# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Skip to main content

Filed under:

Installing advanced security tech doesn't appear to stop these tragedies, but it can harm students in other ways.

Understand the news with

Today, Explained

Listen now in app or on public radio

How often can you get Covid?

Does your immunity still last for months? We asked a researcher who has been studying omicron reinfections.

Subscribe Now

The gun control stalemate, explained

There is no panacea for mass shootings.

Filed under:

Albert Camus and the search for solace in a cruel age.

Pagination
More Stories

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Vox is a general interest news site for the 21st century. Its mission is simple: Explain the news. Politics, public policy, world affairs, pop culture, science, business, food, sports, and everything else that matters are part of our editorial ambit. Our goal is to move people from curiosity to understanding.

# data[].attributes.body
Gallup is an organization that is designed to help businesses and organizations better understand the American public. They also publish articles based on their findings.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Gallup - Workplace Consulting & Global Research

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Gallup is more than management consulting. Learn how our understanding of the human experience helps clients and the billions they serve thrive.

# data[].attributes.body
This is a nonpartisan think tank that researches and publishes information about our world.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
While there has been a decades-long decline in the Christian share of U.S. adults, 88% of the voting members in the new 118th Congress identify as Christian. That is only a few points lower than their share in the late 1970s.

Most U.S. adults say President Joe Biden (65%) and Republican leaders in Congress (61%) will be unsuccessful getting their agendas enacted in the next two years; only about a third say the president and GOP leaders will be successful. Republicans are less confident than Democrats in midterm vote counts - but more confident than they were after the 2020 election.

Over the span of the pandemic, rising housing costs have hit renters hard - and prices have continued to soar over the past year.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
While there has been a decades-long decline in the Christian share of U.S. adults, 88% of the voting members in the new 118th Congress identify as Christian. That is only a few points lower than their share in the late 1970s. Most U.S.

# data[].attributes.headline
Introducing the Generational Music Cycle

# data[].attributes.subject
Introducing the Generational Music Cycle

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In their best-selling book, " Generations: The History of America's Future, " William Strauss and Neil Howe describe in great detail The Crisis of 2020.

They talk about how the crisis would seemingly come out of nowhere. They talk about how an era of incurable divisiveness and political bickering would suddenly shift to a mood of community solidarity and resolve. They talk about how the crisis would ultimately change America forever.

Strauss and Howe wrote about The Crisis of 2020 in 1991.

"Generations" proposes there are four different types of generations and four different phases of history, with patterns that predictably repeat. Some might argue Strauss and Howe predicted The Crisis of 2020 with such accuracy because it aligns with other crisis eras in American history, such as World War II and The American Revolution.

If it could foretell COVID-19 in 1991, wouldn't you love to know what "Generations" could teach us about where popular music is heading?

The idea that music is cyclical isn't new of course. Legendary programmer and consultant Guy Zapoleon has long championed The Music Cycle, observing that Contemporary Hit Radio (CHR) moves through three predictable phases during a decade: Birth/Pop, Extremes, and Doldrums.

But why does music move through these phases?
THE GENERATIONAL MUSIC CYCLE
There is a longer-range cycle that both drives Zapoleon's music cycle and explains why we never seem to avoid its doldrums. We call it the Generational Music Cycle, and we base it on Strauss and Howe's generational archetypes theory.

Two factors drive the Generational Music Cycle:

Which generation is the primary creator of popular music?

Which generation is the primary consumer of popular music?

Combined, these factors spawn two different music cycles, each of which lasts about a decade and each of which contains the Birth/Pop, Extremes, and Doldrums phases Zapoleon outlines.

Evolution: During this stage, an older generation continues to create the music, but the next younger generation becomes the primary consumer of new music. It is the younger generation's tastes that shape which songs are hits. While not fundamentally changing what style of music is popular, it does bring new excitement to pop music and shapes new music styles that will emerge in the future. The Evolution stage typically begins when the oldest members of a younger generation turn 21.

Examples of Evolution phase:

1964 - The British Invasion: The Beatles storm America to throngs of Boomers who are now the tastemakers, while artists from the previous Silent Generation continue to create the music. Today, this era defines what people think of as "Oldies".

