Generation Z vs. Earlier Generations

Post Reply New Topic

Alcohol-related highway fatalities were at an all-time high in 1970, and there were an estimated 100,000 alcohol-attributable deaths in the United States.

Alcohol is a leading cause of traffic fatalities. Drinking and driving kills 28 people a day in the U.S. — about one person every 52 minutes — according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). That is more than 10,000 lives lost each year to drunk driving.

Preventing Alcohol-Related Problems Through Health Policy Research


2022 drunk driving statistics


The population of the U.S. was a lot less in 1970.

These stats are for all ages but the young have always had a disproportionate share of impaired driving deaths.

Those statistics are only for drunk driving not impaired driving overall, and people were taking a lot of drugs both besides alcohol and with alcohol.

No matter how you slice many more young people died from impaired driving than are dying during the current mass shooting epidemic.

Somebody you knew was always dying or getting maimed from impaired driving back in the '70s. That does not count the number of youths dying and becoming disabled from the drugs themselves

That might not seem right. It is not uncommon today to drive by impromptu memorials on the side of the road. You did not see that in the '70s because that just was not how people memorialized others back then. Besides the funerals and wakes they went to the bar and made toasts to the deceased.

OTOH you have had a sharp increase in mental illnesses which distracts drivers. It is also undeniable that the stigmas surrounding discussing mental illnesses have come way down. This begs the question is how many of the
deaths that were attributed to substance abuse back then were really mental illness deaths.

How much do we have in common with our children and grandchildren? Less than our parents had in common with us—or at least that’s the theory animating Jean M. Twenge’s new book, Generations. Twenge, a psychologist at San Diego State University, is most widely known for iGen, which chronicled how the rise of the smartphone should be held responsible for a significant decline in mental health among adolescent girls. In Generations, Twenge again examines the surpassing role of technology in the lives of Americans over the past 75 years.

“Contrary to past theories,” she writes, “generations did not become who they are by experiencing major events at impressionable ages. Instead, generations differ because technology has radically changed daily life and culture, both directly and through technology’s daughters, individualism and a slower life.” The advent of social media has produced enormous changes in a few short years. But Twenge argues that the technology behind the birth-control pill, television, the microwave, and other innovations led to unexpected and massive social changes—in sexual behavior, gender roles, family formation, and fertility—that have made younger generations much different from older ones.

Twenge is the rare scholar who seems to play it down the middle. Her book, which contains complete portraits of all six generations living today, is based on 24 data sets that include a total of 39 million people. This nationally representative information allows Twenge to write about the characteristics of each generation in cultural, economic, and political terms that are, for once, justified by the sheer scope of the evidence. And there are some surprises.

Contrary to the popular notion that generational differences in political affiliation are really the result of age—the familiar theory that the older you get, the more conservative you become—Twenge notes that different generations have different political leanings. Age is only one factor.

“Boomers were the first group of 56–74-year-olds to be majority Republican since the survey began in 1952,” she writes. “Thus, Boomers are more Republican than previous generations were at the same age. It’s a stunning evolution for a generation that was very liberal in their youth, and it creates a sizable generation gap between Boomers and the more liberal Millennials and Gen Z’ers.”

There are other startling revelations about the Boomer generation, namely their very low levels of mental health. Twenge describes how the “deaths of despair” we have been hearing so much about lately “are actually a story about Boomers, especially white Boomers.” These included a huge increase in deaths that were the result of drug overdoses: “While young adults were once slightly more likely to overdose than older adults, older adults 55–64 were more likely to overdose starting in 2007, with the gap widening by 2020.”

Twenge speculates that higher levels of drug usage when Boomers were younger may have made them more comfortable using depressive drugs when they were older. But she also blames “individualism and technology.” She writes that “individualistic societies can feel disconnected and lonely.… As Janice Joplin sang, ‘Freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose.’” Twenge’s cleverness in finding cultural references for each generation helps to break up what can be a tedious undertaking.

Also, though Boomers are often blamed for perpetuating income inequality, Twenge argues that “they were its first casualties.” It was not just a widening class divide, but also the fact that the link between happiness and wealth has actually grown stronger. There was not a large gap in happiness between higher-income and lower-income white Americans in the 1970s, but by the 2010s, “five times as many whites in the lowest fifth for income were unhappy compared to those in the top fifth.” Happiness levels for blacks increased as well among the upper classes, while lower-income happiness rates among blacks stayed steady. So the gap increased there as well, but only lower-income whites actually became less happy. “A nation in which one social class is increasingly unhappy while another is content is a nation divided,” writes Twenge.

