More evidence of the onset of a W-shaped recession?  Or perhaps evidence that the recent recession never ended (the NBER has still not declared an end to the recession that started in December of 2007)?
NICE QUOTE:

For now, some affluent spenders are getting thrifty. Linda Stasiak, who sells high-end skin care products to retailers like Whole Foods, said that her biggest sales increase had been for a $15.95 tube wringer, made to get every last drop out of a bottle of lotion.  “During peak time, I don’t even really remember selling them,” Ms. Stasiak said.

Last week there was a NYT feature story about a 24-year-old Millennial (born 1982-200?), a recent grad of Colgate University with a stellar academic record, who has been living with his parents (and grandfather) over the last six months sending resumes and looking for a job.  He wants an executive track corporate position.  A couple of months ago, he was turned down by an insurance company for the job he applied for—but was offered a lesser job as an insurance adjustor for $40K.  The Millennial turned it down, saying that the company made clear it was at least ten levels below the job he wanted.  The author interlaced the story with statistics on the severity of the current “Great Recession” for young adults.

The story lit up a firestorm of reader responses: no less than 1,487 comments thus far, and much larger echoes on the blogosphere.  Many of the commenters lambasted the NYT for suggesting that this privileged young man’s experience (he lives in a nice suburban home and his dad is president of a small manufacturing company) is in any way representative of the employment hardships most youth are facing today.  Even more excoriated the young man for turning down the $40K offer—and the family for letting him live at home while turning down such offers.  The most vicious remarks seemed to come from older (Generation X (born 1961-1981) and Boomer (born 1943-1960)) readers, who often cited their own tough, low-salary beginnings.  Apparently, they disapprove of this generation’s tendency to hold fast to long-term plans and dreams.  Be realistic, they insist.  Eat humble pie.  It will be good for you (to repeat what older Chinese now tell the rising “Little Emperor” generation) to “taste bitterness.”

Wow.  Stern stuff.  What’s surprising about all this indignation is just how vague these critics are about just what is *wrong* about what is going on in this story:

• The Millennial himself is not complaining.  There is no whininess.  He disavows any legitimate comparison between his own situation and what the unemployed faced, say, during the Great Depression.  He’s looking forward to a happy ending–as are most unemployed Millennials (something we know from data from Pew and others).
• The parents are not complaining.  The son gets along very well with his  (Boomer) parents and (G.I.) grandpa and runs errands for them.  The marginal dollar cost of the son living at home seems trivial and doesn’t really bother anyone—though admittedly the older folks worry sometimes about the young man’s career.  This is also typical.  The survey data indicate that today’s Millennials and Boomers get along much better in the same home than young Boomers and their own parents did 35 or 40 years ago—when many young Boomers report that they left home in anger… or that their parents simply kicked them out.  Take this trend (closer inter-generational households) and extrapolate it out over the next couple decades and you could be looking at a win-win solution to our unaffordable Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid liabilities, a solution predicated on greater mutual dependence within families.  Our number one fiscal nightmare solved.  And this is a *bad* thing?
• There is no evidence that this Millennial is selfish or anti-community.  In fact, he expected to enter officer training with the Marine Corps but was barred at the last moment due to childhood asthma.
• The guy is clearly keeping busy, volunteering for the fire department, working for neighbors.  By the end of the article, the reader learns that he is no longer actually living at home at all, but living with brother (a guy who did get the $75 opening corporate job) to sub for a roommate who just moved out.  He is planning to temp for local eateries while there.  Totally “temp” work—as opposed to quasi-permanent “careers” that the young person does not really want—is also a typical Millennial strategy.
• There is, finally, widespread agreement among labor market economists that taking a lower initial salary, while certainly a doable and often successful strategy for long-term success, is not the only strategy.  On average, it is likely to result in a lower salary trajectory for many years to come.  Millennials plan ahead and have long time horizons.  If an executive track is important to them tomorrow, they will plan accordingly today.

So let’s move to the bottom line here.

Should we feel sorry for this young man?  No, but then again he’s not asking for that.

Did he make an irrevocable career mistake by not accepting the $40K position?  Not as far as I can see.

