# Nomad or Hero (Civic): You Decide



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

There are people on this forum who feel as though they are typed as Gen Y here but are more like Gen X, but others feel correctly Gen Y though they notice a distinction between younger and older Gen Ys.

The Strauss-Howe Theory doesn't begin Gen Y until the early 80's, but it would be interesting to see - despite year born, whether it be 77 or 81 - if some fellow "cuspers" feel a particular affinity with either Nomads or Heroes by their own choice.



> Nomad_*Nomad*_ generations are born _during an Awakening_, a time of social ideals and spiritual agendas, when young adults are passionately attacking the established institutional order. Nomads grow up as under-protected children during this Awakening, come of age as alienated, post-Awakening adults, become pragmatic midlife leaders during a Crisis, and age into resilient post-Crisis elders




Ahem...nope. I was not born during a time social ideals and spiritual agendas. I was not under-protected.



> *Hero* generations are born after an Awakening, during a time of individual pragmatism, self-reliance, and laissez faire. Heroes grow up as increasingly protected post-Awakening children, come of age as team-oriented young optimists during a Crisis, emerge as energetic, overly-confident midlifers, and age into politically powerful elders attacked by another Awakening.


Yes, this sounds more like me. I was a young child during the 80s, a time of self-reliance and laissez-faire. I was fairly protected as a reaction to the "post-Awakening" (those damn dirty hippies!) which resulting in me believing I was a Republican until I was at least 13. 
I also feel like I am one of these team-oriented optimists who as a young adult initially believed in the brave, new united world. 


I can also see myself being an overly confident and politically powerful mid-lifer, where as I see my Gen X friend floundering at 50, helpless for the first time in her life, having to suffer her midlife as a pragmatist where as she enjoyed a more prosperous young adulthood where she could afford to be a disaffected youth. There's a very different experience between being under 35 during a recession and being 40 or 50. 

It makes me feel like someone jipped me of an opportunity which my generation must work to overcome...she on the other hand feels like SHE failed. She feels like she's supposed to have "accomplished" something by mid-life (like her Artist/Adaptive Silent Generation parents who were largely leaders in mid-life, and were a generation deeply focused on fiscal power because of the lack they suffered during the Great Depression et al). I also used to a know a Gen X'er in his early 40s who apparently felt like a failure as an academic, etc...I don't know if this is something that Gen X suffers as a consequence as being born in the shadow of the annoyingly egocentric Baby Boomers or what, but I almost get the feeling like they think they didn't produce as adults what they "should have" in relation to the start they were given, or something along those lines. 

Anyway, back to Wikipedia:

*Nomads

*


> These were shrewd realists who preferred individualistic, pragmatic solutions to problems.


*Heroes 

*


> These have been vigorous and rational institution builders. In midlife, all have been aggressive advocates of economic prosperity and public optimism, and all have maintained a reputation for civic energy and competence in old age.




According to this it would seem that Gen Y is rabidly politically oriented, perhaps not in the rebellious ways of the Boomers (A Prophet generation) but in an actual institution building manner.

I relate to that too. On the other hand, I also tend to think of myself as being somewhat pragmatic and realistic when it comes to politics, like we have to do XY to accomplish Z.

HOWEVER, apparently there's also something called Generation Flux, which ranges from Gen X to Gen Y birth years. This only signifies, however, our relationship to social change and also mainly to working at various jobs because of the chaotic job market.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

I think I figured out kind of how this works and how it might have validity. Ok.

Prophets usher in a new way of living and thinking, therefore they seem to be kind of conceited (think of the xNFJ Messiah complex) and it is not least due to the fact that they spend their early childhood and teens in a time of great prosperity.

Then Nomads, in the shadow of the Prophets, endure the chaos that the Prophets bring on, spreading the change through their individualism, since the new way of being is too weak to establish proper institutions. Lingering institutions may exist from earlier pre-Prophet generations (such as the former Artist/Adaptives and Heroes of their parents, grandparents or great-grandparents generation), which the Nomads refuse to join or work with. This helps the prior Prophet generation to usher in a new era (SPs?).

