulysses Grant was another famous Nomad warrior who understood better than his elders (except for a few, like Lincoln and his friend Sherman) that sometimes you have to take risks, including the risk of losing lives, to get the job done. This is how the midlife Xer-in-charge pushes the mood toward the Fourth Turning (Crisis).

The final remarks in this article explicitly and eloquently point to the tethering of Generation X leaders:

“The culture of risk mitigation could be countered with a culture of initiative. Mid-level leaders win or lose conflicts. Our forces are better than the Taliban’s, but we have leashed them so tightly that they are unable to compete.”

Related Product:

Published:Jun.2009 | Price:$49.50*

The Winter of History: An interview with Neil Howe on “The Fourth Turning” – *Quantity discounts available

 Details and Order Info