Is it unfair that, over the course of the business cycle, youth who graduate into a severe recession are disadvantaged in their career paths relative to those who graduate into a boom?  Yes, it’s unfair, but no more so than a lot of the other vicissitudes of fortune that hit some people and not others.  Besides, the effects of these “cohort timing” differences, while long lasting, gradually fade over time.  As Glen Elder showed, the Great Depression’s impact on the young adults of the 1930s was largely forgotten by the time this cohort reached its peak lifetime earnings years in the late 1960s.  (By then, their salaries didn’t concern most of them nearly so much as their kids’ music!).

Would America be a better place if today’s young Millennials were eager to leave their parents at all cost, even if it meant taking a job they hate?  You’ll have to explain to me why.

To be sure, one might reasonably argue that not everyone, not even everyone with excellent college credentials, can hold out for a $75K salary.  True enough.  But not everyone wants to hold out for a high salary.  And many of those who do will ultimately change their mind.  Maybe even this young man.  So?

My question is: Why do the sober-minded, future-oriented career choices of today’s Millennials make so many Boomers and Xers jump up and down in agitated condemnation?

Related Product:

Published:March.2010 | Price:$59.00*

Millennials in the Workplace: Human Resource Strategies for a New Generation *Quantity discounts available

 Details and Order Info

Farrell pulls out all the stops in this histrionic, if not hysterical, overview of the America’s economic prospects.

Still, there’s no denying the mounting bad news: China has peaked, Europe’s in trouble, and the American economy has hit a “rough patch” at the very least.  The Dow is down seven straight days.  The fear about inflation is being eclipsed once again (as we always warned) by fears about deflation.  The long bond keeps climbing.  The gap between the TIPS (inflation-adjusted) rate and nominal rate keeps narrowing.  The Fed continues to pump reserves into the banking system (literally half of the money supply created in the U.S. over the last 234 years has been created in the last three years), but the velocity of money plummets because no one wants to lend… or borrow.  Initially, everyone said, well, we’re just too uncertain about America’s immediate political, regulatory, and economic future to want to lend.  Increasingly, potential lenders are beginning to wonder: If I just hoard my cash, will it be worth *more* a year from now than it is today?  Central bankers fear nothing more than the psychology of deflationary expectations.  They fear it even more than inflation.  It is the one monster against which they have no weapons.

Some (most notably Krugman) say we need a vast expansion in fiscal stimulus.  Keynes to the third power.  It is certainly too late for that for Europe.  (After all, they actually need to worry about a collapse in their exchange rate.)  But it may even be too late for that for the United States.  We’ve simply taken the “debt” cure too many times—its side effects now exceed its efficacy.  Farrell excerpts a good quote from the Economist: “Borrowing has been the answer to all economic troubles in the past 25 years. Now debt itself has become the problem.  A society built on consumption will have to pay more attention to saving. The idea that using borrowed money to buy assets” is over, “the debt-financed model has reached its limit. Most of the options for dealing with the debt overhang are unpalatable. … The battle between borrowers and creditors may be the defining struggle of the next generation.”

Related Product:

Published:Dec.1997 | Price:$15.95

The Fourth Turning: An American Prophecy

 Details and Order Info

Two somewhat different takes on the Millennial (born 1982-200?) leading edge in the workplace.  The first is in the NYT Magazine:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/30/magazine/30fob-wwln-t.html?pagewanted=print

It is called “The Why-Worry Generation,” quotes us, and ultimately agrees with our positive take on how Millennials are handling the current downturn.

An Generation X (born 1961-1981) apparently disagrees and has written a rejoinder called “Children of the Bull”:

http://blogs.babble.com/strollerderby/2010/06/01/generation-y-or-children-of-the-bull/

Best quotes from this Xer:

First the dripping sarcasm: Nothing was too good for the Children of the Bull, and everyone from jewelers to five-star hotels clamored for the business of their parents, offering up treasures ranging from emerald earings for little Emma to luxury tropical vacation camps for tiny Caleb. But all that money bought other things too, goodies that should not have been purchased so thoughtlessly.

Then the self-revelation: While as a die-hard Gen X slacker myself, I fervently admire the Children of the Bull’s refusal to buckle down and serve The Man, any casual survey of economic data circa 2010 tells you that their burst of self-confidence is probably fueled not by their unique resilience but by the monetary energy received from one last desperate hit from the parental financial tit.