From an economic perspective, Twenge argues that many people who think they’re not prospering actually are. Gen X’ers ended up with a “higher median household income than Boomers and Silents at the same age in 2004 and 1987 respectively.” While it may have initially seemed as if they were not doing as well on measures like home ownership, it turns out that was merely a factor of the economic cycle. Fewer people of all generations owned homes in the 1990s, but that trend swung back in the other direction. Why would people think they were poorer?

Millennials, to judge from social media, are the most put-upon generation. Indeed, when experts note the falling fertility rate among Millennials, the common response is something like: “No one is getting paid enough, there’s not adequate maternity leave, no one can afford hospital bills, most of us can’t afford a house—like, what did you think would happen?” But Twenge argues that this is simply not true: “The median Millennial household made about $9,000 more than Gen X’ers at the same age, and about $10,000 more than Boomers. So Millennials were actually doing better than their parents’ generation, not worse.” And since they are not having kids at the same rate, they are making more money and supporting fewer people.

Unfortunately, as she points out, “feeling well-off is relative.” She notes that Boomers may have had “unrealistically high expectations” as a result of what they saw on tele-vision as they were growing up. In 2001, David Brooks argued that one of the big differences between Red and Blue America was that the denizens of Red America are not constantly faced with things they could never in a million years afford. Restaurants where they live make it hard to spend more than $25 per person. But a middle-class person in Blue America is regularly confronted with cars and homes and private schools and clothing and food that are not affordable in their wildest dreams.

Social media has made us all residents of Blue America now. Twenge argues that it “showcase[s] those at the very top of the income distribution, giving a skewed view of others’ income. The result is what’s called relative deprivation.”

Generations is a useful corrective to many popular narratives, including some on the right. Despite articles that purport to describe a religious resurgence among the young, Twenge correctly notes that this new explosion of faith does not seem to have materialized. Neither belief in God nor religious attendance has returned to levels seen in the first half of the 20th century. Even when they married and had children, Millennials and those who have followed them are not coming back to religion. “Why is religion less popular with Millennials?” Twenge asks. “In short because it is not compatible with individualism—and individualism is Millennials’ core value above all else.”

Millennials, to judge from social media, are the most put-upon generation. Indeed, when experts note the falling fertility rate among Millennials, the common response is something like: “No one is getting paid enough, there’s not adequate maternity leave, no one can afford hospital bills, most of us can’t afford a house—like, what did you think would happen?” But Twenge argues that this is simply not true: “The median Millennial household made about $9,000 more than Gen X’ers at the same age, and about $10,000 more than Boomers. So Millennials were actually doing better than their parents’ generation, not worse.” And since they are not having kids at the same rate, they are making more money and supporting fewer people.

This is the paragraph that made me realize whoever wrote this article is f*****g stupid.

Whoopdeedoo, $9-10k more/year.. which is probably about a 15% higher income. Meanwhile housing costs 10-20x more than it did, groceries have doubled or so, vehicles cost more, fuel has tripled etc etc.. whoodeedoo 10 grand/year, minus income taxes, doesn't give younger people anywhere near the same purchasing power as 10 grand a year less did for the previous generation.

Author is some kind of moron.

$1 in 1973 is equivalent in purchasing power to about $6.85 today, an increase of $5.85 over 50 years. The dollar had an average inflation rate of 3.92% per year between 1973 and today, producing a cumulative price increase of 584.97%.

This means that today's prices are 6.85 times as high as average prices since 1973, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics consumer price index. A dollar today only buys 14.599% of what it could buy back then.

As I was saying
$1 in 1973 is worth $6.85 today

That would be 584.97% vs approximately 15%.

Dude...that last sentence of yours is gibberish.
You dont have to be a mathlete. THINK please.

Its EITHER

..584.97 % vs 100% ,

OR

...its 15 percent vs 100 percent.

The "100 percent" part in both cases is left unstated because its implied and obvious. The former is if your comparing the past year to now, the latter if you comparing the present dollar to the past year.

YOU DONT COMBINE THE TWO PERCENTAGES. Percentages are ratios and not amounts.

You decide WHICH WAY - you're running the comparison (now to then, or then to now) and then pick the one appropriate percentage.

Your last sentence is like saying this: "You and I went deep sea fishing, and you caught a fifty pound fish, and I caught a 100 pound fish. Which means your fish is half the size of my fish, and my fish is double the size of yours....so thats one half vs double...and double divided by one half equals four...so that means that my 100 pound fish is four times the size of your 50 pound fish....and why stop there? Your fish is one fourth vs the four times size of my fish...and one fourth goes into four ...sixteen times...ergo my 100 pound fish is sixteen times the weight of your 50 pount fish....and why stop there?...." That how harebrained that sentence of yours sounds.

I mean...I agree with the point...that inflation makes comparing wages between decades an excercise in turning peaches into pears. But gosh...dont violate gradeschool math while making your point please.