1982 - New Wave: Duran Duran, Men At Work and A Flock of Seagulls videos play on MTV to Gen Xers, while Boomer artists from Michael Jackson to Madonna cater to Gen X tastes. When people think of "80s" music, they think of this era.

2003 - Happy Hip Hop: A new breed of feel-good Hip Hop from artists such as Outkast, Black Eyed Peas, 50 Cent and Jay Z emerges, shedding the gritty gang life images of 90s Gen X Hip Hop. Millennial listeners were ready to have fun again. Keep an eye out for nostalgia around this era to emerge.

Revolution: During this next stage, the younger generation that has been shaping music tastes during the past decade also spawns the artists creating contemporary music. Whenever a brand-new style of music seemingly suddenly emerges and becomes the dominant force in popular music, it is almost always at the beginning of the Revolution. The Revolution stage typically begins when the last members of the older generation turn 31 and no longer represent the bulk of popular artists.

Examples of Revolution Phase:

1955 - Rock 'n' Roll: Bill Haley & The Comet's "Rock Around The Clock" becomes #1 and, seemingly overnight, James Dean era teenagers dump Patti Page and Perry Como for Elvis Presley, Little Richard, Buddy Holly and Chuck Berry. The Silent Generation has replaced the Greatest Generation as the makers of their own music.

Early 1970s - Classic Rock: While "Rock" had already emerged with The Doors, Cream and Jefferson Airplane, the early 70s saw what was left of the other 60s styles vanish as Boomer artists Fleetwood Mac, Pink Floyd, The Doobie Brothers and The Eagles define the decade. This era was for Boomers by Boomers.

1991 - Grunge: With "Smells Like Teen Spirit," Rock suddenly transitioned from hedonistic hair bands to dark realism, as those Generation X latch key kids take over creating music from the Boomers and change Rock to reflect their reality. Jeremy spoke in class that day indeed.

Early 2010s - EDM: The DJ replaced the rock star as the center of popular youth music culture, as Millennial-aged artists such as David Guetta, Diplo, Major Lazer, and Swedish House Mafia drive tastes. Their EDM styles also become infused by millennial pop artists such as Bruno Mars and Justin Bieber and Hip Hop artists such as Drake. Generation X's influence is over.

"BIRTH" HAPPENS WHEN GENERATIONS AGREE ON THE HITS
Typically, people remember the first four to five years of an Evolution as the "fun" years. From mid-60s "Oldies" to "80s", they're the years you hear at wedding receptions and sports events when it's time to have a good time.

In contrast, the first few years of a Revolution often represent the halcyon days of a genre. The days when the music was pure; Classic Rock from the early- and mid-1970s. Grunge and Hip Hop from the early and mid-90s. Rock 'n' Roll before " the day the music died " when a plane crash killed its stars in 1959.

So why don't the golden years last?
"EXTREMES" AND "DOLDRUMS" OCCUR AT GENERATIONAL TENSION POINTS
In 1979, tens of thousands gather at a baseball double-header sponsored by FM 98 the Loop (WLUP) in Chicago. The promotion? The chance to come destroy Disco records.

They almost destroyed Comiskey Park in the process.

Those disco demolitioners were overwhelmingly 15- to 18-year old teens representing the first wave of Generation X, rebelling against the Boomer-driven dance fad.

Meanwhile in New York, The Talking Heads, Blondie and the Ramones were playing CBGB, hinting at the new wave sounds that would take over Top 40 a few years later.

Welcome to the Extremes.

Both an Evolutionary phase and a Revolutionary phase will ultimately devolve into the Extremes and Doldrums before the next phase begins. Why? Generational transition tension: During the Birth phase, there is agreement among the generations about what's popular. As a new generation emerges first among consumers and then later among artists, conflict emerges between the aging establishment and the younger generation who want something new.

After a revolution, the "Extremes" phase is most likely to launch fads that appeal to the older generation, but generally don't have the staying power of the halcyon days of the genre that preceded it. Beyond Disco:

The early 1960s were rife with musical fads, from the faux folk and hootenanny of The New Christie Minstrels to death discs of teenage tragedy such as "Last Kiss."

The late 1990s saw a slew of quirky pop alternative from one-hit wonders from Cherry Poppin' Daddies and the Squirrel Nut Zippers to Fastball and The Cardigans. How bizarre.

In contrast, the Doldrums' phase that happens after an Evolution and just before a new Revolution often bring the last gasp for icons of a soon to be irrelevant generation.

Consider 1988-1990, when Chicago, Don Henley, George Harrison, The Beach Boys and a slew of other Boomer icons had their last major hits.

Likewise, Red Hot Chili Peppers and Green Day had their last mainstream hits before 2010, while overnight, Nickelback went from a stalwart hit maker to a punchline.

And while the early 1970s likely remind you of Led Zeppelin, it was also when pre-rock crooners Perry Como and Andy Williams had their last Top 10 hits that didn't involve Christmas.

2020 AND BEYOND
What does this generations-based music cycle suggest awaits us now?

In 2020, we're nearing the end of the millennial generation's Revolution phase. Since the early 2010s, they've been the dominant music makers and tastemakers.

But waiting in the wings within the halls of America's middle schools-or at the moment at home on Google Classroom-are the kids that will soon begin impacting popular music.

In our next post, we'll introduce you to them.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Introducing the Generational Music Cycle

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Just as "Generations: The History of America's Future" predicts events based on generational patterns, we introduce a predictive generational music cycle.

# data[].attributes.headline
Oh No, They’ve Come Up With Another Generation Label

# data[].attributes.subject
Oh No, They’ve Come Up With Another Generation Label

# data[].attributes.body
How much do members of “Generation Alpha,” or any generation, really have in common?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
How much do members of "Generation Alpha," or any generation, really have in common?

The cutoff for being born into Generation X was about 1980, the cutoff for Generation Y (a.k.a. the Millennials) was about 1996, and the cutoff for Generation Z was about 2010. What should the next batch of babies be called-what comes after Z?

Alpha, apparently. That's the (Greek) letter that the unofficial namers of generations-marketers, researchers, cultural commentators, and the like-have affixed to Gen Z's successors, the oldest of whom are on the cusp of turning 10. The Generation Alpha label, if it lasts, follows the roughly 15-year cycle of generational delineations. Those delineations keep coming, even as, because of a variety of demographic factors, they seem to be getting less and less meaningful as a way of segmenting the population; in recent decades, there hasn't been a clear-cut demographic development, like the postwar baby boom, to define a generation around, so the dividing lines are pretty arbitrary. How much do members of this new generation, or any generation, really have in common?
Read: Generations are an invention-here's how they came to be
A picture of Generation Alpha, if a blurry one, is starting to emerge. In various articles about its members, analysts have stated that they are or will grow up to be the best-educated generation ever, the most technologically immersed, the wealthiest, and the generation more likely than any in the past century to spend some or all of their childhood in living arrangements without both of their biological parents. These are all notable features, but some of them are broad and fairly low-stakes observations, given that the global population has been getting richer, better educated, and more exposed to digital technology for a while now.

Some marketers and consultants who analyze generations have tried to get more specific. One suggested that Generation Alpha might be particularly impatient because they'll be used to technology fulfilling their desires from an early age. And a branding agency recently polled a bunch of 7-to-9-year-olds on a wide range of mostly nondivisive issues (such as the importance of "making sure everyone has enough food to eat") and arrived at the conclusion that Generation Alpha "cares more about all issues than their Millennial and Baby Boomer [predecessors] did when they were kids, or even than they do now."

Many of these takeaways seem premature, or at least overeager. "They're still kids," says Dan Woodman, a sociology professor at the University of Melbourne who studies generational labels. "A lot of things we attach to a generation are around the way they start to think about politics, the way they engage with the culture, and [whether they] are a wellspring of new social movements." The narrative of a generation, he told me, "starts to get filled in with some meaningful-maybe not correct, but at least substantial-content probably more when they start to enter their teens."

