I mean a really significant one? Like the boomers (which I arrived too late to be a part of) with a really different world view born of 'good times', 'increasing cynicism', 'teenhood' and 'global secondary education'.
This piqued the thought:
Quote:
And it clicked with something I heard from a young commentator on a panel show talking to an old commentator that anything other than marriage equality seemed a nonsense - but the old guy was saying just as many people were against it. And I thought - 'yeah - in your social circles'. It's not really an age thing - plenty of small L liberals older than me. But statistically I'm guessing way more older people have a problem with it.
What else do current younger generations view significantly differently to older current generations. What shifts in general world view can we expect as we get generational change in politics, business and capital?
You don't think there's a pendulum? I find it hard to believe the 'me generation' of the 80s was more socially liberal than the hippies of the late 60s. But I guess even that judgement is hopelessly subjective.
If you are right - what activities/behaviours will indicate that the millenials are more fiscally conservative than their parents?
One thing a few surveys I've seen point out is the drop in young people becoming licenced drivers - and owning of cars. Partially because of the economics and partially because of increased urbanisation.
I guess the other thing is children taking much longer (on average) to move out of the family home - again for economic reasons? Possibly also due to marriage being delayed longer (if not altogether).
If you are right - what activities/behaviours will indicate that the millenials are more fiscally conservative than their parents?
I guess there's a pendulum, because you have a point about hippies,
but I also think there's a secular trend towards fiscal conservatism.
It's not so much about activities and behaviours as about "dreams". There's no middle-class "American dream" anymore.
Instead, the dream seems to be "making it big."
My view is subjective. I don't think I can find any articles to support it.
0 Replies
Kolyo
2
Reply
Tue 19 May, 2015 11:50 pm
Below is a video of two "liberal" millennials, Ana and John, discussing what college majors are most likely to get you into the 1%.
What evidence from this video suggests their generation is obsessed with money -- and specifically with earning shitloads more of it than everyone else?
Well...
(1) The exchange at the beginning:
ANA: A lot of people want to enter the 1% -- the top 1%...
JOHN: I'd like to someday.
ANA: Right, I'd like to as well, and I don't blame you for saying that.
(2) John makes the ridiculous claim that if you "live responsibly", it doesn't matter what you majored in. As long as you "save", you can make it into the the top 1%.
(3) When Ana points out that a law degree is no guarantee of entry into the top 1%, and mentions that while 1-in-8 lawyers make the 1%, the odds rise to 1-in-3 for Wall St. lawyers, John responds that that "sounds good." So don't bother becoming a civil rights lawyer; head for Wall St.
(4) When confronting the question of why so many art history majors end up in the 1%, they both assume without really questioning it that "Event A", majoring in Art History, is causing "Event B", entry into the top 1%. They note the correlation between A and B, commit the post hoc ergo prompter hoc fallacy, and conclude that A caused B. It's possible, of course, that some third event (e.g., "C": having wealthy parents) caused both A and B, but they don't examine that possibility.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace