As the recession persists, we can watch social shifts and cultural trends. Some are good, some are bad. But in either case, one way to control how the recession affects you is to watch the larger trends and decide where you want to fit.
Here are five trends that are emerging in the face of the largest job-loss numbers in the last four decades.
1. Being cost-conscious is cool.
These days, for the wives of the few investment bankers who still have jobs, shopping couture is something to do in secret. Hermes gives unmarked bags for customers who request it. The Obama girls showed up to the inauguration wearing J. Crew. And they looked adorable, which should inspire the reasonably-priced shopper in all of us.
And cost-cutting isn't just about fashion. Michelle Obama has to overhaul the White House décor. (Great quote from Barack : "I'm not a plates-on-the-walls kind of guy.") And she's heading toward Pottery Barn. I love that!
This trend is very freeing to me because my favorite dress for this winter is from Target. It is velvet but not really velvet – sort of crap, cheap velvet. And when I bought it, in September, I worried that it was over-the-top-cheap. But now, I feel more uncomfortable wearing my $400 boots than I do wearing the $20 dress.
2. An increasing backlash against baby boomers.
Newsflash: The baby boomers got us into this mess. They borrowed against future generations. They mishandled SEC regulations. They ignored the environment. They set up a social security system that is going to break as soon as they’re done taking from it. And they took the best education this country had to offer, and then depleted the education system for the next generation.
Obama is the first Gen-X president. And, to the surprise of all the baby boomers who have been trash-talking Gen-X forever, it’s Gen-X that will bail this country out of the mess the baby boomers got us into.
In the meantime, Generation X is the first generation in the US ever that will earn less than their parents. And Generation Y has an incredible amount of debt due to baby boomers pushing up college costs and housing costs while real wages went down.
The under-45's are stunned by the selfishness of the baby boomer era.
3. More Sex.
When I was a Boston Globe reporter, one of my best interviews was with David Blanchflower, professor of economics at Dartmouth , who has analyzed the relationship between money and sex.
He says that more money does not get people more sex, it merely gets them more choices of people to have sex with. This makes sense. I've never heard of someone abstaining from sex until they make enough money to date a model. And anyway, we know from Dan Airley's research that if someone has too many choices, they don't do anything. Sure, this research applies to jam samples in grocery stores, but maybe someone should investigate if people actually have less sex when they earn so much money that they can choose from anyone.
Okay. But back to the recession. Amazingly, it turns out that less money equals more sex. I am not totally sure why this is, because the research comes from what is now one of my most favorite resources, Durex condoms, a site that does provide a lot of qualitative analysis for their statistics.
Still, Durex reports that drugstore sales of their condoms were up 6% during the time Lehman went under. And sales in the New York City sex toy emporium Babeland increased 25% in that same time period. So the deeper the recession, the more sex people are having.
4. Women are earning all the money.
We already knew that in big cities women earn more than men. The trend is probably going to spread to smaller cities because the men comprise the majority of people being laid off during this recession: finance, manufacturing, construction, all men.
What will this mean for social fabric? If the pitches I receive from publicists are any indicator of what's coming, things will be very bad at home. More than one press release has instructed women to use the fact that they are earning the money to force the guy to do more around the house.
Here's a pitch for the book, Breakdown, Breakthrough: The Professional Woman's Guide to Claiming a Life of Passion, Power, and Purpose. She encourages women to use their earning power to "commit to breaking the female pattern of overfunctioninig." Presumably this means getting the guy to do more cleaning even though we know that men absolutely do not think the toilet needs cleaning as soon as the woman does.
So basically, women are being encouraged to use the fact that their husbands were laid off as a way to get the men to act like women at home. Bad. Very bad.
5.Companies are finding more cost-effective ways to recruit.
Business Week reports that the recruiting models are broken, and in the downturn, companies aren't spending money on stuff that doesn't work. Instead, companies are turning to online networks. And pundits are declaring that 2009 will be the year that corporations understand how cost-effective it is to leverage social media for corporate messaging.
What this all adds up to is a shift in recruiting. Candidates have known for years that sending a resume to Monster is like sending it into a black hole. Online networks are finally giving recruiters an alternative to the old ways of doing business.
And really, that's the silver lining of the whole recession, right? It's an opportunity for each of us to look at what we've been doing before that wasn't working anyway. Because in a bad economy the stuff that we could sort of get by ignoring will kill us if we don't take action. And taking action to do things better is what we'd want for ourselves in any economy.









Hey Penelope. I was halfway through #4 and I already knew this was one of your finest articles. REALLY good.
#2 (babyboomers mess) is oh-so-true, #3 (sex) made me laugh, #4 (men-women) is something I fully agree (I'm a guy!) and #5 (throw away the underperfoming) is the richness of this crisis.
May we all have the wisdom to recognize that there's always a bright side to things — and the bravery to work our bottoms off to make things better.
Cheers, D.
Posted by Diogo Slov on 02/20/2009 at 06:01am | permalink | Reply to this comment
I suspect condom sales rise as people realise their realtionships are more important than their jobs and will sustain them for longer. Thankfully human interaction is much more important long term than a huge salary.
Now I'm off to appreciate my lovely boyfriend….
Posted by Rhona Gilmour on 02/20/2009 at 06:06am | permalink | Reply to this comment
Provoking thoughts as always. As a Gen Xer, I don't feel like we're bailing anybody out. If Obama is a Gen X president, and he's just signed this staggering deficit spending bill, isn't what we're doing far worse than the Baby Boomers?
Posted by Matt Tillotson on 02/20/2009 at 06:23am | permalink | Reply to this comment
Isn't this spending bill (which, by the way is not nearly as big, percentage-wise as the fundamental economic moves of of Reagan, Bush I or Bush II) the bailout.
Posted by David on 04/01/2009 at 08:38am | permalink | Reply to this comment
From my company's perspective, recruiting got a whole lot easier. We posted a job notice for a customer service position on Craigslist and got over 100 responses. 20 of them made the initial cut. For comparison, we recruited for the same position last summer and got about 30 and 5, respectively.
We also do a lot to pre-sell people on the company and make them jump through a couple of (reasonable) hoops before we look at their resume. The req is closed, but anyone interested can see our process here.
Posted by Derek Scruggs on 02/20/2009 at 08:34am | permalink | Reply to this comment
Derek, just curious about the hoops you make ad respondents jump through before you review resumes. I'm involved in Job-fit assessments and wonder if this is what you are referring to. Very interesting business by the way.
Steve
Posted by Steve Cook on 02/25/2009 at 03:06pm | permalink | Reply to this comment
Wow. Only 4 comments? This is such a great post! I'm not sure how many people (especially baby boomers) will necessarily agree that there will be a backlash against baby boomers – but I do think this nation's attitude toward debt/spending will change significantly. I am sure Gen Y's will be a lot more cautious about spending, making major purchases and living life a lot different from their parents. I'm also sure that the wave of "cheap chic" will take over as well. On that note, it's interesting that you mention the JCrew/Obama relationship.
As a JCrew fanatic, I've noticed that JCrew used very few African Americans in its ad campaigns/catalogs. I wonder how this marketing willl change now that the Obamas are so openly connected to the clothing.
Posted by Raven Moore on 02/20/2009 at 08:40am | permalink | Reply to this comment
Penelope…you have such a great blog and are usually so ahead of the curve that I'm genuinely shocked to see you say that Obama is an Xer. That's so clearly not what current thinking is among experts. I could have sworn that I've seen you before acknowledge the existence of Obama's actual generation:
As many nationally influential voices have repeatedly noted, Obama–born 1961–is part of Generation Jones, born 1954-1965, between the Boomers and Generation X. Google Generation Jones, and you'll see it’s gotten a ton of media attention, and many top commentators from many top publications and networks (Washington Post, Time magazine, NBC, Newsweek, ABC, etc.) specifically use this term to describe Obama.
Virtually no prominent voices have said that Obama is an Xer. The writer you link to–John Avalon–is one of the only writers anywhere who has said that Obama is an Xer, and Avalon is an obscure writer who isn't even remotely a prominent voice. A long list of prominent voices has said Obama is part of GenJones, including : David Brooks (New York Times), Karen Tumulty (Time Magazine), Clarence Page (Chicago Tribune), Jonathan Alter (Newsweek), Roland Martin (CNN), Michael Steele (Chairman, RNC), Chris Van Hollen (Chairman, DCCC), Stuart Rothenberg (Roll Call), Juan Williams (Fox News Channel), Howard Wolfson (Political Advisor), Mel Martinez (U.S. Senator [R-Florida]), Carl Leubsdorf (Dallas Morning News), and Peter Fenn (MSNBC) and many more top journalists, generations experts and political and social pundits.
Polling offers yet more evidence. Several polls have confirmed that those born between the mid-1950s and mid-1960s clearly identify with GenJones over its surrounding generations. One particularly interesting poll a few months ago had a nationally representative sample of 500 people all born in 1961–the same birth year as Obama. They overwhelmingly chose GenJones over GenX or the Baby Boom Generation as the generation which they felt they fit into.
Excellent op-ed on Obama as the first Generation Jones President in USA TODAY a couple of weeks ago:
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20090127/column27_st.art.htm
And here is a video with over 20 top pundits talking about Obama as a GenJoneser, with many specifically saying that he is obviously not an Xer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Ta_Du5K0jk&feature=related
The Associated Press' annual trend report chose The Rise of Generation Jones as the #1 trend of 2009, specifically because of Jonesers Obama, Geitner, Summers, etc. taking over leadership of the U.S. CNN and several other major media outlets have also listed Generation Jones as among 2009's top trends. So when you're doing a piece on "5 emerging trends", I encourage you to get this one right, to help maintain the excellent reputation that your blog has rightfully earned.
Posted by TrendObsever on 02/20/2009 at 08:55am | permalink | Reply to this comment
I understand that Obama is born in the year that counts as Generation Jones. There is a great comment below from Jen67 about this discussion, but I'll add to it here.
I do not believe that peoples' generation is defined by the year they are born. I have written about this before, and I developed a test, in conjunction with reserachers at MIT, to determine what your generation is. Obama is an Xer.
http://blog.penelopetrunk.com/2007/06/25/what-generation-are-you-part-of-really-take-this-test/
Also, click the link I have in the post to the rest of the world that considers Obama the first Gen X president.
Penelope
Posted by Penelope Trunk on 02/20/2009 at 10:16am | permalink | Reply to this comment
I as born in 1971 and no way do I consider Obama in my generation (x-gen)as he is an older guy now, I am only on the verge of being that :)
I havent heard of Gen Jones yet, but I would think it more applies to Obama and those born 10 years ahead of me.
Posted by gregcnorca*AT*aim on 02/22/2009 at 08:13pm | permalink | Reply to this comment
A shared experience of Generation Jones is graduating into the recession of 1980-82 which redefined employment expectations for all who followed. Another characteristic is the emergence of word processing and computer literacy. There is a shift that occurred in this eight year period of early adulthood and many resisted developing keyboard skills and had to catch up.
Dont claim Obama for yourself, Gen X!
Posted by Kay Frommelt on 03/08/2009 at 02:06pm | permalink | Reply to this comment
Maybe having lots of people to choose from for a sex partner doesn't result in less sex, rather less enjoyment of sex. You waste time wondering "Did I pick the right/best person?" rather than just enjoying your time together.
And maybe it isn't simply an increase in sex, as much as it is an increase in sex that won't get you pregnant?
Great post!
