The X, Y, Z Factor

Professor J,

You raise good questions about the Millenials (or as you prefer the more specific Y and Zers). Of course your initial reaction would be a list of questions I don't have the answers to. Which may mean I should break down and read the book on this subject.

While the authors were hopeful, and I have to say in many ways I am as well, We do see lots of negatives as well as positives. Corporations don't quite know what to do with a new generation that is so markedly different from the previous one. Several major companies are hiring consultants to help teach them how to manage this generation. The work ethic for a generation that is use to getting a trophy for just showing up is much different than their parents'. I wonder how many college professors and human resource departments are happy to field calls from parents concerning their "child's" performance.

You made a good point about any generation being called "The Greatest" when the standard for that, in this country anyway, is the founding one. In both of those examples we could point to hardship, sacrifice, and high standards expected for behavior as reasons that they were able to accomplish what they did. I wondered aloud to my kids at the WWII Museum in New Orleans if those fresh young faces staring back at us from display photographs would have been able to go out and save the world if their characters hadn't been forged by the deprivation of the depression. Did they think they and their friends would be up to such selfless sacrifice? An entire generation that has rarely been uncomfortable yet alone, hungry, cold, afraid? I got knowing looks back from them. The 18 year olds in those photos were adults. In contrast it seems we are only being nice today if we call a college freshman a "man." Adolescence edges toward thirty.

So while our offspring and their peers have let all kinds of narrow mindedness drop by the wayside and refused to embrace prejudice, we notice something else. Their connectedness and devotion to friends, which can at times be admirable, also means that we can see them nearly addicted to their gadgets. The number of young mothers I see staring down at I-phones instead of engaging the tiny person across from them bothers me. But if you watch long enough you are likely to see the baby or toddler Instagrammed, so mommy can post to FB. That brings up all kinds of questions about the importance of face to face interaction and speech in early childhood development. But judging from the number of  toddlers and young children I've seen whine for the I Pad or I Phone and then proceed to use it, we may see an even further breakdown of civilizing the next next generation.

They are indeed, as you pointed out, growing up with a very new and very different sense of privacy, or even what should be private, if anything. I am amused however at some of the sour commentary by the older generations. "We wouldn't have thought of putting pictures of ourselves on Facebook." When of course the fact of the matter is that we can never know whether they would have or not. It's possible that society's mores would have curbed some of that behavior, but would those standards have been changed by the technology? Which came first? The exhibitionism or social networking? 

Still, for all their faults (and let's face it most of that can be laid at the feet of parents and pop psychologists) they have enough good traits, I hope, that they may be able to work together, compromise, and share enough to actually tackle some tough problems and bring about much needed change. Only time will tell.

Millennial Buzz

Madame: Please pardon the bunching up of everything, as Chrome is not cooperating this evening. Excellent points you make (and related to my post on The Professor!). Awhile back, you posted some links to scholarly works on the Millennial (who I will call the “M’s” rather than break them out more correctly into their “Y” and “Z” pieces) generation. My initial reactions were: Which part of the millennials? How certain are the researchers that they will not be like the Boomers, who seemed to have a great seed of progressive thought and activity, only to often settle into conventional thought as time went on (and age increased)—and many of whom had never had any thoughts BUT conventional? Are the researchers confident they are not mixing some trends with any wishful thinking? Is it projection of hopes and dreams onto the M’s, or is it analysis of actuality? Is it infatuation with the idea or is it reality? Does the research apply across racial, ethnic, and social groups? We need to ask because as promising as they are, there are a lot of counter-trends as well. The promise they have comes from many things, not least of which is that they grew up in a culture that was the post-result of civil rights battles. Racial, ethnic, gender, generational (at least their own families), etc. divisions come far less naturally to them, even in these economically harder pressed times. And they communicate in ways not just different, but outside the box of conventional expectation, and also with different expectations of privacy. Their irreverence for traditional authority structures and traditional reward and punishment mean they challenge systems (including religious, but perhaps not spiritual, systems) in steep ways. Of course, this also means they are frequently accused of entitlement or narcissism, as well. Much is made of “generational cycles” and comparisons with the so-called “Greatest Generation.” [As an historian, I may have issues with a generation being called greater than the founding/framing generation, but I’ll roll for now. :)] While the M’s have great promise (including as entrepreneurs and employees who confidently meet challenges, with technology and little negative emotion), they also have great challenges in themselves. For instance, more than one detractor has asked: How is this generation not just entertaining and diverting itself (and us) to death? Of course, time and the shapings of historical events will tell, but one thing is virtually certain: One day, the Boomers and the X’ers will be largely gone off the stage, and the M’s (or, more accurately, the Y’s and Z’s) will lead their societies. Regardless of any fawning, fussing, or fuming of their predecessors. :)

