One of the journalistic tropes I most dislike is the generation game. It’s essentially a young person’s game, so lately we’ve mostly seen people under 45 (the so-called generations X and Y) putting the boot into those aged between 45 and 60 (Boomers). The results have been reliably silly, and also repetitious – the complaints and responses are little changed from 30 to 40 years ago, when boomers were mouthing slogans like “Never trust anyone over 30” .
But the game is even sillier when played by those old enough to know better, like Richard Neville. In Salon, Gary Kamiya gently skewers the latest of the genre, a book claiming that the Boomers are a “Greater Generation” than the one that fought World War II by virtue of their struggles for civil rights, equality and so on. Crucial quote
Leaving aside the obvious definitional and chronological difficulties — many of the boomers’ achievements were set in motion by men and women from the Greatest Generation — is it really fair to say that a group consisting of millions of people “did” anything?
As I’ve said before, I look forward to a time when the idea that you can classify a person by the date on their birth certificate is accepted only in the astrology columns.
John Quiggin 
I’ve never made any secret of the fact that I am not a fan of the “Vietnam generation”. At least in the US, it’s well past time for them to move off the stage, the whole generation is twisted. It’s time for people who do not want to keep fighting (or talking about) some 35 year old war to take the reins.
There is mild scientific evidence supporting a physical basis for conservatism developing (rough generalisation) in later years. There is also similar evidence for a peak in radicalism and risk taking amongst people of younger years. Recent studies suggest the brain isn’t fully developed until approx. 25 years. There are also very good arguments for restricting the length of terms any particular person can hold the reigns of power within a democracy – with a basis steeped in the understanding that eventually there needs to be new ideas and blood injected (and to avoid the corrupting influence of long time held power).
I think the above points suggest that there are valid (although probably mild) reasons fo suggesting generational differences – and the need for scientific discussion on what is a healthy mix withinmodern day politics.
“Rage” is currently playing Bob Sinclair’s (Be the) “Love Generation”. I very much hope that we get one soon…
I have pretty much given up on my own generation (the Xers).
As a Gen Xer, I find a lot of difficulty with Gen Y, but that may be partly not their fault owing to how they were raised by their ‘helicopter parents’.
We might need a short, sharp recession to sort Gen Y out of their social and economic complacency.
Can we also do something about shocking them out of their addiction to rap music, which is drivel and sexist.
Generation is far too sweeping a generalisation – arise the babies of 1971.
avaroo, I agree with you at least as regards “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth”.
Actually, both sides professor. “Your” side is no healthier, at least from a mental stability viewpoint. No disrespect intended.
What’s interesting about the Vietnam generation is that, like the professor, whatever side they were on, it’s only the other side that should go. Both sides oughta go, AFAIAC.
Elizabeth, what is a helicopter parent?
Simplistic explanations of identity based on chronology commit the fallacy of composition.
Nuanced arguments about identity can avoid the fallacy of composition and still make sensible statements about the observable differences between cohorts based on a range of criteria: ethnicity, religion, gender, handedness, and yes chronology.
As a test of the proposition of the influence of chronology, consider the following.
Generational arguments are based on the proposition of the influences of big events. The boomers, for example were shaped by exogenous forces such the end of the Second World War, the rise of the welfare state, the pill, and many others. Attitudes and behaviours were deeply influenced by how one experienced these events and forces. The age at which one experienced them is an important variable (but not the only one).
Now consider astrological signs. As far as I’m aware there is no testable exogenous influence consequential to being a Virgo or a Leo, or whatever. Despite columns and columns of astrological observation in all the newspapers, it is impossible for even the most devoted followers of astrology to say with confidence of someone they’ve met “she’s a Capricorn”.
Here’s another test. Remove all year dates from a list of events in the lives of individuals: years of schooling, age of attaining first full-time job, first use of illegal drugs, first experience of sex, first place of abode outside the family home, number of sexual relationships before marriage, age at which first mortgage was negotiated, etc., etc. I believe it would be possible to conclude with a high degree of accuracy (within five years either way) the ages of a large proportion of the respondants.