Posted by Marie on 02/20/2009 at 09:11am | permalink | Reply to this comment
Obama is a boomer, and the boomers did not setup the Social Security ponzi scheme. It'd be nice to blame them, but it's inaccurate.
Posted by factchecker on 02/20/2009 at 09:15am | permalink | Reply to this comment
i wish everyone would stop already about generation jones. a generation that does not exist according to the leading researchers in generational studies; moreover, 1958-1962 does not constitute a generation, but rather a bunch of tail end baby boomers trying to avoid association, and older gen xers, who like the rest of gen x, don't even know they have a generation.
i love how gen x finally gets their first president and the whole world then debates how he's not really an xer. what is the freakish point? his wife was born in 1964. she's not an xer either, huh?
as far as these trends – i'd argue that they aren't emerging. they've already a emerged; some of them a long time ago – although I hadn't heard about plain sacks…wild.
here are some trends i've noticed:
1. tiny stuff is cool – including tiny houses.
2. living in places formerly considered unhip – like Omaha, and my hometown, OKC.
3. more churches largely represented by brick and mortar will close and church will be more and more defined by a small knit community.
4. urban gardens will replace backyard lawns as people attempt to reconnect with their agrarian roots and figure out how we got here…(recession/economic nightmares)
just a few – i've noticed many more.
Posted by jenx67 on 02/20/2009 at 09:20am | permalink | Reply to this comment
Great post. Love "the condom effect," which perhaps is the new "Lipstick Effect." The President of Este Lauder once noted that during recessions lipstick sales go up. Presumably lipstick (or sex) is a cheaper indulgence to look and feel better than say, your $400 boots.
And to Marie's point: I suppose in America, birth control pills are harder to get during recessions because of their costs and needing a prescription, which means seeing a doctor, which not everyone can afford.
Posted by Wendy on 02/20/2009 at 09:25am | permalink | Reply to this comment
How is Obama the first "Gen X president"? He was born in 1961, so he's an even older Baby Boomer than I am. Let's give credit where credit is due already, and please stop generalizing about the Baby Boomers, some of which are a scant four years older than you, and just like Gen Xers are waiting for them to retire or die before we can advance…
Posted by MW on 02/20/2009 at 09:41am | permalink | Reply to this comment
I second that. I am allegedly a baby boomer albeit the fact that I have never been able to enjoy the same standard of living as my parents. I knew this was going to be the primary fact of my life as soon as I graduated college.
If you really research this, you will undoubtedly realize that this mess is the sum total of the United States being under the rule of conservative ideology for the last 30 some odd years. Deregulation,no oversight,putting business above people has decimated (destroyed?) the middle class and consequently,landed Gen-X,Y,Z and so forth into the same sinking boat that I find myself in (with alot of other so-called baby boomers). And if you don't believe me, I will send you the very well researched grad school paper I am writing on this very subject. Oh yes- the conservative Republicans had a good deal of help from the centrist Democrats of the 1990s in creating this debacle.
Posted by pip on 02/23/2009 at 04:18pm | permalink | Reply to this comment
p.s. it's not the policies of 'a generation' that put us into this mess, it's the policies of a couple of ancient, greedy white guys, none of which anyone I know — Baby Boomer or otherwise — ever voted for.
Posted by MW on 02/20/2009 at 09:43am | permalink | Reply to this comment
Penelope,I guess I am struggling to figure out your point when you say, "So basically, women are being encouraged to use the fact that their husbands were laid off as a way to get the men to act like women at home. Bad. Very bad. Cheaper recruiting that is actually better for the candidate too."
Is there something wrong with expecting everyone who lives in a house to be a part of maintaining that house? I think that is a fair expectation, and I can't tell if that is your opinion or not.
Posted by Taylor at Household Management 101 on 02/20/2009 at 10:00am | permalink | Reply to this comment
Did you click the link in that sentence? I link to research (just one of a million pieces of research) that shows that men actually do not see clean/not clean the same way women do.
So the idea that men and women will share housecleaning responsibilities is inane. Men do not see the same way. They cannot clean the way a woman would want. It would not look clean to a woman. It's a different way of seeing things.
It would be really easy to just divide everything down the middle and make marriages perfectly equal. But people are different. Men and women are very different.
-Penelope
Posted by Penelope Trunk on 02/20/2009 at 10:18am | permalink | Reply to this comment
Enter communication and compromise.
Talk about each other's cleanliness standards and decide how to tell whether something needs cleaning and whose job it is.
Simple.
And really, truly not impossible. I'm living it.
Posted by Natalia Real on 2009-02-20 13:09:54 | (Comments wont nest below this level)
absent the sweeping generalization, this is right on the money – people see "clean" differently, but women aren't always on the "cleaner" side. when i shovel the walk, my wife sees "clean" much earlier than i do (if i had a flamethrower, i could really do a good job [sublimate the last bits of ice and packed snow], but having almost cut my fingertip off with a hedge trimmer, maybe that's not such a good idea).
but in general, the generalization (and hence its name) holds true – she likes clean-clean and i shoot for 80%, particularly in places that will just go from 100% clean to 80% in less than a day (litter box, bathroom, etc) – so why bother. if, on first glance, it "looks" clean, then for me, it's clean.
so i do the things where she can accept "looks clean" and agrees not to watch (so she can convince herself that it really is clean) and she does the rest. over time, more and more moves into my realm – as she realizes that her time is more important than the 20% extra clean she would do. and that's ok with me since i can 80% clean a bathroom (that hasn't been cleaned in a month) in about 30 min vs a half day for her. less "couple time" spent.
Posted by jcg1013 on 2009-03-04 15:55:41 | (Comments wont nest below this level)
Women as a group do not earn more than men. ANYWHERE. Do your research and for the love of God, stop saying that – you are grossly misinformed. Start by reading this: http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswom2007.pdf
Whenever I read your men vs. women's earnings error, it makes me mistrust everything else you say.
Posted by Teri on 02/20/2009 at 10:25am | permalink | Reply to this comment
Hi Penelope–
Thought provoking post, as always!
However, people aren't necessarily having more sex– maybe they're just being more careful– the increase in condom sales could be due to the fact that many people can't afford to risk pregnancy right now. And an increase in sex toy sales could mean more people are engaging in self-love. Maybe there are a few upsides to the down economy! ;)
Posted by T. Meehan on 02/20/2009 at 10:45am | permalink | Reply to this comment
Wow, this post sure got everyone fired up.
Good.
We should be talking about this stuff. Right or wrong, agree or disagree, thanks Penelope for posting clear, articulate thoughts.
Posted by Jason Taylor on 02/20/2009 at 11:10am | permalink | Reply to this comment
I was born in 1966 and anyone who wants to call me a Boomer had better stand waaay back, because I *will* take a swing at them. Sheesh. Yes, Obama is our first Gen X president and it is entirely typical that a roundup of people would deny it, because nobody wants to give Gen X credit for anything, ever. @#$% 'em if they don't get it.
Posted by Laura on 02/20/2009 at 11:15am | permalink | Reply to this comment
I think that President Obama will do a good job turning this country around, remember it took 8 years for Bush to steer us in the ground, how long will it take to turn it around, might take just as long. Nobody knows, not even the "glorious" Ex-president Bush has a clue…
Posted by Orlando on 04/11/2009 at 04:47pm | permalink | Reply to this comment
Interesting comments Penelope. Although I find interesting that you think the Pottery Barn and J. Crew are "bargains." Living and working in Montana, most of the people here always thought it was cool to be bargain hunters. Four hundred dollar boots? Will you send all of your old clothes to me please? And the Generation thing. Please. Another division. If we'd all look at each other as people and we'd see that we really all want the same things and would be a lot better off. And if you look at the definition of Obama, he's a boomer. I'm a boomer although I relate better to the Xers.
Sex comment is funny. Probably because people can't go out and spend money like they could before.
As always, you post elicits many emotions and comments.
The social security system was set up in the 1930s during the last great depression before most of the boomers were even born.
Posted by Carol on 02/20/2009 at 11:50am | permalink | Reply to this comment
Penelope, I'm kinda amazed to see your approach with this issue of Obama's generational identity, because generally I think you have a very insightful take on issues, but part of the beauty of blogs is they allow us to debate issues like this in a spirit of mutual respect. You strike me as someone who has an open mind, so I offer these comments for your consideration:
(1) No generation expert anywhere avocates determining generations by subjective variables like how people use media. Sociologists, demographers, pundits, journalists and other experts always use birth dates to determine generations for a variety of obvious reasons. If you think through the implications of trying to do this with the kind of subjective variable you suggest, I think you would see how completely unworkable that would be. For generations to have meaning, it must be done by birth years, which is why all experts do it that way.
For starters, who would determine these subjective variables? And which ones would they choose? Do you honsetly believe that the one you chose–how people use media–is the only relevant variable?! What about all the other many political, cultural, economic variables that are factored into determining collective generational personalities? Generational science is very complicated, and experts use mountains of attitudinal, behavioral and other data to arrive at these generational birth ranges. It really is hard for me to believe that someone of your obvious intelligence could believe that generations should be determined by one issue and the thousands of other issues considered regularly by generations experts should all be ignored.
(2) I looked through your post and cannot find the link you say is in your post "to the rest of the world that considers Obama the first Gen X president". That I would like to see. I follow this closely, and can assure you that virtually no credible experts say Obama is an Xer. If you can provide specific names of experts who say Obama is an Xer, please do. With all respect, there is no such list. Again, by contrast, there is a long list of experts who say he is a GenJoneser.
(3) I'd be very curious to know what could cause you conclude that JenX67's comment is "great". Let me briefly address this, not with any malice toward JenX7, but in the spirit of a candid debate. If you read JenX67's blog, you will quickly see that she has very little knowledge about genrations. She may be a very nice person, but she clearly has not developed anything close to expertise on this topic and her posts are often filled with blatant inaccuracies. Let's break down her comment here, for example…
a) she says she wishes "everyone would stop already about generation jones". You'll find this theme in her blog, what is so striking is how it always comes back to her emotional desire to claim rock star Obama as one of her own. She's made numerous comments which clearly show that this is driven by her personal desire to be have Obama be part of the same group. I've read her comments and been reminded of how passionately some people cling to local sports teams, feeling like if their hometown team becomes a champion, it somehow makes them as a fan a champion.
b) she claims that Generation Jones is "a generation that does not exist according to the leading researchers in generational studies". Jenx67 might find it helpful to actually do research before making claims that are so embarrassingly wrong. Many, many leading researchers in generational studies believe in the existence of Generation Jones…most new books about generations now automatically include GenJones, most experts in the field absolutely believe in its existence, conferences about generations regularly include it. A consensus has unequivocally emerged among experts that GenJones exists.
c) she defines GenJones as those born 1958-1962. Again, if Jenx67 chose at some point to do even the tiniest amount of research on this topic which she regularly "informs" the public about, she would find that nobody uses these years for GenJones. If she actually took the time to google this, she'd find hundreds of articles which all define GenJones as born 1954-1965. I just googled 1958-1962 and couldn't find one reference anywhere using these birh years. That makes me wonder whther JenX67 makes up these years which she knows are false to try to fool people into believing her hard-to-defend postion, or is it innocent ignorance?
Again, no personal attack intended in my sincere views here, just an attempt to bring actual facts and expertise into this discussion.
Posted by TrendObserver on 02/20/2009 at 11:57am | permalink | Reply to this comment
Um, not to offend you, but I can think of few things more boring than debating whether someone is a member of what generation. Generations to me are just arbitrary segmentations of people. I can't fathom why you would get so worked up about them so as to call another commenter's observations "embarrassingly wrong."