Heroes rise up from this, and form the NEW institutions that the Prophets envisioned. This may leave the Nomads feeling disaffected and like they didn't "accomplish" as much, because they are born between Prophets, who formulate the vision, and Heroes who finally put the Brave New World into institutional form (xNTJs?)...however, the Nomadic role is crucial, as they break down the old existing institutions and ensure that individuality remains in the human race, despite the fact that they emphasize pragmatism over idealism and freedom over prosperity.

Finally, Artist/Adaptives pretty much carry out the bidding of the Heroes, working and living within their institutions, which maintain some semblance to the original Prophet vision that came with their own grandparents or great-grandparents (xSFJs?).

Then a new cycle of Prophets is born.

It makes sense with swings in economy and human ideology, but I still wonder how accurate it will prove to be within my lifetime. I would say it makes a lot of sense thus far, at least with Boomer/Prophets and Gen X/Nomads.

We have yet to see Gen Y properly reach powerful middle age so they/we can send Gen Z to do their/our bidding.


----------



## Worth Lessemo (Feb 20, 2012)

I've seen different versions of this. I find it all very fascinating. I thought that there was more of these than just two though? Isn't there one where they just leech off of the previous generation of civics?

I don't trust my own perception of myself. (I'd think maybe Nomad). But everyone around me would say Hero or Civic. Perhaps my circle of higher-thinking friends would tell me that I'd not fit, either way. 

From a developmental and socioeconomic history I have no real family and have been homeless and alienated. I've never been protected. Yet, I still strive for the creation of systems. I guess it depends on how literally I take some of the traits? If I am literal, I am a Nomad. I wouldn't be able to stand in a room of elites without wanting fire and destruction.

When it comes to personality psychology and the concept from psychoanalysis of "complexes", I do have a hero and a messiah complex. I have to be very careful with it actually. (Emo Army). Abstractly, I think I'd be a civic?


----------



## Glenda Gnome Starr (May 12, 2011)

I'm still not convinced of any of this. Strauss and Howe place the baby boom generation at 1943 to 1960, which to me, makes little to no sense at all. The baby boom generation is not a cultural generation; it is simply a demographic designation to indicate years of higher than usual birth rates. The birth rates in the United States, for example, dropped precipitously when the Great Depression struck because people were struggling and simply couldn't afford to have children. World War II didn't help that situation. Even though war production caused the economy to improve, the fact that vast numbers of young men had been sent overseas to fight would mean that they were not available for... um... mating and reproduction. So the start of the baby boom at 1943 would put the baby boom generation right in the middle of World War II. The number of live births in the United States in 1943 was 2.9 million; it dropped back to 2.8 million in 1944. In 1946, which is usually considered the start of the baby boom generation, the number of live births jumped to 3.47 million. By 1954, the number of live births reached 4 million and stayed at that level until 1964. That is usually considered the end of the baby boom generation.
Anyone who is now 50 years old is a baby boomer. That person was born in 1962, when the birth rate was very high, at 4.17 million.
In 1965, the number of live births dropped below 4 million. The number of live births never went below 4 million, probably because of the larger population; hence a bigger base.
But... if we go along with the 1943 to 1960 designation for the "baby boom" generation, despite it being an error in terms of demography, we've got a wildly diverse group. The cusp group has moved from the 1960 to 1964 cohort to the 1955 to 1960 cohort. 
Another error with the Strauss Howe model was that it did not take into consideration race, ethnicity, economic status, disability, etc. Thus, in my opinion, it seems kind of weak.
So I'm not convinced but am open to hearing (um reading) other opinions.


----------



## Worth Lessemo (Feb 20, 2012)

(I wasn't going to mention my criticism @walking tourist, but I agree)

Still, there must be some core principles that are still correlated. I mean generational psych exists as a phenomena, and are 100% constructed by our psychosocial environment. It's sort of like identity politics, for me, as an interest. I really don't know very much about it though.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Worth Lessemo said:


> I've seen different versions of this. I find it all very fascinating. I thought that there was more of these than just two though? Isn't there one where they just leech off of the previous generation of civics?


Artists/Adapters aren't "leeches" they are actually quiet, hard-working conformists. They are basically the passive recipients of the more dominant Prophet's vision and Heroes new institution building. Nomads aren't even what I would consider "leeches" but rather kind of like wrecking balls to the old establishment, the necessary step required to take power back from the old established order. I don't think it's a coincidence that the punks were the oldest Gen X'ers. 



> I don't trust my own perception of myself. (I'd think maybe Nomad). But everyone around me would say Hero or Civic. Perhaps my circle of higher-thinking friends would tell me that I'd not fit, either way.
> 
> From a developmental and socioeconomic history I have no real family and have been homeless and alienated. I've never been protected. Yet, I still strive for the creation of systems. I guess it depends on how literally I take some of the traits? If I am literal, I am a Nomad. I wouldn't be able to stand in a room of elites without wanting fire and destruction.
> 
> When it comes to personality psychology and the concept from psychoanalysis of "complexes", I do have a hero and a messiah complex. I have to be very careful with it actually. (Emo Army). Abstractly, I think I'd be a civic?


Maybe so. I'm pretty sure I'm a Civic because I've felt some kind of push to ensure what I see as the way the new world should be; it is a constant preoccupation of mine, and I am patently dismayed by the lack of healthy structure I see in Gen X. I want a new world, but am also somewhat partial to the discipline and sense of community promoted and enjoyed by my Silent Generation grandparents. My disgust with "laissez-faire" parenting seems like a more Civic than Nomad trait.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

walking tourist said:


> I'm still not convinced of any of this. Strauss and Howe place the baby boom generation at 1943 to 1960, which to me, makes little to no sense at all. The baby boom generation is not a cultural generation; it is simply a demographic designation to indicate years of higher than usual birth rates. The birth rates in the United States, for example, dropped precipitously when the Great Depression struck because people were struggling and simply couldn't afford to have children. World War II didn't help that situation. Even though war production caused the economy to improve, the fact that vast numbers of young men had been sent overseas to fight would mean that they were not available for... um... mating and reproduction. So the start of the baby boom at 1943 would put the baby boom generation right in the middle of World War II. The number of live births in the United States in 1943 was 2.9 million; it dropped back to 2.8 million in 1944. In 1946, which is usually considered the start of the baby boom generation, the number of live births jumped to 3.47 million. By 1954, the number of live births reached 4 million and stayed at that level until 1964. That is usually considered the end of the baby boom generation.
> Anyone who is now 50 years old is a baby boomer. That person was born in 1962, when the birth rate was very high, at 4.17 million.
> In 1965, the number of live births dropped below 4 million. The number of live births never went below 4 million, probably because of the larger population; hence a bigger base.
> But... if we go along with the 1943 to 1960 designation for the "baby boom" generation, despite it being an error in terms of demography, we've got a wildly diverse group. The cusp group has moved from the 1960 to 1964 cohort to the 1955 to 1960 cohort.
> ...


The Strauss-Howe theory is applied more as a universal consciousness that goes back centuries. It accounts for major social movements and trends. I think the year dates of generational birth should be more vague and not as exact for this reason. 

Of course if you disagree with it you disagree with it. Of course all of the people in the generation will not fit the consciousness of the social generation perfectly.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Interestingly, Nomads (Gen X) is blamed for the misogynistic back-lash on women going on right now, not Gen Y Civics. Men may become more primal or violent as a reaction to the destruction of gender constructs during Nomad generations (the 1920s was the last time this happened before Gen X). This would also explain the popularity of gangsta rap for Gen X, a pretty shockingly violent and misogynistic genre of music. It also makes sense with the angry white boy metal trend, punk, and the stuff going on in politics right now. 

Heroes tend to turn slightly back toward gender roles and value masculine structure, because war and civic involvement give men an outlet to feel "manly." Oh another interesting point about Heroes/Civics: they tend to be closer to their fathers. Interestingly, I had a more stable relationship with my father figure than my mother figure on a lifelong scale (which may tip my preferences slightly in favor of Gen Y?)

Artists/Adaptives tend to have the widest gender roles (think of 1950's/early 60's gender roles). 

Then the Prophets tend to value the feminine. This would correlate to the increasing sensitivity of men during the second wave of feminism in the 60s/early 70s and New Age or "hippie" values. 

I find this theory really fascinating, even if it isn't exact. I mean, it can't be exact because it's a theory that spans large swaths of social time and apparently attempts to capture the mass social consciousness rather than the identity of each individual.

So my main beef is clearly defining the years at all. The years of birth should overlap in cusps and be approximate.


----------



## fractal life (Nov 18, 2010)

This is very interesting, I hadn't heard about this generational theory before. I'm not completely convinced (surely it's difficult to generalise the experiences of an entire generation, and how would this theory still appear evident if applied to countries which don't share a history directly linked with the West - how would this work in some Asian countries?) but there seems to be some validity. Also, I would like to think that I belong to the hero generation, and it rings true somewhat. Me and my sister (gen Yers) are both very politicised and have been from a young age, with a strong desire to fix the problems we see in contemporary society - unfortunately though, I can't see any strong evidence this is a generational trait, although there has been a recent upswing in protest compared to the 80s and 90s as we have came of age - and we often have quite fierce arguments with my dad where we accuse him of defeatism and cynicism and he accuses us of naivety. It is frustrating, because in some aspects we get our idealism from his cynicism (his distrust of institutions and borderline conspiracy theories embued us with a desire to fix things and make them right) but he is obsessed with the idea that there is nothing new under the sun, and any revolution is just "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" and is completely unshakeable in this conviction. This seems to be a good illustration of how gen x cynicism can give birth to a "hero" generation.

Also, I think one core misunderstanding we have in our debates is that he mistakes me and my sister's idealism for the idealism of the hippies which he reacts badly to, when in fact, it is nothing of the sort - there is nothing spiritual in our idealism and we have no yearnings for a sublime or transcendent utopia, but it is a sort of pragmatic idealism, a belief that many of the problems of our time are tangible and a desire to fix them.

Time will tell though if we are indeed a hero generation, but hey - it does seem like our institutions are in a serious crisis now, which is probably unsolveable without reinventing our society in some way. Hopefully it will be our generation which pulls it off.


----------



## Glenda Gnome Starr (May 12, 2011)

I think that, if the year dates of generational birth were more vague, it would help me to understand the whole theory far better. With the years given, it does seem more like demographic trends than a universal consciousness. For sure, there were trends throughout history... the Reformation in Germany, the Great Awakening in the United States, among others. People in those times were swept along by the historical events that they were experiencing. This is all true and I believe that it continues to be true. 



fourtines said:


> The Strauss-Howe theory is applied more as a universal consciousness that goes back centuries. It accounts for major social movements and trends. I think the year dates of generational birth should be more vague and not as exact for this reason.
> 
> Of course if you disagree with it you disagree with it. Of course all of the people in the generation will not fit the consciousness of the social generation perfectly.


----------



## Worth Lessemo (Feb 20, 2012)

fourtines said:


> Interestingly, Nomads (Gen X) is blamed for the misogynistic back-lash on women going on right now, not Gen Y Civics. Men may become more primal or violent as a reaction to the destruction of gender constructs during Nomad generations (the 1920s was the last time this happened before Gen X). This would also explain the popularity of gangsta rap for Gen X, a pretty shockingly violent and misogynistic genre of music. It also makes sense with the angry white boy metal trend, punk, and the stuff going on in politics right now.
> 
> Heroes tend to turn slightly back toward gender roles and value masculine structure, because war and civic involvement give men an outlet to feel "manly." Oh another interesting point about Heroes/Civics: they tend to be closer to their fathers. Interestingly, I had a more stable relationship with my father figure than my mother figure on a lifelong scale (which may tip my preferences slightly in favor of Gen Y?)
> 
> ...


(I realize the Adapters are probably what I was thinking of)

(@ Hey Fourtines, I know I have said this before, but you would be an excellent sociologist.) 

(In Identity Politics I remember listening to ...whats her name ... Melissa Harris Perry. Also some other liberal news analyse the "war on women" during the two terms Obama tried to get elected. I think it was a guest who also appeared on another msnbc show talking about it who introduced the concept "Mommy Wars." I had studied feminism in school and stuff, but had no clue any of this even existed until ... this year? Here are some links.)