Dear Santa, Back Off

Professor J,

Thanks for your analysis of the BP settlement. I see that you addressed JC's questions in the comments, so does that catch you all up? Don't get too comfortable in that. Someone will toss up some more questions for you I'm sure. But today, the day before Thanksgiving I'm giving you a break. :)

Note to the reader: Today's post is meant as a gentle reminder for all of us. It is easy to get caught up in the excitement and hype created around particular events. I am reminding myself along with you, to approach things thoughtfully.

Have you ever noticed how things creep, seep, and edge their way into other things? Things that are shocking the first time you see them, like a high school basketball game on ESPN or a Christmas commercial before Halloween. But we adapt quickly and in just a couple of years, though we may have some issues with it lingering in the back of our minds, we accept that it is "just the way things are."

In the past few years we've seen stores open earlier and earlier on Black Friday. The idea that a store would open at 4:00 AM should make us cognizant of the fact that employees would have to arise a couple of hours before that. Simple logic would tell us that they would have to retire early on Thanksgiving night, thus cutting time with family and friends short, if they were going to survive the retail wars the next day without collapsing. As if that hasn't been bad enough, the past couple of years corporations have added an even more direct assault on Thanksgiving: stores that are open ON the day when we are all supposed to be taking some quiet moments to reflect on and be thankful for what we already have. Surely we can do better than a day of gluttony followed by a day of conspicuous consumerism.

Thanksgiving becoming just another day, when we barely pause at all to think on all our blessings before heading out to the mall, cannot be far behind.  This year, Walmart, Toys R Us, Kmart, and Sears are all opening their doors at 8 pm Thursday. Together with Target, that's two to four hours before they opened last year.

There is a petition being circulated by a Target employee to save Thanksgiving. The company's response through their spokesperson is:

 "Target’s opening time was carefully evaluated with our guests, team and the business in mind. Across the country, team member preferences were considered in creating our store staffing schedules. Thanksgiving weekend is one of the busiest of the year, and we appreciate our Target team’s flexibility on this weekend and throughout the holiday season."

It's a nice touch that they put "business" last. Anyone fooled by that? The company is sure to make known the fact that employees are eager to work these hours and get paid overtime, so eager in fact that more employees volunteered than there were slots to fill. They don't seem to think this might say something about the regular pay of their workers.

Far be it from me to want to ruin anyone's holiday fun. I'm not averse to Black Friday shopping even. But I'd like to encourage it being done in a more thoughtful manner. Local small businesses and restaurants will welcome your patronage on the biggest shopping day of the year. And I doubt corporations like Target and Walmart will miss you. Or you could do something totally radical and plan a post Thanksgiving day that doesn't include shopping at all. I'm thinking it might be a lovely day for a hike to work off those calories consumed the day before.

           Happy Thanksgiving!

The Unsettlement

Madame:

I see you have left it to the readers to imagine just what kind of diagram would be drawn “depicting” sex scandals. :)

BP.  Ah yes, I have SUCH a shortage of things to analyze! :)

Of course, the settlement is better than nothing, and an improvement from previous administrations.  Does it affect the corporation BP much?  Not significantly.  It certainly doesn’t affect the finances of those who made decisions at the executive and board levels.

Even if shareholders and their board of directors somehow wanted to hold management accountable, things are usually stretched out so long that the perpetrators are not even around much anymore, having been given golden parachutes.

Yes, some low and mid-level people (who appear quite guilty, to be sure) were served up by their corporate masters.  The true individual culprits were not held accountable, especially those who fostered the corporate culture of criminal, arrogant disregard for safety or considerations for workers.

When it’s an out of court settlement, a corporation can usually deduct it from their income.  They thus make sure the country’s and world’s taxpayers share in the bill for their criminality.  And even the “settlement” will be stretched out over many years, with excess assets (BP has many) sold off to make the payments and not dent even a quarter’s profits (of which the settlement does not even equal).   And laws are in the works saying individuals cannot sue oil companies, but must sue the state.

A telling reminder happened recently.  Another offshore rig caught fire in the Gulf of Mexico.  Yes, BP didn’t own it, and it wasn’t nearly as serious.  Yet, how many eagerly nodded their heads during the campaign season when Romney blasted the Obama administration for not allowing more offshore drilling?  And a “free” market needs no laws or regulators?  Would a football game work without rules or referees?

How EASY it is to get us off-focus on how polluting, enslaving, impoverishing, and climate changing, fossil fuel addiction is.  We need to be moving like a sprinter toward a truly energy independent, clean, carbon-neutral goal, and yet here we are crawling on the ground like a baby—and most babies don’t crawl fast and are easily diverted.

BP Revisited

Professor J,

What a week in the news! I can't help thinking that Fox canceled Glen Beck's show too soon. He could be putting that blackboard to really good use. Sex scandals are so much more fun to diagram than connections to the Illuminati. ;)

As a matter of fact, it's the kind of thing that is much more fun to think about than things like crashing over the fiscal cliff and what the implications of that might be. The escalating trouble between Israel and Gaza is getting more attention though. Apparently war is a sexier topic than economics.

But there is one piece of news that came full circle from the beginnings of this blog. Our very first postings were about the BP oil spill. You might remember that I asked you what solution it was that you would like to see. Here was your answer:

The solution, maybe a fantasy one, would see corporate law and regulation changed dramatically, primarily in the arena of personal accountability, and the enforcement of existing law and regulation about this. These days, the “corporate veil” (which is not an unsound idea in and of itself) is rarely pierced by the judicial system for criminal liability, and almost never pierced for anything else, to financially or otherwise punish the arrogantly disdainful and near-utterly disconnected managements and boards who inflict the colossal damage we’ve been discussing. It would also be nice if our legislators and executive agents actually held managements and boards truly accountable, but again, that would be a bit like asking a bribed judge to hold Tammany Hall accountable. This idea that corporations should have the same First Amendment protections that individuals have has also made a terrible travesty of true justice.

The reader can read the entire post here.

Can you give us your opinion on the agreement announced today by the Attorney General?

Here's an article from Huffington Post: BP Oil Spill Settlement 

While we are recovering from the election and you are trying to get to answering JC's questions, I  know you'll want something else to analyze! :)

Points, Sharpness Unassured

Well made points Madame.  To them I would add only:

Governor Christie may now hold some belief about climate change other than his party’s.

In reference to AC, your point about silliness evaporating in the event of life and death brings up an interesting point question to those who despise his orientation so much:  If you could for sure have your life be saved by help from a homosexual, would you accept it, or take a chance on a non-homosexual coming by?

Although I am rarely in the mood to give Mr. Mathews too much of the BOTD, perhaps what he meant by that semi-exhausted blurting was (instead of the apparent partisan advantage) that there would be more cooperation and sane political behavior?

Billed by the state for stupidity and obstinate behavior?  Capital idea!  “Freedom of choice” must have its companion with it: “Responsibility.”

A quick post-mortem of the election:

The status quo and potential stalemate was largely preserved.