Posted by Sara on 02/20/2009 at 04:40pm | permalink | Reply to this comment
Oh, boy. Penelope writes about emerging trends, and it spirals down into a generational debate. Yawn. Let me just waste space and defend myself against the non-attack. First of all – there are no blatant inaccuracies relating to Generation X on my blog. I primarily link to conversations in the Blogopshere. I provide a quasi news/blog aggregate. I rarely write "about" generations in the academic sense because I know I'm not expert. And, I'm not trying to play one in the Blogopshere. I've lived Generation X, and I am here to bear witness to my life and times and to provide some validation for what a variety of people have defined as the collective persona of my generation. Thus, the memoir and revelation subhead on my blog.
Moreover, if you actually read my blog then you would know that I didn't even vote for Obama — or Bush in the last election, so your assessment of me and my motivation for the point I made about Obama being an expert could not be more wrong. According to Neil and Strauss, the most widely recognized experts in generational research, Generation X (or the 13th Generation) comprises peeps born between 1961 and 1981. Obama was born in 1961.
Regarding the 1958 to 1962 figure, I recalled that from a video on YouTube. You are right and I stand corrected. I reviewed that video again and reported the years incorrectly. What I remembered was that the years defining Generation Jones included birth years of two of my siblings. The one born in '58 is a classic Boomer. The one born in '62 – a classic Xer. Thus, my own assessment of Generation Jones being junk theory.
Finally, there are many kinds of research. Qualitative and quantitative; secondary and primary. You call yourself a trend observer. How, then, can you deny all the people placing Generation Jones on the same level as the tooth fairy? You will discover this in secondary qualitative research, which I do in fact perform every week.
Oh, and one more thing. I don't blog anonymously, and I don't leave anonymous comments. If I say someone doesn't know what they are talking about I show my face. So, why not state your name and show your face if you really are an expert?
Posted by jenx67 on 02/20/2009 at 06:55pm | permalink | Reply to this comment
I agree with Laura (born in the same year!) And I agree with the idea that even though I am on the edge of the Baby Boomer generation and Obama is technically one – it is just more of a philosophical thing than the exact year. So THANK YOU for #2. I was so relieved that we finally broke the "age barrier" with a president – I could identify with him so much more. I don't know if he can "save" us, but I have hope that we may get some different ideas going.
I get really tired of hearing that I am so cynical I cannot possibly function at work, especially as a manager. That I am so technically-phobic and so threatened by Gen Y that I cry myself to sleep. You would think I should be balled up in a corner gnashing my teeth considering I am in the middle of a bank merger. Nothing could be farther from the truth – I am seeing some great possibilities and so are many of the people my age – in fact we are some of the ones who stand to gain the most in our new larger organization.
Posted by MariaH on 02/20/2009 at 12:03pm | permalink | Reply to this comment
Couldn't an increase in condom sales also (at least in part) be a consequence of women losing health care coverage when they're laid off? Without insurance, I certainly would not be able to stay on the pill.
I don't have any statistics to support this — just a thought.
Posted by Elle on 02/20/2009 at 12:10pm | permalink | Reply to this comment
Dirty little secret: It's super easy to fix Social Security. Here's how: No cap on FICA/FUTA for wages (currently indexed ~ $102k).
Remove the cap remove the gap.
Posted by finance girl on 02/20/2009 at 12:31pm | permalink | Reply to this comment
Obama is GenX because he uses a BlackBerry. Okay, some Boomers use BlackBerries, but they don't look as cool doing it.
People who are unemployed have more time for sex.
Posted by Bill on 02/20/2009 at 12:32pm | permalink | Reply to this comment
I think people are getting it on more often because sex is free (most of the time). It's also a temporary high and stress buster. Not to mention I have a feeling that when money goes out the door, people start re-evaluating what's really important in life. Like love, family, relationships, etc. Also, when people are unemployed they freak out and have too much time on their hands. Sex is a good way to kill some time.
I sort of got the impression that Penelope meant Obama is the first president who appeals to a Gen-X audience, is generally like-minded (I'm generalizing here) and utilizes social networking, etc. I think she's too smart not to know Obama is too old to be a Gen-Xer.
Posted by Susan on 02/20/2009 at 12:44pm | permalink | Reply to this comment
1. For someone who is running a business on borrowed money it probably isn't a good idea to broadcast the fact you spent that money on $400 boots. For the larger percentage of people in this country J. Crew is upscale and expensive. Boots or any item of apparel costing $400 will never be in their wardrobes.
2. Wall Street is populated primarily by people under 45, not the baby boomers. Granted the long view of this mess goes back to the 70's, but the immediate financial crisis and the events that created it are the result of those in Gen-X, not the baby boomers.
3. The current crisis originated in the greed of the American people who tried to get something for nothing. The financial people saw that greed and pounced. A $35,000 a year family cannot afford a $500,000 house and they know it. People who refinanced their homes so they could put in swimming pools, take vacations, get plastic surgery, deserve to lose it all. If these people would pay back the money they borrowed we wouldn't be in this mess. Instead they are playing the role of victim when they caused this mess themselves.
Posted by mimsey tove on 02/20/2009 at 01:00pm | permalink | Reply to this comment
Good point, Susan…I agree that Penelope does seem too smart to think that Obama is literally an Xer. And yes, he is the first to appeal to Xers. So perhaps I misunderstood Penelope's comments, for which I apologize.
Posted by TrendObserver on 02/20/2009 at 01:04pm | permalink | Reply to this comment
"So basically, women are being encouraged to use the fact that their husbands were laid off as a way to get the men to act like women at home."
No, actually it's about dividing up chores fairly contingent on how much free time you have, whether you're a hermaphrodite, a woman, a man, or however you want to be classified.
Posted by Natalia Real on 02/20/2009 at 01:06pm | permalink | Reply to this comment
Barak Obama was born in 1961 – by some definitions that makes him a baby boomer. Even if you don't subscribe to that – does one year in or out have such a magical effect that you attribute a whole set of values to a person by date of birth?
Posted by Kathy on 02/20/2009 at 01:10pm | permalink | Reply to this comment
My maternal grandparents had 6 kids born from 1949 to 1965. Their daugher born in 1949 had a daughter of her own in 1969. She is 3 years younger than her aunt but is she the same generation? Of course not, and it isn't because of some arbitrary cut-off date.
The cut-off points for generations always seem to be changing and people who don't identify with the generation they're lumped in with are always complaining about it.
As Penelope says, everyone thinks they're unique. So no one wants to be defined by their generation, especially when generational stereotypes are usually negative, but get over it and be an individual. Just because you're born at a certain time doesn't mean you have to act a certain way.
Posted by Veronica Sawyer on 02/20/2009 at 01:36pm | permalink | Reply to this comment
Just wondering if you had a nip at breakfast.
You might try some Tia Marie or Kahlua with your AM coffee. Works with PM coffee too.
I believe that Starbux will find this to be a hit in the recession. Remember, you heard it here first.
Still awaiting the address to send the corkscrew. Until then, Manischewitz is screwtop and it is cost-conscious.
Posted by That Mike on 02/20/2009 at 01:23pm | permalink | Reply to this comment
Far from being thought provoking, this post is just mind-numbing.
Somehow, 2+2 always adds up to 5 for you.
Posted by DC on 02/20/2009 at 01:48pm | permalink | Reply to this comment
It would be really easy to just divide everything down the middle and make marriages perfectly equal. But people are different. Men and women are very different.
No excuses. Especially if they're at home. Men are raised not to see when things need to be cleaned, not that they're born that way. There are no social consequences for them (people don't reprimand men for not keeping a clean house or that the kids look unkept, they reprimand women). There need to be more consequences and they need to step up and learn how to be accountable for work inside the home, seeing as that's where they'll be. Now's a really good time for that.
Posted by Kandi on 02/20/2009 at 02:03pm | permalink | Reply to this comment
People don't reprimand anyone for unclean houses and unkempt kids. If you're hanging out with people who are judging you for what your kids look like I feel sorry for you.
Posted by LuckyK on 02/23/2009 at 02:38pm | permalink | Reply to this comment
Of course, there is an arbitrary element to generations. It's like being in one country and walking five feet away over an international border and suddenly you're in a completely different country, even though the landscape looks identical. But that doesn't mean that there is no such things as countries, just like the former point doesn't mean there is no such thing as generations.
Another point which needs clarification is the difference between the demographic boom in birth for approximately 20 years after the second world war vs. cultural generations. Two very different generations were born during that birth boom. Many experts now see it this way:
Demographic baby boom = 1946-1964
Baby Boom GENERATION = 1942-1953
Generation Jones = 1954-1965
Generation X = 1966-1979
Posted by TrendObserver on 02/20/2009 at 02:26pm | permalink | Reply to this comment
It's all the boomers fault? As with most problems the cause is a set of circumstances no one considered possible that occurs anyway. The lesson to be learned is to assume all your assumptions are wrong and then examine whether your plan has risks you did not consider. Also look for unintended consequences of your choices. Then if you start getting stressed, consider some romance and find a smile.
Posted by Don B. on 02/20/2009 at 02:34pm | permalink | Reply to this comment
100% pure bull. This has all happened before. The Great Depression was caused in large part by rampant speculation, The safe guards that were put in place to prevent it from happening again were removed by those who were either greedier or thought they were somehow wiser than those who had lived through carnage. Not only that, but fraud was committed on several levels, from the individuals who lied on loan applications to the financial wizards who knew those loans were junk but sold them as top grade investments. I called this three years ago when I was studying the depression, and several others have called it before me. This wasn't some freak that no one could have predicted. It's been painfully obvious for years to anyone who paid attention in history class. I'm not going to blame a whole generation for this, but let's not pretend this was no one's fault. It damn well was, and it could have been prevented.
Posted by Anthony on 02/21/2009 at 12:06am | permalink | Reply to this comment
I think many of the people who have commented on the "More Sex" during recessions correlation to be erroneous. Condom sales measure the increased need or lust for sex and does not necessarily indicate that more people are doing it. Our studies show that conception rates ebb and flow with the stock market. .
Posted by Ben on 02/20/2009 at 03:12pm | permalink | Reply to this comment
I think many of the people who have commented on the "More Sex" during recessions correlation to be erroneous. Condom sales measure the increased need or lust for sex and does not necessarily indicate that more people are doing it. Our studies show that conception rates ebb and flow with the stock market. You can view the study here: http://www.socionomics.net/whatis/sex-and-stocks.aspx#stocks
Posted by Ben on 02/20/2009 at 03:13pm | permalink | Reply to this comment
Penelope,
I think in your zeal to be provocative, your research doesn't back up what you're saying.
1. Social Security was passed by 1 vote in the 1930's by a Democratic majority. As you know, baby-boomers were NOT around then.
2. Obama appeals to gen-x, but he's not part of gen-x.
3. Crises always spur more sex. See 9 months after 9/11 or nine months after the famous New York electrical blackout (1960's). Births spiked.
There's more, but you're a smart lady so I don't think it's necessary to go on.
P.S. You might want to fact check Swan's blog.
Posted by Harry on 02/20/2009 at 03:32pm | permalink | Reply to this comment
Harry, crises do not always spur more sex. The "baby boom" 9 months after September 11 is false. http://www.snopes.com/rumors/babyboom.asp
Posted by Ben on 02/20/2009 at 03:41pm | permalink | Reply to this comment
Point taken Ben. You are correct. I jumped the track on that one. Her real point was recessional not crises related. That's what happens when you hurry too much.