Finally, the bottom line: How the Children of the Bull will deal with making it on their own has yet to be determined.  But I’m betting they will handle it the same way as every generation before them:  they’ll give up on expecting employee paradise and get to work.

In our new book, needless to say, we disagree.  (Though I love this Xer’s style—so archetypal!)  We say that it’s not this young generation that will change, but the behavior of the older generations who manage them—at least in those companies that don’t go bankrupt.

Related Product:

Published:March.2010 | Price:$59.00*

Millennials in the Workplace: Human Resource Strategies for a New Generation *Quantity discounts available

 Details and Order Info

I was invited to go to this Peterson event in downtown DC, but was sick and so I missed it.  Not, I must confess, that I was eager to listen to twenty-five mostly-Silent (born 1925-1942) high muckety-mucks all the say the same thing…  at great length and at great detail… about the deficit.  Believe me when I say: I have heard it all before.  WP columnist David Broker, an honest good-government type (and also a Silent), gives a pretty good account here of what actually transpired.  And a pretty good assessment of this commission’s poor odds of success.  Alan Simpson put it right in his usual humorous style: “a suicide mission.”

I’m inclined to think that this vast fiscal impasse will become a very important component—if not, when the bubble bursts, the actual crux—of the emerging Fourth Turning (Crisis).

As an issue, it has all the prerequisites.  It is something everyone has long known was coming, but also something that everyone just preferred not to think about.  It is something which, if left unsolved, will surely result in disaster.  Yet it is also something which, in order to solve, requires huge changes in habits and behaviors, and in long-term winners and losers, throughout America.  And this is the key point: One could, in theory, imagine solutions that would involve completely different winners and losers, and realize completely different visions of America’s future, that is, in terms of its political economy.  At one extreme, for example, you solve it all by just cutting taxes—a lot.  Or at the other, by just cutting benefits—a lot.  And you have a polarized Prophets archetype running the country that has divided itself (I’m speaking now of its most engaged and passionate leaders) into two largely irreconcilable camps.  Each camp has its own vision.  And each camp already believes that its own corner solution is inadequate: In other words, many in the GOP want a balanced budget with *less* government spending than now; and many Democrats want a balanced budget with *more* government spending than now.

Even aside from the psychology of the Prophet, it’s perfectly understandable why one side or the other will never feel that the moment is quite right to settle on a long-term solution.  Each side wants to go to work when it’s on top.  The GOP feel, reasonably, that hey why not wait for a couple of years until we get a new commission in which *we* outnumber *them.*  Similarly, not many leading Democrats were eager to join a commission set up by George W. Bush.

The bickering and gaming continue as the new recession has hugely speeded up the disaster deadline—like turning on all the boilers in the Titanic’s engine room while the iceberg looms.  We’re in real trouble.

Let me further add that it’s not just happening to us, but to every other major economy in the developing world.  Just look at the per-GDP public debt in Japan, or the headlines about Greece (are Spain and Italy and the rest of the “Club Med” next?)  The trigger to the chain reaction is unlikely to start with us.  But, once the chain reaction starts, we may be a big part it.

If any of you are interested in the global fiscal situation, here is a just-released report (http://www.bis.org/publ/work300.pdf?noframes=1) by the Bank for International Settlements (“The future of public debt: prospects and implications”).  These are bankers giving advice to other bankers.  Their language is typically very dry and cautious.  But they use words like “daunting” and “frightening” in this report.

Related Product:

Published:Dec.1997 | Price:$15.95

The Fourth Turning: An American Prophecy

 Details and Order Info

Nice piece in the Christian Science Monitor.  Dovetails with our overall narrative about how the Millennial (born 1982-200?) are responding to economic adversity—and how that differs from, say, the way young Generation X (born 1961-1981) responded to their youth recessions (1980-83) and (1991-92).