Thus, some chronological criteria can be seen to have a measurable effect on behaviour whereas. It would be relatively easy to falsify the hypothesis that these behaviours had no inflence on attitudes and beliefs.
Having admitted that proposition, then it is up to researchers in various disciplines to measure the strength of the measurable chonological influences. In many instances this effect may be quite weak. In some, it is likely to be quite strong.
In terms of generational indicators, I think Elizabeth hit the nail on the head with her comments about rap music, which is far from ‘drivel and sexist’. It is, in fact, an extremely diverse, creative and profitable sub-culture, but one that seems completely closed to those born before 1970.
“Diverse” isn’t really a term that you can apply to rap music. It’s basically a black sub-culture targeted to white, middle-class kids. Profitable? Oh, yes. Some rap is not bad, some of it is truly awful.
‘Some rap is not bad, some of it is truly awful’
Kinda like jazz, eh? And classical music. And rock. And reggae. And folk music. And all the rest.
As some readers might recall, I’ve fulminated against the “Generation War” meme almost as often as JQ.
But it occurs to me that there might be a modicum of justification for the anti-Boomer diatribes, purely because of the sheer size of the post-WWII cohort and its consequent voting power relative to the rest of the population. The most glaring manifestations of this were the policy settings of both the Howard and State Labor governments in the 1990s in relation to CGT on rental properties, stamp duty and a range of other measures whose net effect was to create the massive property price bubble in S-E Australia from which we’re only now emerging. The boomer generation were certainly the main beneficiaries of those stupid policies, in that some of the older ones were able to realise the capital gains by retiring and making a “Sea Change”, while slightly younger ones were able to cash in on their increased home equity and engage in an orgy of consumerism that they could afford because their kids were mostly grown up and they had enough disposable income to service the debt.
Conversely, Australians at earlier stages of their working lives during the 1990s were to a considerable extent priced out of the property markets in much of Sydney and Melbourne, a situation that is only now painfully returning to equilibrium. So one can certainly understand the anger.
The various 1990s measures I’ve mentioned (especially Howard’s liberalising of CGT calculation) were bad policy, and in many respects didn’t even benefit most of the Boomer “generation” in the long run. But clearly many people in that age range THOUGHT they would, and so short-term electoral imperatives ensured that politicians would pander to such beliefs. It’s doubtful at the very least whether the politicians would have done so if the demographics had been reversed, with a smaller older cohort trying to “rent seek” at the expense of a much larger younger generation.
“Kinda like jazz, eh? And classical music. And rock. And reggae. And folk music. And all the rest.”
Yup, exactly like all the rest.
Actually, avaroo, I agree with you and was just having a go. I said a while back that Vietnam had been debated to death years ago.
Ken, you say:
“It’s doubtful at the very least whether the politicians would have done so if the demographics had been reversed, with a smaller older cohort trying to “rent seekâ€? at the expense of a much larger younger generation.”
An obvious counterexample is the removal of means tests on income and assets for the age pension in the 1970s, which was only feasible becuase boomer taxpayers could support the relatively small number of beneficiaries. As soon as the prospect of the boomers collecting the pension en masse became a real one, the tests were reimposed and the pension age for women was ratcheted up to 65.
One side shoots at Bill Clinton for not serving in Vietnam; the other shoots at George Bush for the exact same thing. And neither side appears to see how much like the other they actually are. It’s bizarre.
“I said a while back that Vietnam had been debated to death years ago. ”
JQ, was there a winner in your opinion? (I mean the debate, not the war).
I’ve done some work on this, both academic and consultancy stuff (no one should be surprised to hear that corporations are now interested in different attitudes among employees or potential employees for workforce planning and policy). I won’t go into what I think at length, because I’ve done so here, but I will say two things.