Posted by Harry on 02/20/2009 at 09:00pm | permalink | Reply to this comment
Arg, this is so dumb. Increased condom sales = more sex? Um, no…
Increased condom sales = more people looking to prevent pregnancy because they don't have gainful employment.
Posted by Teri on 02/20/2009 at 03:52pm | permalink | Reply to this comment
As always, your courage is admirable.
I wrote a post about the recession that received a lot of criticism
(link ).
I liked that you had some positive implications for the recession, which was what I was pointing out as well. Sure, it's extremely difficult for some people right now, but there has to be a silver lining, otherwise suffering is in vain.
And, if more sex isn't a perk of the recession, I really don't know what is. (Too bad, I don't seem to be included in that group… maybe it's because I'm living with my parents right now. Riiiight.. about that.)
Posted by Jamie Varon on 02/20/2009 at 04:27pm | permalink | Reply to this comment
I can never get that damn link HTML right.
Here's the link: http://www.intersectedblog.com/2009/01/22/why-i-think-the-recession-is-great/
Posted by Jamie Varon on 02/20/2009 at 04:27pm | permalink | Reply to this comment
Thanks very much, Penelope, for mentioning my book Breakdown, Breakthrough. I appreciate your insights – always fascinating and thought-provoking. I must add to the comments here that my point is that we (both men and women) need to shift gender inequities. It's time. It's not impossible, and it's not hopeless. I know…I live what it is to have a marriage where we both work full-time, and both chip in domestically and share the weight (not the toilets, but almost everything else!) Thanks again for your views. (FYI, my blog about women and careers shares some more thinking about women, men and work, at http://www.breakdownbreakthrough.com/blog.)
Posted by Kathy Caprino on 02/20/2009 at 05:28pm | permalink | Reply to this comment
I couldn't agree with you more on point #2. Baby Boomers were NOT concerned about future generations when they were taking out loans they could never afford to pay back, and living "comfortable" lifestyle far beyond their means fueled by high interest rate credit cards.
I'm 23 and will be completely debt free in 1 to 1.5 year. I've always been leery of taking out large sums of money even for my college education. I'm glad I never fell into that ideology of "take out what you need and worry about paying for it later."
Posted by Mindspazzer on 02/20/2009 at 06:13pm | permalink | Reply to this comment
The Social Security System was set up by the G.I. generation, not the Boomers. The Environmental Movement was largely a creation of the Boomers.
Posted by chip on 02/20/2009 at 09:16pm | permalink | Reply to this comment
I see your trend #1 happening a lot around me (which elates me). And #4 (which saddens me. The pressure on women is immense. I'm glad my husband picks up the slack – I hope more do).
I am wondering about another trend caused by this recession – are people buying less food from Whole Foods and other organic, local-based grocers? This one worries me – but I think in a great economy everyone touts being "green" to be trendy and "buying local" even if it is more expensive. But I see fewer and fewer people at Whole Foods than I used to. I (unfortunately) bet Wal-Mart is booming. I haven't looked into it, but I will. Have you noticed this trend?
Posted by Amber Warren on 02/20/2009 at 09:32pm | permalink | Reply to this comment
I like the post and love the stores but am I the only one who knows J Crew and Pottery Barn is still expensive to most people?
Since when has $100 sweaters been considered cost efficient?
Posted by Nicole on 02/20/2009 at 10:20pm | permalink | Reply to this comment
So far this century the escalated war on terror as a result of 9/11 and now this economic crisis has been a devastating one-two punch to this country.
The war on terror has cost lives, cost money, and cost us some freedoms and privacy to name a few things. The economic crisis is directly and adversely affecting the economic well-being of this country as well as its people in major ways now as well as for some time to come.
The blame, anger, jealousy, and revenge seems to me to be at an all time high in my lifetime. It's corrosive and divides us. It's why I hate #2 in this post – An increasing backlash against baby boomers – an emerging trend from the recession.
I think it's time to try reconciliation among the generations rather than place blame. Reconciliation happens when we listen and tell stories to find what we hold in common rather than what holds us apart.
Posted by Mark W. on 02/21/2009 at 12:28am | permalink | Reply to this comment
Of course, I'm always drawn more to the sex bullets than anything else (and why not?). Several people have commented that increased condom sales doesn't necessarily mean an increase in sex. But I was reading some sex research around Valentine's Day, and interestingly, people were spending less money on V-Day gifts like flowers and lingerie, but they were having just as much sex. The general theory was that people were saving money by spending intimate time together at home.
I think that'll continue as the recession continues. I also agree with some of the comments here that sex is a mood-booster, and we all need to feel a little better right now.
Posted by Rachel on 02/21/2009 at 12:46am | permalink | Reply to this comment
Entertaining as ever, provocative as ever. I am surely the oldest of old farts here, and I stay around simply to nettle Penelope: I was born in 1944, and on Monday I'll be (gasp!) sixty-five.
An increase in sex? Hmmmm (that's a hummmmm). I have finally achieved the status of Dirty Old Man, and sure as Hell I've worked hard enough to get there. I have no idea why women in their 20s might find someone my age even vaguely interesting, but they do. Maybe it's because men my age can (1) take our time and (2) string together an English sentence without the standard connectives that constitute American sentence structure: Like and Y'know.
Blaming Boomers? Well, allow me to apologize for my generation, say ten Hail Marys, and twelve Our Fathers. However, I missed official Boomerdom by one year. The Boomers are dated back to 1945. Nevertheless, I'm slightly surprised to see that I'm part of the Greediest Generation that took Social Security away from the rest of you. Were you actually planning to live on that stuff? Do you know what it pays? I'm trying to do so (along with working off the books like some gardener in Freehold) because of some interesting alimony laws in New Jersey, and let's just say that poverty is not genteel. If I'm not fighting my cat for the canned food yet, it's only because the cat come to an understanding with me: I stay out of his food, he doesn't do a Travis-the-Chimp act on my face.
Oh: why am I collecting now instead of at 65 or 66? Let's just say I had to.
The one about companies being more innovative in recruiting is preposterous and about as self-congratulatory and self-serving as it gets. The firms simply buy larger shredders into which to feed the increased numbers of desperation resumes. Anyone who needs a job is disqualified. That would mean anyone over 40, right? Anyone who has a learning curve, right? For someone on this board to crow that his company now gets 100 resumes where it used to get 30, and how they can be more "selective"…well, fella, I alternate between mere contempt and wanting to do a Mickey Rourke on your face.
I have part-time students at a community college I teach at in Jersey, and I warn them that what's out there is very much like the shitty part-time jobs they have now–that the future is 19 years old, and its employment names are WalMart, CVS, Tar-dzay, Costco, and the local gas station. In other words, don't quit your day job because you may not get another.
Posted by Kenneth Wolman on 02/21/2009 at 08:59am | permalink | Reply to this comment
Dear Mr. Wolman,
Your posted comment on Penelope's blog was HYSTERICAL, and I think you need to start your own blog! So nice to know that I, too, can look forward to mixing it up when I am a little older, but wiser. Glad you're making the best of living in NJ (no offense; I lived there for the first half of my 40 yrs, so I have the right to rag on Jersey).
~Holly
P.S. Penelope, keep up the 'sensational' work.
Posted by Holly on 02/22/2009 at 12:09pm | permalink | Reply to this comment
Penelope,
Love your articles, love your insights, and I take offense to your baby-boomer comments. Being 50 myself, i'm not sure how I drove up college costs nor housing costs. Structural issues that have been as problematic for me as for anyone else (got 3 kids going to college over next 10 years, and I'm feeling just a bit screwed too). If I and my generation are at fault, please provide me with some real fact-based insights, refer me to past articles, or do one in the future. Everyone loves a good pile-on, but let's add some meaningful analysis where useful.
Posted by Dan Geiger on 02/21/2009 at 09:52am | permalink | Reply to this comment
I think taking action is the best advice. As dire as things seem to be, this kind of climate can provide opportunity. I have a friend who lost her job a few years ago and used that unfortunate circumstance as fuel to start a successful business. All she really needed was a push and she's never been happier. Granted, things are a bit different today, but the principle still applies.
Posted by The Scratched Cynic on 02/21/2009 at 11:28am | permalink | Reply to this comment
I think it is a bit opportunistic to claim Obama as a Xer and then later in the article describe boomers as over 45. I call myself the opposite of a math savant but that doesn't add up. Good news, if he fails he can be regrouped with boomers.
Sex- couple simple explanations. Guys are unemployed with nothing to do. They think about sex alot and now have time to and concentration to make a move. Everyone is so worried they need seratonin/endorphin lift. Sex it a handy way and no cost way to take care of ones mental health. Women are supporting them, they need to feel useful. Bullcrap to whoever said they are refocusing on things that really matter-they are looking to get high.
Posted by Bridget on 02/21/2009 at 12:35pm | permalink | Reply to this comment
I don't think a man cleaning a toilet is someone forced to "act like a woman." Someone has to clean the toilet or we will all die of germs, or be forced to endure a gross environment first thing in the morning.
It's a gender issue only when the member one sex is assumed to be the designated toilet cleaner. Otherwise, it's just a job and should be negotiated. If you can't do that, you don't belong together.
Posted by Liz on 02/21/2009 at 01:20pm | permalink | Reply to this comment
Bravo Liz!
Posted by LuckyK on 02/23/2009 at 02:58pm | permalink | Reply to this comment
#4 is quite true, but could be re-titled Women Will Earn What's Left of the Money, especially as salary scales ratchet down. This happens whenever a single job type or profession gets feminized, acquiring a propensity of female workers. What did the precious Gloria Steinem say? Something like, "I have yet to hear a man ask for advice on combining a career and family." And THAT is the true unfulfilled promise of Baby Boomer mothers who might have burnt their bras, but were too chicken to teach their boys and teach their girls. Yeah it's not fair to blame the female, but she was the only one there at child-rearing time. Men (not all, God bless the few who know who they are!) are still tourists in most families.
Posted by Allison on 02/21/2009 at 02:38pm | permalink | Reply to this comment
The parents and grandparents of the Baby Boomers set up Social Security. The Baby Boom generation would have been far too selfish and stupid and greedy to set up a Social Security System not tied as a potential money trough for Wall Streeters to lick dry. If the value of Social Security had dropped 50% in value like most 401Ks, the riots happening in the streets right now would have made the Bonus March on Washington and the Haymarket throwdown look like a parochial school picnic.
Posted by Greenbushboy on 02/21/2009 at 03:22pm | permalink | Reply to this comment
In the instance of Social Security, The World War 2 Generation showed a streak of greed unique in American History and the arrogance worthy of the winners of WW2.
Posted by chip on 02/22/2009 at 12:06pm | permalink | Reply to this comment
Uh, Chip: Social Security was passed in the 1930's under the administration of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. FDR. The four-term president? The one before Truman. The one whose policies prolonged and worsened the Great Depression. Yeah, that one.
Greed? Arrogance. I wish I could figure out WTF you are talking about with regard to the "World War II generation". Your difficulties in writing a standard-english sentence are hampering you here, fella.
Posted by Michael Sebastian on 2009-02-27 17:58:19 | (Comments wont nest below this level)
prolonged and worsened the depression? Obviously the opinion (and not fact)of a delusional right wing nut. Have you actually talked to anyone who grew up in the depression?
Grow up and face the music- free market fundamentalism is not only the cause of the mess we are in now but the root cause of the decline in the middle-class. Anyone with a molecule of brain in their heads knows that. It wouldn't be so bad if your political ilk just damaged themselves with their destructive delusions, but do you have to take the rest of the country down with you?