The Republican Party now has multiple components—plutocrat servers, tea party activists, and religious and pseudo-religious zealots among them—but could not quite come together.  Also, despite rhetoric, not quite enough were truly convinced Obama was the Arch-socialist Antichrist Anarchist.

The Democratic Party has always had multiple components, and the progressive elements within it were ready to withhold their votes—except that the extremist views of the components of the Republican Party made them swallow their distaste for the corporatists and establishment servers of their own party and vote for them by voting against the other side.

Demographics do not appear on the side of the Republicans, and that and the Republicans’ own penchant for breeding distrust among significant numbers of the electorate overcame much efforts by the Republicans and their allies.   What much?  Despite their unenthusiasm for Romney, corporations and the wealthy went near-all out with Super PACs and other spending for him, Senate candidates, etc.  It wasn’t completely for naught, but it did not succeed.  Neither, largely, did the blatant voter suppression in many of the key states. 

With all that, and some fairly anemic Democratic candidates opposing their own candidates (and a weak economy to boot), they still couldn’t pull it off.  Goes to show both the weakness of their own candidates and the out of resonance stances of their own positions, but also that they are failing heavily with African Americans, Asians, Latinos, and even women.

However, those making dire predictions for the future of the Republican Party should remember that a prime vehicle for the possible reinvigoration of the

Republican Party already exists: The Democratic Party, which has proven time and again its consummate skill in squandering advantages, moments, and opportunities.

The Perfect Election Storm

Professor J,

Just as I was breathing a sigh of relief that the election was over, one way or the other, I'll be darned if the pundits and prognosticators didn't start talking about what all this will mean for the NEXT election. No wonder no one can get around to governing, it would mean a break in campaigning. Why can't we stop selling and start solving?

I went to vote with my daughter who has more fun than anyone realizes is possible on election day. There was actually jumping up and down as we entered our precinct. And of course, the requisite photo was made for instagram. While I appreciated her enthusiasm, as a parent, fellow voter, and citizen I felt a pang of sadness that we aren't able to offer up candidates with ideas worthy of her excitement.  But now that the whole thing is over I'm thinking about some things we've learned in the last few days of the election, and from Hurricane Sandy:

Governor Chris Christie is his own man. Known for his brashness and stubbornly sticking to his ideas, he gained a lot of credibility this week for having his priorities in place. An especially interesting explanation of his thinking was given in response to a silly question from Fox's Steve Doocy about whether or not Romney would get a photo-op touring the damage with the N.J. governor: 

“I have no idea, nor am I the least bit concerned or interested, I’ve got a job to do here in New Jersey that’s much bigger than presidential politics and I could [sic] care less about any of that stuff. I have a job to do,” he added. “I’ve got 2.4 million people out of power, I’ve got devastation on the shore, I’ve got floods in the northern part of my state. If you think right now I give a damn about presidential politics then you don’t know me.”

Since Obama's reelection Tuesday night Christie has been taken to task by commentators and radio talk show hosts for praising Obama's handling of the situation. Lou Dobbs referred to it as "slobbering over the president" and insinuated that it was a calculated move toward reelection in his predominately blue state.  He's being referred to by members of his own party as "Judas" and "traitor." Talk show host Laura Ingram said this week that it wouldn't surprise her if he became a democrat. Given how his party is treating him, who could blame him? 

 In the midst of disaster no one cares that Anderson Cooper is gay. Night after night as AC stood out in the cold listening to the stories of residents rendered homeless by the storm I didn't see anyone ask him about his sexual orientation. People just wanted to be heard. They wanted their stories to be told. They wanted some help. They did not want their stories told by a straight anchorman/reporter. They wanted their stories by a human being. In matters of life and death it is striking how quickly silliness gets set aside.

Chris Mathews should not be allowed on air when sleep deprived, okay I'd argue he shouldn't be allowed on air ever, masquerading as an objective journalist. Just before the end of election coverage on MSNBC Mathews said, speaking in reference to the effect Sandy had on the election, “I’m so glad we had that storm last week because I think the storm was one of those things.” After an audible sound from co-anchor Rachel Maddow, who then put her hand on his arm as if to say "Please stop talking," he added,  “No, politically I should say. Not in terms of hurting people. The storm brought in possibilities for good politics.” Oh yes. Because of course loss of life and people's personal suffering is nothing compared to good political theater.