A very nice piece by Morley Winograd and Mike Hais.  If you look at surveys over time, you will notice that Boomer (born 1943-1960) have *always* been relatively partial to the ideal of rural/wilderness living; and Generation X (born 1961-1981) to the ideal of creative and diverse urban living (now called new urbanism, mixed use, infill paradise, what have you).  Millennial (born 1982-200?) show a partiality to the small town and the suburb—yes, the suburb: take that all you apocalyptic Boomers who have always expressed such hatred for the brave new world your parents built!  Keep in mind, though, that for single Millennials this remains their ideal for their stable, married, familied future, not necessarily for the present.  The favorite destination for single Millennials remains big and busy (and now safer) cities.  NYC tops the list.

btw, when NCLB was legislated back in 2001, no provision was bitterly resisted by teachers unions and the majority of Democratic leaders as the rule that school children in persistently failing districts eventually be given the right to choose new schools.  Go back and look at the record.  This was a Bush monstrosity that would unravel the very fabric of our public school system, etc., etc.  Now this principle is accepted across the political spectrum, and even the unions are conceding.  Reason, imo, is the rapidly growing impact over the last ten years of Gen-X parents.  Districts everywhere in America are now wooing parents with slogans about how they want to “be their choice” of schools.   What a sea change!

IMO, this is a generational shot across the bow. Expect a lot more of this in the years to come.  Bill and I used to talk about up-card and down-cards in our theory. Up-cards are things we expected and have already come to pass. Down-cards are things we expect but have not yet happened to any significant extent. Young-adult dissatisfaction with unfair income transfers to Boomer (born 1943-1960) is a down card. It hasn’t happened yet but surely will happen. We didn’t see it with Generation X (born 1961-1981), because, well, they’re Xers. They all try to find their own individual solutions and survival strategies. But Millennial (born 1982-200?) are different. They will organize and be heard. And Boomers will not dare stand in their way.
Nice X/Y Quote: “Recall that there was once a reason for the unionization movement. History repeats itself….The pendulum swings the other way.”

Related Product:

Published:Dec.1997 | Price:$15.95

The Fourth Turning: An American Prophecy

 Details and Order Info

I’m always amazed at all of the interesting ways the moral rectitude of Boomer (born 1943-1960) comes back to bite them.

A couple of random examples:

• We once wanted to protect the freedom and privacy of college-age youth (and inspired FERPA and other legislation to ensure this).  Now, guess what, we’re angry that we—as parents—have been stripped of our God-given right to see our kids’ grades and health records.
• We once believed that society would function better if everyone were a bit less inhibited about sex—and more transparent about what they do as leaders.  Then came Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinski, which nearly persuaded Boomer-dominated Congress to impeach a President for being a bit less inhibited… and a bit more transparent.

All of this brings to—enough silly preamble—my latest example: The “scandal” at Goldman Sachs.

I would wager to say that, back in the 1960s and 1970s, nothing infuriated Boomers more about how the American economy was run than the idea that powerful greasy old men, dressed in oversize pin-striped suits and hidden away in smoke-filled rooms, essentially made all the strategic decisions about where capital would flow and (therefore) what would be produced and consumed.  These anonymous titans, from their “commanding heights,” claimed they exercised prudent and responsible judgment, but their very paternalism just infuriated us more.  We wanted to blow it all up.

And guess, what?  We succeeded.  The ascendancy of Boomers as voters and leaders since the late 1970s has coincided with a radical deregulation of our economy, especially in those areas, like investment and finance, where trusted “fiduciaries” were supposed to take care of others.  In the new Boomer world, the market was the great leveler and everyone was liberated to take care of themselves.  Today, you buy and sell on ebay as you wish, you invest your 401(k) money as you wish, you purchase and liquidate hotels or firms as you wish, and you can even invent new financial instruments (this brings us to derivatives) to gamble or hedge or arbitrage against any event you wish.  Goldman Sachs, run by G.I.s back when Boomers were young, was your typical “investment bank.”  It was supposed to watch out for the rest of us and steer capital accordingly.  Now Goldman Sachs, run by Boomers, is no longer really an investment bank at all.  It’s just a hedge fund and its purpose is to make money, just like everybody else.  And let’s face it, because everything is deregulated and competitive, there’s no real money to be made in investment banking anymore any way.

And now we’re shocked that GS set up a derivative that it sold to clients on both the long and short side?  That it didn’t warn these billionaire speculators that they might lose money?  And that they, GS, might be taking the other side of that transaction?  (We’re not talking about widows and orphans here.)  This is crazy.  Boomers set up this new world.  Many Boomers have made billions off it.  And, so be it, other Boomers should be allowed to *lose* billions off it.  Yes, a deregulated hands-off financial system may make it easier for the next Steve Jobs and Bill Gates to get start up funding (something that wasn’t easy for them back in the “bad old days”).  But it also makes it easier to lose vast amounts of money on bad bets.