Posted by pip on 2009-02-27 21:59:09 | (Comments wont nest below this level)
It's about time you stopped your class warfare against baby boomers. Baby boomers did not ignore the environment; in fact it was the boomers who first raised awareness of the environment, staged the first "Earth Day" and pushed for the creation of the EPA. Oh, and did you get the memo that Social Security was created long before the first boomer was a gleam in the eye of a returning World War II vet? And that the boomers have only just turned old enough to collect Social Security?
And how did boomers singelhandedly "deplete" education? Most of the people populating education ARE boomers. Plus, isn't it a renewable resource, as succeeding generations all have the opportunity to enter education?
And who are the boomers you claim are "trash-talking" Gen-X-ers? This post was filled with a number of wild and unsubstantiated generalizations, most of them aimed at a demographic you are too lazy to learn about. Your rant sounds suspiciously like the narrow minds who say "all people on welfare are black," "all Democrats know how to do is tax and spend," and "The Republicans are only out for the rich." If you were truly a reporter, you are a sorry excuse for a journalist. Do some research.
Posted by Pat Rocchi on 02/21/2009 at 03:26pm | permalink | Reply to this comment
I think it is good to remember that President Bush wanted to privatize social security and hand over most of the money to wall street to manage. We dodged a bullet somehow and even his own party was against that crazy idea. Nevertheless, special interests will try again to privatize the only secure retirement plan there is. Gen X should not let them get away with that.
Posted by leslie on 02/21/2009 at 06:57pm | permalink | Reply to this comment
Leslie, what makes you so sure that Social Security is a "secure retirement plan"? It is nothing but a pile of IOU's that can be swept away at any time at the whim of the genius economists in Congress.
There is no legal entitlement to Social Security; there is no asset one owns in return for Social Security taxes paid. It is an intergenerational transfer program, pure and simple. Social Security "Trust Fund" or "Lock Box"? Doesn't exist.
You really need to read up on a few things.
Posted by Michael Sebastian on 02/27/2009 at 06:02pm | permalink | Reply to this comment
You could not have put it more perfectly. I am a Gen Y'er (just barely) and I am still shocked and frustrated but the spectacular selfishness of the boomers. They destroyed almost every facet of first world society and its institutions with their massive greed. Fortunately, Gen X'ers and Gen Y'ers have the audacity to look into the mess and not despair. Thanks for the post. It was very validating. Great blog! :)
Posted by Celeste Piltingsrud Charlesworth on 02/21/2009 at 07:56pm | permalink | Reply to this comment
I don't really see how we can blame the Boomers for the economic crisis – banking is mostly populated by Generation X and Y. And the people taking out the sub-prime mortgages were also primarily younger people and should take some responsibility as well.
Posted by Caitlin on 02/21/2009 at 08:16pm | permalink | Reply to this comment
While I'm not going to blame a whole generation, do you have any data to back up this claim? Let us not forget that most of the heads of the banks were boomers. Greenspan, who build up the credit bubbles that fueled this mess, is not a boomer. Regan, who came up with the idea that deficits don't matter, was not a boomer either. The fact is that this has been building for two decades, and members from all generations are involved. Personally, I think instead of blaming a generation, we should take a deep look at our culture, which up until recently praised greed and materialism above all else. If we had been truly valuing integrity and hard work, we wouldn't have gotten into this mess, and this is from a liberal Democrat.
Posted by Anthony on 02/22/2009 at 12:05pm | permalink | Reply to this comment
Obama is definitely a gen xer he's in the middle of his 40's not 60's.
what website are social website are companies predominantly using to post want ads??
alex
Posted by Alex on 02/21/2009 at 11:38pm | permalink | Reply to this comment
Nice post! Most of it makes pretty good sense to me.
With regards to #3, I have a theory. I think that the reason for increased sex during these economic times, is rather simple. Movies, dinner, dancing, concerts and the like, generally cost money. Not to say that we stop going completely, but if we're watching our wallets and bank accounts, sex is free (for most of us)!
Of course the only logical way I can think of to back that up is with two studies: one that is similar to what you mentioned, that sees the increase in sex in these times. The other, to see if sex-for-money increases or decreases during the same period.
Any thoughts?
Posted by Chris on 02/22/2009 at 12:41am | permalink | Reply to this comment
To JenX67, continuing in the spirit of constructive debate:
(1) I give you credit for being honest in acknowledging that you have not developed expertise about these topics. But since you aren't an expert, on what basis do you feel that you are qualified to say that there is no Generation Jones? You have often, on your blog and in comments on others' blogs, disparaged Generation Jones, and repeatedly said it doesn't exist. But you never offer any data or any other basis for this claim other than your intense desire for rock star Obama to be part of your generation–GenX. Personally, when I don't have knowledge about a topic, I don't go around opining about it, especially with the fervor that you have against GenJones. And you wrongly give the impression that you have a basis for making this claim, although again, I give you credit for finally acknowledging what I think was already obvious…that this is not an area that you really know about.
(2) Your reference to Howe and Strauss exaggerates their influence. They first introduced their theory in 1991, the same year that Coupland published his book "Generation X" and when the whole GenX phenomenon began. Throughout this entire almost 20-year period, the mid-1960's has overwhelmingly been the most popular, most widely-used starting birth years for GenX. While S&H have developed some following for their proposed 1961 start point for GenX, it certainly remains far less used and less accepted than 1965. Their "work" is treated as a joke by many experts. And Howe himself (Strauss is dead) acknowledges Generation Jones exists, even though he feels threatened by its popularity since it undermines his work. He just wrote a piece in The Washington Post in the last couple of months in which he acknowledges GenJones is a cohesive group (even though he puts down the intelligence of Jonesers).
(3) I have no clue what your reference is to tooth faries is about, but I can tell you as someone who follows this closely, that the reaction to GenJones in mainstream media and the blogosphere is overwhelmingly positive. The fact there are a handful of people who have tiny blogs with almost no readership who are obsessed with trying to claim Obama as one of theirs, and feel the need to put down GenJones to achieve that goal, doesn't change the overall extremely positive reaction to GenJones.
(4) I, like most people who make comments on bogs, choose to use a handle or blog ID. You have the same option. You choose to use your name in your blogs, which is your right, but not really a basis by which to criticize the millions of us who choose not to.
And to the few others here who claim Obama is an Xer: why do you think it is that so almost no experts say Obama is an Xer, yet so many experts say he is GenJoneser? Why is it that every poll that looks at this question reveals that people this age by a large percentage relate to being part of GenJones, not GenX? Why is it that these, and many other external objective criteria, clearly point to Obama being a Joneser if he is an Xer? Determining generational boundaries isn't based on whether one happens to have a couple of siblings in this age group or singling out one criteria, like how people use media.
There is a mountain of credible scientifically-sound evidence that GenJones exists and that Obama is part of it. It reminds me of how Boomers in their youth liked to think of JFK as one of their own, even though he was born in 1917! Sure, JFK was youthful looking and a rock star and Boomers wanted him claim him. But we laugh now at the silliness of calling him a Boomer, just like it is quite amusing to many generation experts that some GenXers and GenYers like to think of 47 year old Obama as one of theirs.
Posted by TrendObserver on 02/22/2009 at 11:33am | permalink | Reply to this comment
TREND OBSERVER:
I have been a public affairs and public relations pracitioner working in senior positions for military and government for nearly 20 years and I now own my own business. I've done more than my share of public opinion research and I have written extensively about the diffusion process. It is my opinion, based on the priciples of PR, and this theory, that Generation Jones will never reach Gladwell's tipping point.
Furthermore, Generation Jones is at the beginning stages of awareness in the diffusion process — nowhere near on par with Boomers, and not even close to Generation X. (For you newcomers to this theory – the diffusion process relates to how quickly people accept new ideas.) Generation Jones has four more stages to cycle through and I do not believe it will ever reach the final stage in this process known as adoption.
You say you want to continue constructive debate – but the veil over your efforts to discount me is thin. You need to take it easy, b/c you're coming off kind of weird and angry. And, I think I know exactly who you are. You should be more strategic. By participating in my blog community instead of being a lurker, you might have advanced dialogue about your cause.
Posted by jenx67 on 02/23/2009 at 05:05pm | permalink | Reply to this comment
jenx67…I would agree this is an underlying feeling of hostility in the subtext of both your and my posts directed at each other. Which is immature, and unhelpful. This shouldn't be personal, we're just debating ideas.
This hostility primarily stems from the emotional connection each of us feels with our respective generations. I feel you initiate this problem by continually trashing GenJones. There are many of us who care passionately about GenJones being recognized as the full bona fide generation that it is, and are fed up being ludicrously lumped in with Boomers or Xers. I don't think you realize just how many people across the country feel this way, and the strength of their feeling.
GenJones has actually become a movement, and one that seems to building steam quickly. There are many of us who are experts in this field who teach it at Universities, write about it in academic journals, etc. Others who may not be expert have no less passion and committment toward it, and further it by calling in on radio talk shows, writing about it on blogs, etc. There is an email chain going around right now which is organizing a GenJones symposium in NY that looks likely to have more than a thousand attendees. It is a genuine grass roots movement driven by the clear and obvious belief by many of us in this long-mislabeled/misunderstood/ignored age group that this matters; by people who care about our collective voice being heard.
Anyway, I digress. My point is that many, including myself, care about this in a personal way, and when you keep initiating disses against GenJones, you annoy people like me, particularly given that you diss based on little or no real knowledge about the topic, by your own admission. Having said that, I again take responsibity for my role of reacting with hostility below the surface, and acknowledge that it is dumb. My suggestion is that both sides stop with the dissing and hostility, and approach this with more maturity.
So in that spirit, I'm genuinely interested in hearing the reasons why you think that GenJones won't reach tipping point. I'm very familiar with Gladwell's work (as well as Godin' "Idea Virus", and other related work). My judgement is that the GenJones idea virus is quite contagious, is spreading quickly, and will obviously reach tipping point. You've acknowledged that you're not a generation expert, but say that you are an expert on Gladwell/diffusion/PR. So please share with us specific reasons why GenJones won't continue on its current path and reach a high level of awareness. And again, to be clear, I am not being sarcastic or hostile with this question, I am genuinely curious to hear your reasoning, given your expertise.
Oh, and no, you don't know who I am. I can guess who you may think I am, but I'm not that person. But I am someone who cares a great deal about this, and who spends (too) much time studying it. Also: I understand "lurkers" to be people who read blogs but don't participate with comments. Anyway, I think all of that is besides the point, the focus should be on the ideas being discussed, not on the commenters.
Posted by TrendObserver on 2009-02-26 10:23:56 | (Comments wont nest below this level)
This is the first time I've felt addressed as a "baby boomer". Born in 1945, I'm actually preBB, but feel like one anyway, having survived the '60's. But you used language that reminded me of how we talked about people over 30 (never trust them, said Jack Weinberger of the Free Speech Movement.) But then, didn't Socrates complain of the "younger generation"? Great blog! Great insights. Thanks.
Posted by Chip Noon on 02/22/2009 at 01:35pm | permalink | Reply to this comment
Chip Noon, you said it right about the boomers' day of trash talking people over 30.
I'm a Gen Joneser and as a pre-adolescent, I remember looking up to cool '60's radicals who ripped on "the system" (anyone older than 30). They spoke through their music, their rallies, and every day speech. They were going to change the world…you know…peace, love, not war, and all that. I really admired them.