We didn't learn as much as we should have from Katrina. Federal, state, and local officials looked as if they could have had a better plan in place for such a densely populated area. But the main thing that shocked me (again) is the refusal of citizens to heed mandatory evacuation orders making the job of those who are trying to ensure the safety of residents, that much harder. If you don't evacuate after being told and you need to be rescued, I think you should be billed by the state for the cost of your bail out. 

Here's an article about just how much we didn't learn: Sandy Refugees Say Life In Tent City Feels Like Prison

Polar Icing

Madame M:

Hope you’re not too disappointed, but my answer is NOT going to be that comprehensive.

You are correct that we seem to lack the ability to see connections.  Like selfish children, we want, but don’t want to pay, and certainly don’t see our common interest with our fellows.  Yet we scream loud when things aren’t there for us, and go into refusal/denial/scream louder mode when it’s pointed out that that’s the result of what we said we wanted.

Neither party cooperates well anymore, and the in-need-of-reform rules of the Senate don’t help.  But because they are the weaker party (money/power base, etc.), Dems tend to seek compromise more.  The other party, almost never anymore.  Mitt Romney says he will work in a bipartisan fashion if elected by finding “good Democrats.”  Since compromise has not been his party’s forte, doesn’t that just mean Democrats that can be intimidated?  Since they are easier to isolate and make vulnerable, he could probably find some, unlike his own party, who rarely was willing to work out or compromise on anything.

We are a changed people, and these are changed times.  Without a single systemic threat (Axis, Communism) to rally against and focus our energies, we’ve often been a divided people.  And some periods, such as pre-Civil War, are so intensely divided, it almost seems only some system-seismic event can change that.  Moderates usually are pushed out or sickened out by the ever more polarized stances of the parties in an environment that has such room for country bickering.  Rome, when it stood undisputed master of the civilized Western world, soon took to bitter, destructive civil wars.  An ethic of expansion—whether for empire or capitalism—can have the same effect if frustrated.

Our campaigning has transitioned from vetting and informing to one of endless news cycles and spectacle.  It feeds the love my side/ hate the other side phenomenon, and the fracturing of communications channels only shovels it in.

We have certainly had a splintering of issues, and that’s part of it too.  But overall, we don’t have issues, we have political theater.  Spectacle and contention among elites, perhaps, but nothing for or about the average person.

No doubt that we are more selfish and inward looking as a people, with less community.  Even when we don’t (or say we don’t) want to be that way.  But it translates into how easy we segment ourselves, and how comfortable we are with it.    The way we live, the where we live.  Even the process.  Ear buds anyone?  They keep you shut off from the world and people around you, and easy to dismiss them by easy caricatures, rather than know them for who and what they are.

And this mantra of hyper-individualism we have hypnotized ourselves with—do it all yourself, and keep everything yourself, and let others do the same—is unrealistic, foolish, self-destructive, and polarizing.

Gerrymandering may be one of the biggest causes of our polarization, and drives much of the lack of give and take.  With so many seats in Congress “safe” for a party (and all the damage that does to democracy), it becomes easier for those opposite the president to thumb their noses.

We also have classic change, and classic reactionary response, going on in the country.  Demographics are changing, and a large portion of the “traditional” group feels threatened by the change, which they perceive will bring a change of their life and values.  Marry that up with a slight conservative preference for a majority of citizens, and you get the struggle between those who want change (or at least acceptance of certain progressive ideas) and those who are afraid of change (especially the change they can see and feel coming).

By transference we then project all this on to two figures who compete to direct the executive branch, pouring most focus and partially or totally ignoring all the other major players in the equation (Congress, Fed, G-20, Big Business and wealthy, etc.).

This answer went long.  I am very behind on replying to JC’s comments.