You can’t have it both ways.  Nothing infuriates Americans more than the idea that, for these very rich 50- and 60-somethings, we’ve privatized risk on the up side but socialized risk on the down side.

Boomers should stifle their shock.  It’s like being bothered by the sight of Bill Clinton caught with his fly open.  Boomers have taken America all the way here on that whole long crazy trip of theirs.  And now they have to accept the consequences.

In the longer run, Samuelson’s final question looms large: “But if Wall Street can’t control itself, someone else will.”  Prediction: Come the next First Turning (the High), some new institution (maybe a new government agency, maybe some new business cartel) will be in charge.  Which means that, come the next Second Turning (Awakening), the young Prophets of that era will have something to rage about.

With super-Boomer (and now Nobel laureate) Paul Krugman advocating slapping a 25% tariff on Chinese imports and with Obama’s new “National Export Initiative” targeting a doubling of U.S. exports in five year come hell or high water, one senses a seismic shift in the geopolitical firmament. It’s not just the prospect of protectionism and trade wars I’m talking about. Yes, this is a huge danger—and could force the global economy back to the ER in a heartbeat. But there’s something bigger here: The disintegration of the Bretton Woods consensus, built by the G.I. (born 1901-1924), that formed the basis for global trade and power for 66 years, 1945 to 2011–that is, for three turnings.

The Boomer (born 1943-1960) parents created a global system (Bretton Woods, fixed exchange rates, IMF, World Bank, NATO, and regular rounds of tariff reductions were all part of it) in which America’s national purpose was global prosperity, not just our own prosperity. We set up all these global rules and then we promised not to game them. Even more, we promised not to care very much if other nations, who really were just focused on their own prosperity, tried to game them. (At one time or another, this included nearly every OECD country, esp Japan.) America was “above all that.” Throughout the postwar era, every single U.S. Commerce Secretary used to complain that while the German or Italian governments made swinging huge export deals for their own companies a national priority, we always subordinated the interests of our workers and companies to broader global political goals. Again, we were America. We were above such parochial concerns. We needed to keep the rest of the liberal democratic world healthy and prosperous in our “long twilight struggle” against Communism. Somewhat surprisingly, this Bretton Woods consensus outlived the fall of the Soviet Union by 21 years, 1990 to 2011—that is, one turning—though there have been growing strains. One might attribute this to generational inertia. Enough Silent (born 1925-1942) were still in power, the Boomers were still finding their voice, and the Generation X (born 1961-1981) were still on the sidelines.

Now that may all be changing. The Silent, who are the last generation to recall, from their childhood, *why* we created Bretton Woods, is passing from power. The Boomers will not rest until they see the last edifices of their parents’ institutions reborn in their own image. And now the Xer influence is rising. To many Xers, the idea that America is “above all that” is a joke. Every since they were kids in the OPEC-stagflation ‘70s, they’ve been hearing that America is in crisis, has reached its last days, and is sliding into no-growth irrelevance and decadence (of which their generation btw is a prime example). For Xers, the hubris and complacency of the G.I. worldview has been replaced by survivalism and revanchism. Yes, we got the message: America’s empire is over. America is just one more desperate player in a dog-eat-dog world. So why not go after our share? I hurt. I need a job. I do not want my life to sacrificed on some insane alter of global stability and progress.

The G.I.s believed in Bretton Woods because it was *their* system. They built it and trusted it. For decades thereafter, younger generations deferred to their institutional confidence. I think that may now be coming to an end. From this perspective, how America emerges from the decline of Bretton Woods will depend hugely on the rising Millennial (born 1982-200?). What new global system will they erect? Will it work? Will it be built in time?

These idle generational reflections were prompted by the following essay (from Stratfor) on the outlook for the Chinese economy. According to Zeihan, the single biggest consequence of the dismantling of Bretton Woods will be the meltdown of the Chinese economy. No more “Chimerica” (to use Niall Furgeson’s phrase). And that meltdown, in turn, will have huge global repercussions.