Flash forward 35 years and baby boomers are the very people they despised in their youth. They've done the same things, or worse, their parents did. They've become the system.
So here's what I realize, it's pretty obvious: Each young generation trash talks the generations before them. All young people blame older people for the woes of their lives and problems of the world. Young people all think they can do better. In the end, no one ever does. They may do better at what their parents did wrong, but they do worse at something else and create a whole different set of problems.
So Gen X, Gen Y…everybody. Quit bitchin' about the old people. You're going to screw up just as bad. And your kids are going to complain about you just as much.
Posted by rennie on 02/22/2009 at 08:19pm | permalink | Reply to this comment
OK, finally a side to pick. It's not that boomers are selfish and greedy…
It's that people are. The types of delusion about this may be the only thing that's generation-linked.
Posted by Dree on 02/25/2009 at 06:36pm | permalink | Reply to this comment
I disagree with some of this.
1) Terrible time to be thrifty in most economists opinion. Something done out of necessity and prudence doesn't strike me as "cool" which is more of a devil may care attitude….
2) Baby boomers suck, eh? Gen X/Y are becoming their parents! "Don't trust anyone over 45". I think on balance they'll leave the world a better place than they found it. Debt is a pretty high class problem to have in comparison to racism, sexism, conscription to Vietnam, high inflation, nuclear holocaust, etc.
3) Is Sex & the City considered a cultural record of Baby Boomer extravagance? Isn't it more of a Gen X thing? Lotta college girls I know still consume it on DVD box sets. An SATC sequel would portray all 4 women as broke and unemployed. Somehow I think its creators and actors won't go for that…
4) Women may be earning all the money, but its not nearly enough to support the entire household. Aren't their stats somewhere suggesting that most women work b/c they NEED to, not necessarily b/c they WANT to? Isn't a dual income household a requirement these days to maintain a middle class existence for the avg family?
5) I'll believe that web 2.0 will be an effective recruiting tool when I see it… I
Posted by pasher on 02/22/2009 at 08:37pm | permalink | Reply to this comment
"So basically, women are being encouraged to use the fact that their husbands were laid off as a way to get the men to act like women at home. Bad. Very bad."
WTF? Please tell me you were being tongue-in-cheek here. That's the most disgustingly sexist thing I've read all day.
Other than that, good post. I scored 18 on that test thingie. I didn't count the "do you text your parents?" as a yes, but I do text my firstborn. If you count that, I suppose it puts me at 20. Very much a product of Gen Y, circa early 1970's.
Posted by curiously random on 02/23/2009 at 05:52am | permalink | Reply to this comment
Our definitions of generations refer to people who grew up in this society and absorbed its culture. Barack Obama spent much of his childhood in Kenya and Indonesia, in Kenyan and Indonesian families. I'd say that makes him a part of neither the Baby Boom nor Generation X.
(I'd say the same thing about someone who grew up in France or Brazil, so please don't accuse me of anti-African or anti-Asian prejudice.)
Posted by Jim C. on 02/23/2009 at 02:33pm | permalink | Reply to this comment
Hey Penelope!
You don't need a PhD in economics to figure out that in a recession people don't want to produce VERY costly children as a result of their sex, so they buy more condoms.
Check statistics for birth control mechanisms that are not "single use" and I suspect you find they are up too.
Posted by Odysseus Valise on 02/23/2009 at 03:18pm | permalink | Reply to this comment
"women are being encouraged to use the fact that their husbands were laid off as a way to get the men to act like women at home"
LOL, what's wrong with that?
Posted by Moneymonk on 02/23/2009 at 04:05pm | permalink | Reply to this comment
On point 3: More layoffs=more time=more sex. Plus, if you lose your health insurance after a layoff, you are going to be very, very careful in the baby-making department.
On point 4 – I have heard some analysts saying while fewer women are being laid off, these positions are not necessarily the higher-salary jobs. So we're working, but it doesn't necessarily mean we're suddenly equaling or even outweighing men in the pay department.
Furthermore, my husband just landed a job after a three-month layoff and since I was the sole breadwinner, you better believe he was providing practically 100% childcare/housecare. We both agreed that made sense. Now that we're both working, we split the chores. It's awesome!
Posted by Hayli @ Rise Smart on 02/23/2009 at 05:00pm | permalink | Reply to this comment
Ah, @curiously random. I think this is tongue-in-cheek. You had me going there for a minute, Penelope.
Posted by Hayli @ Rise Smart on 02/23/2009 at 05:02pm | permalink | Reply to this comment
Penelope, thank God you saved me from having spending money on therapy because I don't fit in with my peers.
I took your quiz, and although I was born a Gen Joneser who has been thinking all along that I am a boomer, I am really a Gen Yer!
I knew it in my heart all along :)
I can't wait to tell me fiance, because I'm sure he'd prefer a younger woman.
Oh, and I also am grateful because now I can be absolved of my guilt over creating the financial mess!
What a great day, and I think it's all happening to me because I watched the Louise Hay movie yesterday and repeated a bunch of affirmations before bed last night.
Ok, gotta go now…heading out to J Crew to buy a new wardrobe…
All the best,
Barb
Posted by Barbara on 02/23/2009 at 06:24pm | permalink | Reply to this comment
My birth cert says I'm the tail end of the b-boomers or 'generation jones' just like Obama. The test says I'm a Gen-Y. Those are all just words and labels. Penelope, we know you are looking for great role models for the Gen-X'ers, but your posts have more credibility with me when you avoid the use of stereotypes.
Posted by Beth on 02/24/2009 at 02:43am | permalink | Reply to this comment
You made a typo on Dan Ariely's name, you might want to fix it in case readers are interested in his work–it's all really good.
Posted by chris on 02/24/2009 at 03:29am | permalink | Reply to this comment
Wow, who knew that I would earn less than my parents? Especially since all six children earn more than they ever did.
"Michelle Obama has to overhaul the White House décor" That is not the case. She and he husband CHOOSE to do so. I do not begrudge them, but let's not confuse "have to" with "choose to". Just because they get clothes at J. Crew does not make one cost-conscious. And I have at least $700b reasons to say that…
Posted by The Opinionator on 02/24/2009 at 03:00pm | permalink | Reply to this comment
umm it was all those NINJA loans to post boomergenerations that caused the problem they gorged them sleves of sweeties they could not aford and no they are blaiming the shop owner instaed of takeing some of the reponisibility on themselves
Posted by Neuromancer on 02/24/2009 at 05:02pm | permalink | Reply to this comment
It seems to me that any attempt to generalize and explain major life trends by broad categories such as "baby boomers" or "Gen X or Y or Jones" is doomed to miss a lot of valuable information, simply by overlooking the impact that individuals and special interest groups have had on events throughout history. Malcolm Gladwell has identified some much narrower time-periods and phenomena in "Outliers", as factors in well-known success stories. There are just too many other factors and variables out there beyond large-block generational trends.
Even the most carefully and thoroughly constructed research is still only a model, subject to white noise(random error) and overlooked or omitted variables. Sometimes variables are omitted for the sake of simplification, as often the most simple model provides the best and most important information; sometimes variables are omitted to assure that a desired result is obtained. Some times the models are just wrong. Either way, all studies need to be understood in this context and from this perspective. Your analysis of increased condom use is a point in case: maybe people have already hunkered down into a depression era mentality and are really seeking to minimize the chance of unwanted offspring, or unexpected health-care expenditures, rather than just having more sex. Maybe more people are just getting lucky. Trying to pull that kind of information out of sales data alone is ill-advised at best.
Don't know what a depression era mentality is? That doesn't mean you are from an inferior "generation", you just never hung around people whose lives and families never recovered from the depression, and you probably aren't a historian, so you are just uninformed.
Did George w. Bush lead this country into the war in Iraq simply to "man up" in his daddy's eyes and avenge an assassination plot against the senior Bush? Why did Ronald Reagan decimate the Pell Grant program in his term in office? One can argue the cost and benefits of these events, but the drivers of these events were individuals, and we may never know what really drove them.
Here are a couple thoughts that are more valuable than a google full of seat-of-the-pants armchair statistical analyses:
The old saw that "those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it" is worth remembering.
Wisdom is not the same as knowledge and IQ's: It generally only comes from experience, and unless you pay attention to those who have the experience and wisdom, it takes a long time to acquire it, if you ever do.
So don't discount older(or younger) generations out of hand. Not only is it arrogant and disrespectful, you may be short-changing yourself.
Steve C.
Posted by Steve Cook on 02/25/2009 at 05:56pm | permalink | Reply to this comment
Coupla things:
1/ For all those Boomers out there looking for 'proof' you need look no further than the two worst presidents this country has EVER HAD. Carter, the old Boomer, and Bush, the relatively 'younger' one. Read the Time article 'the lamest duck' and see if it resonates with you.
Bush was a chickenhawk Boomer surrounded by older Neo-Conservative zealots that his father #41, one of the war generation would not touch with a 10 foot pole.
Both men went their own way to the detriment of this country. Carter was bar none the worst president of the 20th century. I'll wager that of the entire 21st century to come, it will be hard to top Bush #43.
Of course, now we have Obama surrounded by the now older, but not really wiser Boomer zealots like Pelosi & Biden. Haven't we seen this script before? I hope that Barry's just keeping them around for looks…..
2/ More sex is a good idea. Due to the lack of confidence in the economy in the last 8 years [among those of us in the know] there's been a definite motivation NOT to make kids.
Birthrate worldwide in most 1st world countries is flattening if not crashing. We're in another baby bust. Friends of mine in Japan where it's REALLY BAD are seeing conventional middle and high schools go co-ed [meaning 50% enrollment down, one of the 'boy' or 'girl' sections becoming closed]. When 2 class sections cannot be filled then teachers get laid off. This has been happening for the past five years.
The solution? 'Illegal immigration' and 'outsourcing' — our lawns get mowed and our software crashes/is bug ridden. Oh, and all the knowhow is in India and China, exported by Boomers. I wouldn't call this solution a wash.
3/ You can EASILY see the 'women earning all the money' if you look at the medical sector. Nurses are quite scarce, but the ones there are earning top dollar.
4/ The death or atrophy of Facebook / MySpace. As folks are coming to understand, having your personal info on either of these sites is a *liability* and not an asset.
Posted by Drunken Economist on 02/26/2009 at 05:34am | permalink | Reply to this comment
There's only so much usefull generalization to be learned from either 'legit' research or Mars v. Venus books. Bottom line is that the traditional paradigm of cleaning has been inverted in my household. You couldn't convince my wife that anything was ever disgusting enough for her to clean up after herself, unless friends are coming over. I like to spend several hours a week cleaning…by myself. Come over and observe if you don't believe me.
Otherwise, great post. Love the GenX/Jones debate.
Posted by Dudeman on 02/26/2009 at 01:06pm | permalink | Reply to this comment
Does higher condom sales necc'ly mean more sex? Couldn't it also mean people are more adamant about not creating a new mouth to feed in a poor economy?
Posted by Anonymous Me on 02/27/2009 at 08:37am | permalink | Reply to this comment
I'm brand new, I love you already, but RE:
Newsflash: The baby boomers got us into this mess. They borrowed against future generations. They mishandled SEC regulations. They ignored the environment. They set up a social security system that is going to break as soon as they’re done taking from it.
NO NO NO – don't blame it on the boomers (OK, I am one.) The REPUBLICANS are the ones who deregulated, cheated, brazenly ruined the environment, got us into a war, blah blah blah. Some of them were old (like me) but others were young…and REPUBLICAN.