There’s also some neat discussion here.
There is good sociological evidence that generations are cleavages which are characterised by both overt and covert conflict, and that there are sufficiently different attitudes and behavioural norms to make the concept worthwhile in social scientific terms.
However, as you say John, almost everything written on the topic is tosh and we do need some better and more rigorous research. I’m sure there’s an ARC grant lurking in the wings somewhere, or there should be 🙂
XYZ…
Apropos of recent and less recent discussion here about generations and generationalism, interested readers might like to know that there’s an interesting thread developing over at John Quiggin’s place.
……
I think Iain is right. There is evidence that people of different ages think differently. For example evidence suggests older people discount at a lower rate – paradoxical if you believe the endogenous discounting story that discount rates should be higher when you have less to look forward to – but true anyway. OK so older people are less impulsive and less inclined to take risks. Roughly they should be more politically conservative which is what the polls tell us. They should also be less inclined to take drugs or go bungy jumping.
And it is true that the brain takes much longer to develop than we previously believed — which (usefully) is what I tell my kids when they tell me I am being overly paternalistic.
So maybe there is some point in classifying people by the date on their birth certificate. But it is harder to believe that 21 year olds today have markedly different attitudes towards those who are older than 21 year olds did 30 years ago. Probably similar intergenerational conflicts.
Why can’t they come up with better names for the more recent generations anyway? It is kind of lazy to keep up the X and Y (and then the Z) nonsense.
“As soon as the prospect of the boomers collecting the pension en masse became a real one, the tests were reimposed and the pension age for women was ratcheted up to 65. ”
That might be so, but I think it still seems reasonable to say that the tax system in Australia appears most targeted at cash rich but asset poor people — which inevitably is going to hit younger people more — and therefore gives a legitimate avenue of complaint. I don’t particularily see why cash poor people living in housing more expsensive than most generation X people will ever be able to afford should be subsidized by them, and nor do I see why buying your second investment house should be subsidized and not your first. A lot of these things seem like Robinhood in reverse to me.
JQ,
You think that astrology columns should be accepted?
Avaroo: “the whole generation is twisted.”
More of themoderate, impeccably reasoned, carefully considered and well-researched material we’ve come to expect from Avaroo.
Presumably, George W Bush is as twisted as his entire generational cohort.
As well as biological influences on gnerational differences in risk taking, is it possible to also rationally debate the ability of younger generations (due to environmental influences) to increasingly be more adept at systems linkage and abstract problem solving than previous generations?
I am aware that John has discussed the Flynn effect at length on previous posts. But could an increase in systems thinking, defining generational difference, be debated more?
Why can’t they come up with better names for the more recent generations anyway? It is kind of lazy to keep up the X and Y (and then the Z) nonsense.
I agree. If the pattern is to continue my newest grandson will pe part of the A Team.
I agree with PrQ. I immediately question the credibility of social commentators who refer to “boomers”, “generation x” and so on.
The creation of any group of people who can be demonised and scapegoated is terrifying and potentially very dangerous.
Even media studies lecturers.
According to the White paper Generations at work (It is a pdf file) as someone in 1961 I am in generation X. Some places put me as a ‘Baby boomer’.
Imagine my confusion as the White paper puts me in a generation which is defined as the ‘nomad’ generation. As the paper states:
Generation X grew up during a period of hurried childhood as their parents divorced and worked long hours. This generation developed a strong sense of resiliency, relying heavily on themselves. Mass media, AIDS, the Cold War and technology shaped this generation of dependent, goal orientated entrepreneurs. The dominant attitude of this generation is an enigmatic “Whatever�.
While the baby boomers:
The Baby Boomer Generation, or the Me Generation, grew up during a period of community-spirited progress that included Dr Spock rationalism and father knows best family order. As this generation came of age, they rebelled strongly against their parents creating a ‘new order’. Assassinations, the Vietnam War and maturity saw Baby Boomers turn towards work as a way of creating wealth and success as a way to affirm
their self-worth. The dominant attitude of this generation is that “If you have, flash it.�
Maybe I should have an identity crisis.
“Here’s another test. Remove all year dates from a list of events in the lives of individuals: years of schooling, age of attaining first full-time job, first use of illegal drugs, first experience of sex, first place of abode outside the family home, number of sexual relationships before marriage, age at which first mortgage was negotiated, etc., etc. I believe it would be possible to conclude with a high degree of accuracy (within five years either way) the ages of a large proportion of the respondants.’
Katz, I very much doubt this. But let’s give it a little more though. How about someone who completed high school at 18, first use of illegal drugs and first sex at 17, six sexual relationships, counting one leading to marriage at 24, moved into a rented house at 18, first mortgage at 27. I can think of contemporaries of mine who fit this pattern (obviously I’m guessing about some of the numbers), and also a lot of people much younger. You can look at the stats for each of these things, and the distributions don’t shift by even one standard distribution in a decade.
It’s true, as I point out in the article, that there are some markers, driven by external events that work pretty well. If someone served as a conscript in Vietnam, that dates them to within ten years.
Why can’t they come up with better names for the more recent generations anyway? It is kind of lazy to keep up the X and Y (and then the Z) nonsense.
I’m with BSF and zoot on this. The propensity to label so-called ‘generations’ in alphabetical sequence is obviously going to have to cease. At least “(baby) boomers” was based on a demographic phenomenon that had some pretty clear sociocultural correlates.
On this basis I propose that the generation following Z be labelled a priori “Busters”.
I’ve used Busters for the generation immediately preceding Boomers, but after “Greatest”
JQ, your “doubt” indicates your scepticism.
My scepticism was flagged by a row of etceteras and the hedge words “large proportion”.
You are correct about the persistence of the sexual revolution. Xers and Ys have indeed emulated the boomers in this aspect of their lives.
However, consider your parents’ generation. In the late 1960s there was a large disjunction in sexual behaviour, especially in cohabiting out of wedlock, which persists to this day.
Katz,
The cohabitation out of wedlock is, from my understanding, more of a reversion to long term trends after the anomaly of the period from the mid-1800s to the mid-1900s than a sea-change into uncharted territory.
This is almost certainly the case in studies carried out in the Netherlands (see here). My brief search of the papers has turned up a number of other references that may be useful, but I do not have time to read through them at the moment.
The studies that cover the ground over the 20th century do show a rise in the rate of out of wedlock births from the late 1950’s on, but if the analysis is carried back into the (admittedly patchier) data prior to that the anomaly looks more like the century from 1850 to 1950 than the period from 1960 to the present.
Guido,
we’re Generation Jones.
The Summer of Love was already pretty much over by the time we were teenagers. There was the oil shock of the mid 70s and the job market was by no means fabulous when I got out of uni, though it might have been better for HSC school leavers because of entering the job market earlier. Combine this with later childbearing and a stint as a working musician and I have crap super and managed to sqeak into the housing market, just, but still have a big mortgage. So when I read all this stuff about how cushy the “Baby boomers” have it, I just laugh, if they mean to include someone my age in that category. (Where’s my top level job, Mark Davis? Where’s my sea change? Where’s my investment property? What do you mean I don’t fit the pattern?)
“The studies that cover the ground over the 20th century do show a rise in the rate of out of wedlock births from the late 1950’s on, but if the analysis is carried back into the (admittedly patchier) data prior to that the anomaly looks more like the century from 1850 to 1950 than the period from 1960 to the present.”
I agree about the unusualness of the first part of the 20th century, at least in Australia. However, as I recall it was almost impossible to convince members of the so-called “Greatest Generation” (boomers’ parents of this fact.
The thing you’ve overlooked is that the Pill allowed us to live out of wedlock, have lots of sex and not have children. Thus, the number of children born out of wedlock from the late 1960s is not a good marker for extra-marital cohabitation.
John wrote (rebutting Ken Parish’s observation that Xers have been placed in the dog-house, fiscally speaking):
“An obvious counterexample is the removal of means tests on income and assets for the age pension in the 1970s . . . As soon as the prospect of the boomers collecting the pension en masse became a real one, the tests were reimposed”
Not sure of the date(s) for the reimposition of the income/assets tests for the age pension, but I suspect that these might correlate with a peak in the house price-inflation bonanza/lock-out (pick your own perspective) that has characterised the last two decades. Notably, rampant house price-inflation wasn’t generally true of the 1970’s.
If I was a typical home-owning approaching retirement in 2006, and was given the following choice: (i) you can get the pension, subject to the normal income/assets tests, OR (i) you can get the pension, NOT subject to any income/assets tests BUT on the proviso that you pay 95% tax on all real capital gains on one’s main residence/s since 1985, I would obviously be a fool to take the no-strings pension – while for a c. 1975 retiree, the reverse would have been equally true.
John is right about boomers being one the wrong side of “the pension age for women [being] ratcheted up to 65 [from 60]” a few years ago. Much more egregious discrimination exists, however, in the retirement rules that separate Xers from boomers.
In much of the West, law has been already set in place, decades ahead of time, that disfavours the retirements of those born after 1962, 1963 or 1964 (note these dates, which never vary) compared to those born before. While I will be writing a post about this phenomenon shortly, I’ll give one example now: the age of access to preserved super in Australia was anticipatorily raised a few years ago, from 55 to 60, in a taper that won’t even kick-in for many years, and will first fully affect the post June 1964-born, in 2024.
I’m sorry John, but this, to me, is a screaming example of pro-boomer bias. The economics behind such an arrangement are patently obscene: those on the wrong side of its divide are statistically much less likely to be home-owners (now or in 2024+), for one. (Here’s Ken’s observation that property prices appear to be now correcting themselves strikes me as rather optimistic: nothing less than a 60-70% fall is going to restore inter-generational equity, and I can’t see a boomer-lackey government allowing that to happen).
“rampant house price-inflation wasn’t generally true of the 1970’s.”
There was huge house price inflation in the late 1980s, which was around the time that the direction of pension policy reversed, from becoming steadily more generous to steadily less generous. It was the attempt to control this asset inflation that gave us the recession we had to have.
I’m not sure about your CGT point. CGT has never been payable on main residences, so there can’t be any generational issue here.
And as regards the current boom, Gen Xers have mostly been on the beneficiary side. The majority of people born 1962-1970 were already homeowners by 1996. If any generation has a right to complain about this it’s Gen Y.
John,
We same to be returning to much the same old argument https://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2005/07/24/what-ive-been-reading . Re home ownership, stats clearly show that GenX, using the most relevant 25-39 y.o. cohort, are much worse off than boomers:
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2003/s990533.htm
It is possible that GenY may yet be worse off than GenX in this respect. But as I’ve said before, the jury is still out on this one – it will be 10+ years before stats can be compiled on home ownership rates for 25-39 y.o. *Yers*.
Of course CGT has never been payable on main residences. By inventing it as a notional tax option (and at a punitive level), I was trying to compare apples with apples: that is, the all-inclusive financial position of a c. 1975 retiree with a c. 2010 (boomer) one. By the same token, given that relatively many more c. 2030 (Xer) retirees will be life-long renters (non home-owners), you may like to suggest a positive fiscal side-effect to renting, that should accordingly be included in any total-financial-position-at-retirement comparison calculations. (I can’t think of any, but feel free . . . )
One constant from generation to generation seems to be nostalgia for about the time of birth, which is then held to be some sort of golden age of innocence. I was first alerted to this by the ’50s nostalgia that erupted in the 1970s with the likes of Grease and Happy Days, but it goes on. The most recent exemplar of the phenomenon was a glossy article in the execrable Courier-Mail Saturday mag on the last weekend of January, wherein a 20-something journo did a ‘time travel’ story based on the fashions, technology etc of 1979, the year of his birth. Nonsense retailed in the article included – cars weren’t air-conditioned (actually a standard feature on the LTD he was pictured driving), no-one had to lock up their houses because everyone was trustworthy (I was burgled and had a car stolen in allegedly crime-free Brisbane in 1979), credit cards weren’t invented (Bankcard 1973, I think you’ll find), safari suits were de rigeur (already dag city by 1975) and petrol was at giveaway prices (dearer in real terms than today). At least he got one thing right – decent coffee was unobtainable in Brisbane outside the Cosmo in the Valley. I predict with a high level of confidence that a wave of 80s nostalgia will strike in the next couple of years. Hang on to those Matilda dolls from the Commonwealth games, the boxing kangaroo flags and the Expo season passes – they’ll suddely be worth something.
Paul, I think we went over the Harding stats before and I pointed out that they didn’t take account of the fact that the proportion of the population aged 25-39 has fallen.
Paul,
Perhaps the Y generation, in not owning a home, are making a correct call. When all those homes now owned by the boomers start coming onto the market, who is going to buy them and what will happen to their prices?
🙂
I see this as an on-going thing, there comes a time when the younger generation becomes more politically aware and seeks to express itself more and impose its own ideas. Popular music has often been a good indicator of this, think back to the start of rock n roll in the 1950’s, Bob Dylan/Woodstock in the 1960’s, Punk Rock in the 1970’s and rap music now. The current younger generation, (whatever you want to call them) are just starting to make themselves heard, gives them a decade and they will be pulling the strings. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Baby Boomers: have you read Ken Wilber? Fascinating review of boomers, what they achieved, what their motivations were (from psychological development studies) and how their thinking is now holding themselves and everyone else back. He draws on the research of spiral dynamics (Don Beck): just as each individual goes through sequential development stages from birth to death, they’ve discovered that generations and societies move through similar development stages. It’s important to acknowledge each development stage up the spiral as being important as everyone must pass through them. By now calling the earlier stages (such as fundamentalism and materialism) ‘wrong’ the boomers are now denying others the ability to develop. The baby boomers originally pushed the development stages to a new level and are in a position now to open up the way to help the people after them.
JQ, Its all very well to say that you look forward to a time when people arent boxed based no their age, but these mental categories are usually used because they have some validity. So, while it is always possible to point out problems with the simplification/boxing, this isnt a particularly strong criticism of the usefulness or validity of the boxing.
My personal prior belief is that there are genuine differences between the outlook and behaviour of different generations, though I’m prepared to be persuaded (by statistics, not examples) otherwise.
The common claims against baby boomers should all stand up (or fall) under scruity, with appropriate statistics.
Most generational sociology seems to be derived from marketing classifications, which are heavily influenced by the recreational fashion cycle that these profession is obsessed with.
It is probably true that people of a given generation are more than likely (65% +) to have common tastes in cultural artificacts such as music, film and clothes.
These tastes are very plastic and eclectic. They would be very poor predictors of a persons social status or political attitudes.
Generational envy is not nice because tradition is generally a more reliable source of values than fashion.
In general people should respect their elders. This goes for baby boomers, gen Xers etc. They should also aspire to do better than their ancestors, for after all we stand on the shoulders of giants.
“These [generational] tastes are very plastic and eclectic. They would be very poor predictors of a persons social status or political attitudes.”
But what about the reverse statistical association Jack?
What about all those multi-culti, pomo, wet cultural latte slurping elitists you’ve been warning us about for such a long time?
Is it possible to be all of the above and really get off on Doris Day, lamingtons, Bert Newton, and a good dose of community hymn singing?
If so, then the good, traditionalist, integratable, Dry folk of Australia had better beware. The enemy is really in their midst.