War on Women - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Working parent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Worth Lessemo (Feb 20, 2012)

Sorry, I'm back. I found her name. It was Michelle Goldberg who introduced "Mommy Wars" to me. There has been a lot of journalism on it this year due to the war on women to understand it better, and they found that Europe was largely without any mommy wars. France actually had reported the healthiest psychology of mothers out of any. In Canada and the US, the Mommy wars rage. It is a generational thing for North America.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

fractal life said:


> This is very interesting, I hadn't heard about this generational theory before. I'm not completely convinced (surely it's difficult to generalise the experiences of an entire generation, and how would this theory still appear evident if applied to countries which don't share a history directly linked with the West - how would this work in some Asian countries?) but there seems to be some validity. Also, I would like to think that I belong to the hero generation, and it rings true somewhat. Me and my sister (gen Yers) are both very politicised and have been from a young age, with a strong desire to fix the problems we see in contemporary society - unfortunately though, I can't see any strong evidence this is a generational trait, although there has been a recent upswing in protest compared to the 80s and 90s as we have came of age - and we often have quite fierce arguments with my dad where we accuse him of defeatism and cynicism and he accuses us of naivety. It is frustrating, because in some aspects we get our idealism from his cynicism (his distrust of institutions and borderline conspiracy theories embued us with a desire to fix things and make them right) but he is obsessed with the idea that there is nothing new under the sun, and any revolution is just "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" and is completely unshakeable in this conviction. This seems to be a good illustration of how gen x cynicism can give birth to a "hero" generation.
> 
> Also, I think one core misunderstanding we have in our debates is that he mistakes me and my sister's idealism for the idealism of the hippies which he reacts badly to, when in fact, it is nothing of the sort - there is nothing spiritual in our idealism and we have no yearnings for a sublime or transcendent utopia, but it is a sort of pragmatic idealism, a belief that many of the problems of our time are tangible and a desire to fix them.
> 
> Time will tell though if we are indeed a hero generation, but hey - it does seem like our institutions are in a serious crisis now, which is probably unsolveable without reinventing our society in some way. Hopefully it will be our generation which pulls it off.


Clearly institutions need to be rebuilt and it is mostly Gen X and Gen Y who are concerning themselves with a new job market through alternative sources of energy, as just one example. Gen Y also seems set on restructuring our political party system, whether they be left or right libertarians, or moderates who are sick of the extremist polarity circus in our country. 

Gen X may be branded as being more cynical, pessimistic, and as slackers, but in truth we have them collectively to thank for a wealth of wonderful music and film, as well as leaps forward in technology, and an increasing turn back to smaller business, DIY, and natural living...Gen Y cannot take full credit for these social movements, in fact Gen Y is probably just the generation that is going to make it _more mainstream _to move away from corporatism, especially as older people start to age considerably and die. 

Gen X also produced our first African-American president. Obama is a Gen X'er.

There are however marked cultural themes amongst Gen X as a whole, this conviction that they somehow failed or didn't do enough, and the increased egalitarianism in the idea of gender, as well as the extreme backlash of the angry man-child club that seems to hover like some spectre over Gen X. Gen X had to wipe up the mess of the idealism of second wave feminism, which had unexpected consequences...like an increase in absentee fathers and single mothers, and a misogynistic and "rich white man" backlash, even as women, people of color, homosexuals, and transgender people began to slowly gain more rights and freedom not just legally but socially.

Gen Y will likely, as a whole, restructure the country politically and economically over the span of our lifetimes, I believe it. And we're supposed to experience a social/economic high which will lead to us being particularly powerful in middle age, when we are approximately 40-60 years old. 

And yes I believe the vision we will fulfill is the vision of equality that began with the Boomers. I actually think we'll be a more conservative generation perhaps in terms of social behavior and civic duty, but more liberal in that extremist conservatism as we know it may completely pass away. 

Or I'm wrong, and the Gen Zs really are going to be a bunch of fiscally conservative white nationalist. I believe this could seriously be a stupidly unintended consequence if Gen Y actually allows right wing libertarianism to get a foothold, and I'm pretty much willing to fight it to the death, which is why I say I'm definitely more Civic...I don't have he apathy or the laissez-faire attitude of Gen X, not so much.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Worth Lessemo said:


> (I realize the Adapters are probably what I was thinking of)
> 
> (@ Hey Fourtines, I know I have said this before, but you would be an excellent sociologist.)
> 
> ...


Thank you very much! I just don't know how useful I would be as a sociologist or what kind of work I could get doing it though...I started out in literature and think that history may actually be a better degree for me. 

I don't think of Adapters as leeches, because while they benefit from the new world that has been built for them...let's say the last Adapters, The Silents...they still actually overall were a pretty responsible generation that raised stable families and generated prosperity for their descendants. The Silents also fought in Korea (my grandfather did, and he actually fought in WWII but had to lie about his age to enter the Navy at 16, making him blur on the cusp with the Greatest Generation by a hair) and tended to kind of be rocks that held their families together. My grandparents were like that. My 50 yr old friend's Silent Generation parents are like that ...they've been married for like 62 years and so held the family together by hook or crook, as well as being successful and ambitious people.

The thing is, though, is that the Silent Generation and the Boomers had, respectively, more stability and then more prosperity in their middle age and young lives to be able to accomplish that, though. It's easier to pull ones self up by ones bootstraps when the minimum wage goes further, property is cheaper, only one parent has to work, and corporations aren't dominating the overall market via oligopoly.

I do know about the War on Women, and that's something that I hope dies off completely within the lifetimes of Gen Y, and that as a generation with supposedly more balanced gender roles (of neither extreme) that we may be able to address this problem sensibly. 

And yeah, the Working Parent thing and Mommy Wars really upsets me. I wrote a paper about it in college.


----------



## Worth Lessemo (Feb 20, 2012)

It will die off.

My partner has a theory that everyone just needs to mate with a French person, so that the European common sense will save the human race. I'm not so sure though.


----------



## Glenda Gnome Starr (May 12, 2011)

The Silent Generation was born either into poverty or into war. But, by the 1950s, Europe was rebuilding. Western Europe and Japan benefited from the Marshall Plan. Eastern Europe seemed lost because it was under the control of the Soviet Union, and Stalin was a terrible tyrant.
There was great prosperity through the 1950s and 1960s. People who had the good fortune to start their careers in those times were able to experience stability and prosperity. Of course, the stability was tempered by the fact that, at any time, there could be a nuclear war that would destroy everything. In fact, in 1962, the United States and the Soviet Union were as close to nuclear war as they had ever been or ever would be again. It occurred after President Kennedy foolishly agreed to let the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba to go forward. It was a complete disaster. After that, Cuba felt threatened by the Gringos and it agreed to allow missiles to be placed on its shores. That was actually just a small part of the cold war between the United States and the Soviet Union. Cuba was just one of many countries that both sides used to forward their own goals. As an example, the United States used Turkey to prevent the Soviet Union from having access to the Mediterranean. I remember having to hide under a desk in school because we were having a nuclear weapons drill. I was in first grade. It was frightening and I had nightmares about it for years. To this day, I don't see how crouching under a desk would save us from nuclear fallout. But I digress.
So... stability. No. I don't think so when two superpowers are playing a dangerous game of chicken with massive quantities of weapons of mass destruction.
As for the prosperity... by the early 1970s, there was the oil embargo. Until 1973, energy was cheap and abundant. People lived in the suburbs and drove around happily, unconcerned about how much gas they were using. They also didn't really understand the effect of all of that gas usage on the environment. Remember, at that time, there was a high lead content in gasoline. And speaking of lead, most paint was full of lead, which had a negative effect on children because some kids tend to lick walls (I don't know why but that is true).
In 1973, the Arab countries of OPEC placed an embargo on oil sent to the United States. They were irritated because of the U.S. military aid for Israel after the six days war in 1967. The result was rationing and long gas lines and there was a negative effect on the U.S. economy. Afterward, there was a big jump in unemployment, which previously had been fairly low. Then there was stagflation. 
Also another negative factor to the U.S. economy was in the area of manufacturing. It started becoming cheaper for manufacturing to occur overseas, as opposed to the United States. There were a variety of reasons for that. One of the reasons was that industry failed to modernize its factories and its equipment to meet the demands as they existed in the 1970s. One example is the steel industry. After World War II, the Americans told the Japanese to give up the militarism and concentrate on their economy. The Japanese followed that advice extremely well. They actually put an anti war clause into their constitution. They focused on their economy with great enthusiasm and built very efficient steel mills. The American steel mills were not efficient. They were outdated. The owners of the U.S. steel mills complained to anyone who listened that Japan had an unfair advantage and they wanted tariffs placed on those cheap Japanese imports. Well, that happened. But, what did the U.S. steel companies do with that economic advantage? Rebuild their steel mills? No, not exactly. They gave the money to the stock holders. As a result, most U.S. steel mills have since shut down. Many steel workers lost their jobs. These manufacturing jobs provided employment and stability to many people who did not choose to go on to college.
When the U.S. economy shifted from manufacturing to more of a service economy, a great deal of stability was lost. As I mentioned earlier, people who were not interested in a college education had previously been able to find work that would give them a middle class lifestyle. With the loss of the steel industry and with the fact that much of the auto industry had shifted overseas, that hope of a middle class lifestyle was becoming more of a dream than of a reality.
With the economic shifts of the 1970s, a college education was not necessarily that ticket to well paid, stable employment. People who graduated from college in the late 1970s and beyond were not necessarily going to find success. There were other shifts, too, such as mass media. In the early 1980s, there was the first wave of big newspaper closings. So, in the past, newspaper reporters, editors, etc., were pretty much guaranteed a good job. After the early 1980s, that was no longer the case.
In fact, I was talking to a man who had recently accepted a buyout from the local newspaper. He was retired after a good career as a newspaper reporter. We compared our journalism experiences. They were like night and day. He said that he was fortunate to get his job when he did. By the time that I was finished with journalism school (1983), the job market had completely dried up and I had to compete for the few remaining jobs with experienced people who had been laid off during the first wave of newspaper closings.
These shifts, which occurred during the 1970s and 1980s, meant that prosperity and stability had been lost, apparently never to be regained. Those of us who were born in the latter part of the baby boom generation (about 1955 to 1964) grew up with the expectation that we would have good careers. But these expectations were not realized for many of us. So we blamed ourselves, instead of seeing the big picture of a shifting, chaotic economy. Another issue for the younger boomers is simply the great numbers of baby boomers. As I had mentioned in a previous post, our parents mated and reproduced with great gusto. There were so many of us and the economy was contracting, which meant a great deal of competition for every available job.
For Gen X, they grew up seeing a shifting, chaotic economy. When they graduated from college, they were offered McJobs and they had to learn to say, "Do you want fries with that?" It is no wonder that there was disaffection and alienation.
Perhaps alternative sources of energy (preferably renewable), bullet trains, and newer forms of communication will help Gen Y, Z and future generations to once again create a more prosperous and, one hopes, sustainable world.
Thank you for bringing up these issues.