Posted by Peggy on 02/27/2009 at 06:45pm | permalink | Reply to this comment
TREND OBSERVER
I appreciate you bringing the debate back to center. I'm just now getting back here so I hope you return to find this comment.
I can appreciate the fact that my comments dissing Generation Jones have been annoying and maybe even hurtful. That is not my intention.
I understand the passion people feel for their said generations. Boomers have been trying to deny the existence of Generation X for 25 years. Sad, since most of them were their children. (Even as we pass into the decade of our 40s, they continue to treat us as wet behind the ears; young pups, etc. This has to do with their own fears of becoming irrelevant/aging – but I digress.)
I view Generation Jones as a subculture that moves between the perforated lines of Baby Boomers and Generation X. It seems to lack the highly defined collective persona of Boomers and Xers. Those who identify with Generation Jones are going to borrow culture from one or the other and attempt to make it their own. Which means, you will have Gen Jones claiming the Breakfast Club AND Vietnam. How is that possible within the context of a collective persona which every other generation has? I underestimated the affection Gen Jones has for Gen Jones. I think my passion is that Xers have resisted generational identification, and thus generational pride has been sorely lacking. This bothers me so much. As if the number 13 (assigned by Howe and Strass) wasn't unlucky enough, we became represented by an X – the unknown factor – the unbelievable file in the basement of FBI headquarters – which Boomers denied. (X Files reference/metaphor here.) Generation Jones seems founded on the principle of resisting association with the pompous Boomers and disaffected Xers. And, really, who could blame them?
My reasons for blogging about Generation X are so personal – founded in the love I have had for three different men – my husband, my ex husband and my brother – all Xers – disaffected in one way or another. It's time I write about why I write about Generation X. It will be my hardest, rawest post yet.
Thank you, and the Brazen Careerist, for a forum for dialogue. This is what blogging is all about: EXPLORATION, DISCOVERY, CONVERSATION.
Posted by jenx67 on 02/28/2009 at 10:56am | permalink | Reply to this comment
Of course there is more sex–people are laid off so they are spending more time at home. Together.
Posted by April on 03/01/2009 at 03:24am | permalink | Reply to this comment
I think the reason condom sales went up is because people have more free time due to lack of money and the need to feel better emotionally therefore: sex is a quick fix.
Citizens namely my age group (40 and up) should revamp the social security system now by banding together after all we still have 20 plus years to contribute before benefiting from it. Our age group have been pretty quiet politically and now we can not afford to be silent any longer…Wake up people! We will make the difference for ourselves and for the generation that comes after us that will contribute to our debt/mistakes, etc.. so we must act and do something.
Posted by Trina from Rhode Island on 03/01/2009 at 04:03pm | permalink | Reply to this comment
I really didn't expect to read this and acquire anything more than some basic information, at most. Instead, I found myself saying, "that's an interesting point."
Thanks for sharing the perspective, Penelope.
Posted by Jon Hartman on 03/03/2009 at 09:54am | permalink | Reply to this comment
Barack is 47 which means that he is a baby boomer. I am also 47 and technically, a baby boomer but at the tail end. Maybe that's why I don't identify with them or Gen-X.
Maybe less labels and more about the individual.
Posted by Dianna on 03/03/2009 at 01:31pm | permalink | Reply to this comment
Let's not fall for the generational warfare. Most boomers of my generation do not have the same financial security as their parents did at the same age. My father didn't even have a full-time steady job for twenty years after he came home from WWII, and we were pillars of the comunity [I don't know where this spoiled boomer idea came from, my mother bought groceries on credit at the local store}. When we got out of college, the competition for jobs was so extreme that many of us did not find a career track for the first decade, or longer. Job security went away for us soon after that when we got laid off in droves and have been job hopping every since. Pensions went away and 401k's and IRA's were inadequate by their design [many are just finding that out now]. Downpayments and housing costs went out of sight. Tax incentives changed radically, especially during the Reagan era (my parents' generational hero). Education costs, and requirements, escalated for us and for our kids. Now that we are funding our own retirements on top of these increased costs, we find that we may be living longer.
Our parents criticized us every day of our lives for being worthless bums for not living the same kind of steady life that they did with a steady job, savings, in a stable community where we could take care of them in their old age – of course those circumstances didn't exist for us as we have had to "go where the food is." Every decade for us has been one of changing ground rules. It seems to many of us that when we reach a goal, the ground rules change again and we have to re-adapt. We're getting older and are very worn down by this.
One group that was very hard hit is divorced women with children. Many boomer women are in a breach of changing roles between the traditional family that no longer exists and starting out planning for a lifetime career which every young woman does now. My friends who are divorced after having children are universally not doing well and have little money set aside for retirement. I know few people who have been overleveraged or who consumed excessively. Most of them were borrowing for school tuition or otherwise to give their children a good start in life, because they realized that their children were facing a tougher and tougher world. Now they scramble to fund their retirements.
If you read Michael Porter's Competitive Advantage of Nations, he points out that since WWII, the rate of the rate of growth in our economy has been declining. So what seemed like growth was nominal growth, with marginal growth declining. Baby boomers, a big demo going through that time, were a larger number of people competing for a shrinking pie.
Certainly boomers have had better lives in some ways during their adult lives, but not while we were growing up. The civil rights struggles, the polio era, the senseless Vietnam War, the memories of the Depression and World War II that we learned from our parents, all add up to a collective trauma that we carry with us from years of violence, disease and shortages. We don't want that again, but we also don't want the disrespect that post point #1 above sets forth that boomers were spoiled and indulged.
So let's cut the nonsense about labeling generations by criteria that bear no resemblance to the lives of boomers and other demographic labels.
Posted by Laocoon142 on 03/03/2009 at 02:23pm | permalink | Reply to this comment
You nailed it. I'm 54 and have never known an economically secure day in my life. These generalizations about boomers, gen x etc. are both naieve, immature and just plain stupid.
Posted by pip on 03/03/2009 at 04:45pm | permalink | Reply to this comment
When is it ever productive (outside of political situations) to play the blame game. "Boomers got us here, but Xers will fix it" and all such talk is sometimes expedient, but always non-productive, whether true or not.
No one was complaining initially when the huge boomer (and their predecessor) run corps began raping the planet, causing sweat shops in poor countries, and creating wealth for the developed nations. But these actions like slavery added to the wealth of this and other developed countries. A time is always judged by the historians, but the results, good or bad, are still enjoyed by all. Forget blame let's fix this mess. The seeds for it were sown way before the boomers took the reins.
My2centsworth
Posted by Dale on 03/03/2009 at 05:16pm | permalink | Reply to this comment
This is crazy I personally know 7 stores/restaurants owned by friends that have closed. I personally know 7 people that have been laid off, not including myself. Their is no end in sight… thanks a lot Bush…give President Obama a chance to fix the last 8 years of asleep at the wheel…can't be fixed overnight.
Posted by Dr.Phillips on 03/04/2009 at 07:45am | permalink | Reply to this comment
1. In other words – everyone is starting to live the same way I have my entire life. Welcome the the bandwagon, fellas. It's really not so bad.
2. Hear, hear! Although admittedly anecdotal, much of my perception of the Baby Boomers comes from my uncle – classic Boomer born right in the wheelhouse.
His parents (my grandparents) gave him a very comfortable middle-class upbringing from only one union paycheck. He got an excellent, affordable education from a state funded university and graduated into a job market where wages were rising and professionals outnumbered jobs. Having parlayed this into a comfortable upper middle class existence, his overriding philosophy stated on numerous occasions is to blindly vote against anyone "who will raise my taxes." That's it. The same taxes which paid for his rise to financial comfort are apparently too much of a burden for him to allow future generations to experience his good fortune. In short," I got mine, screw everybody else." This has been the Boomer's overriding philosophy. And yes, he has no children.
The Greatest Generation fought for a New Deal which helped create the postwar middle class. Their children-the Baby Boomers-emerged into the world of unprecedented prosperity forged from the sacrifices of their parents,and enthusiastically embraced a trickle-down, anti-government philosophy leading to shrinking paychecks, unaffordable educations, service jobs, costly for-profit health care, outsourcing, and an economy in ruins with scarce jobs or opportunities for the future generations of Americans following them.
They are the first generation ever in the entire history of the United States to bequeath a lower standard of living to their children. They are, simply put, The Worst Generation.
Even now the most rock-ribbed conservatives I know are Boomers who got in on the good times, many with barely a high-school diploma, and will enjoy a lifestyle many of the hardest working Gen Xers will only dream about. If they were born a generation later they'd be stocking shelves at Wal-Mart and living in their car. Now they live in suburban palaces and drive SUV's to the golf course. Of course they believe they did it all on their own, so all they care about is lower taxes and less gubmint.
Sure every Boomer was not a Republican, and there are plenty of Conservative Republican Gen Xer's, but the age of conservative philosophy almost exactly coincides with their emergence as the largest and most dominant voting block in the nation. Coincidence? Demographics tell the story.
And now there's talk of raising taxes on us to pay for their retirement!
So yeah, I tend to blame the Boomers just a little for the country that all of use under 40 have inherited. While Obama's birth date may place him slightly out of true Gen-X range, In both experience and outlook, he is much more Gen X than Boomer. It's not just about the date, but about the person.
3. Are you kidding me? For women, maybe. Not for men. We're the ones who are losing our jobs. Unemployment is an aphrodisiac? Not in my experience. "So what do you do?" "Nothing, I'm unemployed." Yeah, that'll get you laid all right. Maybe I've been meeting the wrong women.
I think the shrinking pool of men with jobs will just to get to hit more women. Women may get more sex. Men will become increasingly frustrated and angry.
As someone who works in the construction industry and doesn't know if they'll have job from month to month, this hits home. I couldn't get laid during the good times when I had money. I'm terrified to go through the recession alone. If it's an extended depression I may just kill myself.
4. Yes, and what a horrible tragedy (see above). Women historically have not needed jobs to find mates. Men have. In the past men worked and saved for years just for the privilege to marry. While we like to think of our society as so enlightened from those olden times, with equal opportunity and all that balderdash, at the end of the day fundamentally men and women are still the same. Women need looks. Men, money. Scoff if you want, but think about who you know. You know it's true. Ladies, would you date an unemployed man? Be honest.
5. More creative hiring practices – hang out a sign for a job and get inundated with mountains of resumes in days. Not much creativity required. Anyone can get the best for pennies in this climate. Online recruiting? How about grease paint on a window? That'll probably get you a few hundred resumes right there.
Posted by ChadH on 03/05/2009 at 11:34pm | permalink | Reply to this comment
My, nothing gets the comments going like posts about either sex or baby boomers. Personally I like her ones about sex better. Well ChadH this baby boomer worked his way through college and graduated in the midst of our last big recession in 1980. Took me six months to get an entry level position in my field and years of grinding it out to get to a comfortable lifestyle. Don't tell me that we've had it so easy. And quit listening to doomsday pundits that say you'll be living in a cardboard box somewhere. These recessions don't last forever. Here in Wisconsin the highest profile conservative columnists and bloggers that sound like your uncle are in the 40 and under age group. (For your benefit Penelope they're to the east of you in Washington, Ozaukee, and Waukesha Counties). Political leanings of Boomers range from extemely liberal to extremly conservative. There are no valid generalizations. And plenty of boomers are loosing their jobs now too. Obama would not have won the election without substantial support from boomers. Many of us voted for him and abhor the political policies that got us in this fix. You are in construction, a field that has always been subject to the whims of the economy but Obama's stimulus will will produce jobs for lots of construction workers rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure that has been neglected because too many conservatives of all ages are against taxes for any purpose. Good luck in your job hunt and hang in there. And Penelope– more sex posts and less generational war.
Posted by Somalian Pirate on 03/06/2009 at 03:43pm | permalink | Reply to this comment
The fact that you are not joking here brought a soft smile to my face. Obama made more mess in his first two months than many people had expected. He just took an unimaginable amount of money from American pockets and gave it away to his corporate buddies while everyone praises him even more – what a crafty magician he is!
Gen-X are even more dangerous than the boomers, I'm afraid. You will be paying Obama's bills for decades.
Posted by selekta on 03/06/2009 at 07:48am | permalink | Reply to this comment
Somalian Pirate I agree with your comments, but I think that you underestimate the severity of this recession. That is mainly because it is largely determined by mental constructs fueled by some unfortunate aspects of reality – and perception becomes reality in this instance.
Posted by Dale on 03/06/2009 at 04:35pm | permalink | Reply to this comment
@ Selekta, surely you jest! The majority of the bills my kids will have to pay were incurred long before Obama.
Posted by Dale on 03/06/2009 at 04:38pm | permalink | Reply to this comment
I think you will find that the root cause of the current financial woes are attempts at social engineering dating to the Clinton administration (with roots in the philosophies of Roosevelt through Carter). The idea that those who could not qualify for mortgages under existing norms should be given mortgages anyway was an extrapolation of Clinton-era rhetoric and policy innuendo. Democrats in Congress blocked attempts by the watchdog agency for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to rein in the creation of what would be come to be known at “toxic assets,” and protected the then chairman and chief executive officer of the Federal National Mortgage Association, Franklin Raines, from being properly and justly held accountable for the growing home-loan fiasco he was instrumental in creating. The Bush administration is also culpable in this instance, as it was terribly remiss in not pursuing what should have been an obvious and growing problem in the home-loan markets. It seems the Bush administration fell prey to the new “new deal” theology of a chicken in every pot and mortgage on everyone’s balance sheet, whether one should have been issued or not. As for the baby-boomers being the source of toxic assets in the mortgage market, I believe that demographics will bear out that most of those who, from the outset, engaged in the creation of said assets will be from a generation or two younger and first-time buyers, not established home owners, as would most boomers be. Some boomers did indeed procure home-equity loans in advisable amounts, but I do not think they are in the majority of persons creating the toxic assets by initiating loans for which they were not actually able to pay for over the long term. Government meddling in the real estate markets via social engineering and government turning a blind eye to what should have been an obvious problem, or worse, covering up for it to protect the continuance of the social engineering efforts, coupled with imprudent borrowers, bad business practices by banks and other financial services providers, and a lack of accountability by investment firms and their clients, all of this wrapped in an atmosphere of greed and entitlement have led all of us to this sorry state of affairs. Once the real estate markets tumbled, the underpinning of what might have been previously thought to have been unrelated markets began to deteriorate. We have seen, and are continuing to see, the effects of this. The resulting instability will continue until such time as the toxic assets can be properly indentified, separated from viable assets, and placed within a framework where the real estate and financial markets can properly address them and incorporate them into a solution which accommodates redistribution at realistic values to persons who can actually carry loans given on them.
Posted by Dan on 03/09/2009 at 11:36am | permalink | Reply to this comment
it is not the so-called social engineering policies of the democrats that are responsible – it was the "ownnership society" pushed by bush and his fellow conservatives (yes, bush was and is a conservative and no amount of posturing by the rest of the conservatives will make that any less true). You simply did not see these toxic assets in clinton's or carters era and to say "social engineering" is the root cause is both denial on a gargantuan scale and the fatuous inability by conservatives to see the consequences of their own destructive,selfish,and non-workable in the real world theories.
Posted by pip on 03/09/2009 at 03:08pm | permalink | Reply to this comment
So, Dan, let's see, all those mortgage brokers working the lines 24/7, baiting-and-switching the uninformed, fudging the numbers, just dripping in commissions and brokerage fees, it was the democratic social engineers who hired them, right? And then we have the totally ineffective credit-reporting agencies(experian,et al),on the front end supposedly preventing poor credit risks from entering the market, and the equally ineffective ratings agencies(Standard and Poors, et al) on the back end, doing such a great job of informing investors of the risk/reward ratios involved in buying all the derivatives the investment bankers cooked up "to spread the risk". Those guys were all the result of the Clintonesque social-engineering experiment, right? and Bernie Madoff and his handlers over at the SEC, oh and Dick Fuld, that freakin' pinko-socialist over at Lehman Brothers? More democratic social-engineering misfits? Guess again, Dan.
If your intent was to somehow absolve the republican administration(s) of any complicity in the meltdown we are experiencing, you're wasting your time. Better to put your efforts into figuring out how to get a republican administration back into the White House in something less than the next millenium.
Steve C.
Posted by Steve C. on 03/09/2009 at 04:34pm | permalink | Reply to this comment
"We already knew that in big cities women earn more than men" – well I never knew that.
Posted by Chris on 03/10/2009 at 06:10am | permalink | Reply to this comment
You are looney… at least when it comes to boomers…
Forget that you are wrong that boomers got us into this mess. The 109th Congress average age was 56, but Congress is run by seniority which means the power is concentrated in the hands of a few Greatest Generation Congressmen.
You better pray that Boomers keep spending because consumer spending is the most powerful stimulus ever. When we stop spending the economy goes into a deeper tailspin.
You stupid Xer's bought the McMansions, condos in Cabo, on balloon mortgages and Beemers on 60 month loans/ or 36 month leases while you were drowning in credit card and student loan debt.
Gen Xer's will bail us out? That is just the stupidest thing I have read. ever. How in the hell will Xer's bail us out? By saving?
Dumbass Xer's would do well to pay attention to Boomers and watch how they react when their retirement funds are decimated and retirement is no longer possible.
http://goinglikesixty.com/2009/03/14/baby-boomers-going-bust-and-having-a-helluva-time-doing-it/
You want bitter? I'll give you bitter.
We don't whine about the Greatest Generation causing all our problems. Boomers just get on with life.
Posted by GoingLikeSixty on 03/15/2009 at 08:31pm | permalink | Reply to this comment
This post made me think of one of my favorite webcomics.
http://www.marriedtothesea.com/030409/bingo.gif
Posted by Emily on 03/17/2009 at 04:48pm | permalink | Reply to this comment
Your take on the Baby Boom generation is quite amusing because it was basically what we said of our parents. Of course, Social Security came around in the 1930's, so the first generation to benefit from it belonged to my grandparents (I'm 56), but to a youngster like you, everyone over 40 looks the same anyway.
Oh an by the way, I am planning to work until I'm at least 70, preferably 75, and to any whiners out there complaining about the boomers are keeping them from getting work – tough shit!
Posted by Grace on 03/18/2009 at 10:39pm | permalink | Reply to this comment
You courage is admirable… really It is.
I think this post sure got everyone fired up.
Posted by وظائف خالية on 03/19/2009 at 07:32pm | permalink | Reply to this comment
The author has blown any credibility she might have had. Baby boomers did not set up social security. Nor did their parents, who fought WWII. It was their grandparents, i.e. the age cohort of FDR that set up Social Security. They sat in Congress at the time the legislation was debated and passed.
How hard would this have been to check? The author not only displays plain ignorance of one of the most significant pieces of legislation in U.S. history, but proves herself to be one of those of her generation who think about an inch-deep and get most of their knowledge from non-authoritative blogs and MTV news and can't even remember it accurately much less question the accuracy of it.
Posted by Rob on 03/24/2009 at 06:48am | permalink | Reply to this comment
Count on the Boomers, the 'greatest buck-passing generation' to blame the 'greatest generation' for their ills.
Fine. You guys get to work on your deathbeds. Reap what you sow.
'Chris' is right. GenX [of which I'm a member] will not bail you out.. in fact we have no desire to bail you Boomers out. You get to PAY for your feeding tube. Don't even look at me or my generation.
Posted by Drunken Economist on 04/04/2009 at 07:11am | permalink | Reply to this comment
What a bunch of pathetic babys on this post- everyone blaming their parents, grandparents or children.
Grow up people! Get a reality check – read a book on history, politics and economics. Stop blathering on in your ignorant immature way and get educated.
Posted by pip on 04/04/2009 at 10:44am | permalink | Reply to this comment
J. Crew, Gen-X, rich chix, inexpensiveness, sex? Cha-ching! (Sounds like the theme song to Are You Being Served…)
Great post. Keep 'em coming.
Posted by Diana on 04/06/2009 at 11:33pm | permalink | Reply to this comment
You nailed it. So let's cut the nonsense about labeling generations by criteria that bear no resemblance to the lives of boomers and other demographic labels.Thanks for sharing the perspective, Penelope.
Posted by Web Designing Quotes on 04/10/2009 at 09:31am | permalink | Reply to this comment
People are still wanting to look good in this economy and they seem to find a way to get cosmetic procedures such as mesotherapy and lipodissolve.
Posted by GetMeso on 04/19/2009 at 07:56pm | permalink | Reply to this comment
I'm surprised to hear that women make more than men in large cities…crazy stuff.
Posted by TryBPO Outsourcing Solutions on 05/13/2009 at 04:29pm | permalink | Reply to this comment
Your right this ressesion is crazy, I have lost a tone of money in the stock market, nd when you see companys like heelys and dell computers strat to strugle its going to be hard..
Posted by Paula on 06/07/2009 at 07:03am | permalink | Reply to this comment
i love reason number 2. Its so true
Posted by mr luggage on 06/07/2009 at 08:49pm | permalink | Reply to this comment
Quite shock when reading reason number 3. "more money does not get people more sex, it merely gets them more choices of people to have sex with".
Do I have to throw away my money to get more sex?? hehe..
Posted by dtechnos on 09/01/2009 at 07:45am | permalink | Reply to this comment
We in south east asia got two recessions in one decade. but in the future, it will be the most shocking recessions if it starts from china
Posted by Herman RH on 09/09/2009 at 01:08am | permalink | Reply to this comment
What a rant. You Gen-Xers are going to be employed up to you earlobes with all the services that are going to be needed by baby boomers. So get in health care industries and stop feeling sorry for yourselves.
Posted by Shari on 10/28/2009 at 07:11pm | permalink | Reply to this comment
Having been a part of the Online Universal Work Marketing team for 4 months now, I’m thankful for my fellow team members who have patiently shown me the ropes along the way and made me feel welcome
onlineuniversalwork
Posted by davidbaer on 12/26/2009 at 08:16am | permalink | Reply to this comment
Increased sex indeed…and most notably with eco-friendly glass toys. Go green and pink!
Posted by Christiane on 01/06/2010 at 06:28pm | permalink | Reply to this comment
I never thought I would see the day when shopping at Target is cool and now I am referred to as a "frugalista". My how things have changed in the past two years.
Posted by Emily on 02/16/2010 at 03:32pm | permalink | Reply to this comment
Your right this ressesion is crazy, I have lost a tone of money in the stock market, nd when you see companys like heelys and dell computers strat to strugle its going to be hard..
Posted by Bed Bugs Pictures on 02/17/2010 at 03:48am | permalink | Reply to this comment
It is actually very common for sex to increase as discretionary income decreases. When you don't have any money to spend on feel good indulgences, the tendency is to fall back on life's ULTIMATE feel good indulgence.
Posted by Andy on 03/02/2010 at 08:02pm | permalink | Reply to this comment