fourtines said:


> The thing is, though, is that the Silent Generation and the Boomers had, respectively, more stability and then more prosperity in their middle age and young lives to be able to accomplish that, though. It's easier to pull ones self up by ones bootstraps when the minimum wage goes further, property is cheaper, only one parent has to work, and corporations aren't dominating the overall market via oligopoly.


----------



## mirrorghost (Sep 18, 2012)

whoa, i actually ran across this doing an internet search. i am cuspy...i was born in 1978. i don't really feel like i fully fit into gen x or millennials, but i relate to gen x more and consider myself gen-x. i actually relate less to millennials who are 10 years (or less) younger than to my parent's generation (baby boomers) who are 30 years older than me. i actually see more affinity between the boomers and the millennials. at my workplace, it seems like millennials are eager to please and look up to the boomers, whereas i do not usually feel this way. i see the team-orientedness among them, and more homogeneity among them.

my boyfriend was born in 1969 and i have a lot of friends around 40-45 who i consider like the epitome of gen x, in terms of really fitting the definition of being born during an awakening. however, i was raised with a mix of under-protection and over-protection, but i was definitely a "latch-key kid." i was left to my own devices a lot while my single mom worked. i did felt they were more concerned with themselves and more self-focused than focused on me, that's for sure.

i relate more to the "alienated" and individualistic hallmarks of a nomad generation too. a long time ago when i was first reading about generations, wikipedia had a whole article about the "MTV generation" and it sort of encompassed people on the cusp. i wish it was still up there, but it disappeared. there is an MTV generation article up now, but it is not the same one. but yeah, i am bummed that this website doesn't let me declare myself gen x on my profile, because for the most part i don't relate to the millennial generation much at all. :laughing:


----------



## GenXer (Jan 20, 2012)

Ulysses S. Grant, John Adams, George Washington, Dwight Eisenhower, and Harry Truman fit the nomad characters.

3 of these won wars. Another one said, screw it and nuked two cities to end a war.


----------