The term Generation Alpha is usually credited to Mark McCrindle, a generational researcher in Australia who runs a consulting agency. McCrindle told me that the name originated from an online survey he ran in 2008 that yielded a slew of now-discarded monikers, many of which focused on technology (the "Onliners," "Generation Surf," the "Technos") or gave the next round of humans the burden of undoing the damage done by the last (the "Regeneration," "Generation Hope," the "Saviors," "Generation Y-not").

One popular option from the survey was "Generation A," but, McCrindle told me in an email, he thought the name for a cohort that would shape the future shouldn't "be labelled by going back to the beginning." So once the Latin alphabet was exhausted, he hopped over to the Greek one-"the start of something new."

A consensus has formed around Generation Alpha, but it may be a temporary one. The generic "Generation [Letter]" format began with Generation X. "It was meant to be a placeholder for something a bit uncertain or mysterious, almost like X in some algebraic equation," Woodman told me. Generation Y followed, though it was usurped, at least in the U.S., by Millennials; nothing has overthrown Generation Z. Placeholder names, in a way, make generational generalizations easier. "They're almost like empty labels that you can put anything in," Woodman said. He thinks Generation Alpha will stick for at least a little while, but can also see how it might get replaced by something "a little more descriptive."

The history of generational labeling is littered with names that gained some traction, but not enough. Gen X has been referred to as " Baby Busters," the " slacker generation," " latchkey kids," and the " MTV Generation," though the placeholder won out. The same, so far, has been the case for Gen Z, whose proposed alternate names include "iGeneration," the "Homeland Generation," "Multi-Gen," "Post Gen," and the "Pluralistic Generation."
Read: How generations get their names
For researchers and consultants, picking a winning name and becoming an authority on a particular generation can be highly lucrative. "It's worth a heap of money," Woodman said. "One of the things we do with generational labels is make claims about how different this cohort is-they're so different, almost alien in their attitudes, that you need to pay some experts to come in and explain them to you." For instance, Neil Howe, one of the coiners of Millennials some 30 years ago, has gone on to make a career out of consulting, speaking, and writing about generations.

Of course, the enthusiasm about naming generations isn't just among marketers and consultants. People "do love generations talk," Woodman said. They're "drawn to using these labels to pin down something they intuitively feel about young or old people these days." He thinks that this desire is strong when the world is perceived to be changing rapidly-people want to be able to identify their position amid the flux.

Unfortunately, though, "generations talk" can often devolve into stereotyping, as generational labels necessarily lump together people with a wide variety of experiences. "We'd probably bristle if we did with gender or race what we still seem to get away with with generations," Woodman said.

Generalizing is additionally unwise because the process of delineating generations is hardly scientific. To be sure, today's coexisting cohorts have had meaningfully different experiences-Baby Boomers and Millennials, for instance, came of age in eras with markedly different technologies and paradigms of education and work. But, Woodman noted, shifts involving "generational factors" like these are usually gradual, and don't vary drastically from one year to the next.

"There's a continuous stream of people emerging in a population. How do we draw the line between the end of one cohort and the beginning of another?" said Rick Settersten, a professor of human development and family sciences at Oregon State University. "At some point, it's an arbitrary game."

In some regards, the game is more arbitrary now than it used to be. Take the Baby Boomers, for example. "We can see them more easily in the population because there's a fertility boom in 1946 right after World War II, which tails off by about 1964," Settersten told me.

The moderately logical boundaries of the Boomer generation set a precedent that in some ways led to the less logical boundaries for the generations that followed. If the final birth year for Boomers is 1964, counting out 15 more years gets you to the Gen X-Millennial border, and another 15 or so gets you to the Millennial-Gen Z border. But even though this is an orderly way of doing things, big societal changes don't always follow neat 15-year increments.

For instance, the youngest Millennials, born in 1996, might have more in common with the oldest Gen Zers, born in 1997, than the oldest Millennials, born in 1981; to name just one difference, many children of the late '90s grew up with the internet, while the 1981 babies spent most of their childhoods without it. (This sort of tension has birthed some niche generational labels for those born on the outer edge of their cohort, such as " Xennials.") Even the Baby Boomer label-which is grounded in a measurable fertility trend-doesn't entirely make sense, Settersten pointed out, as some of the oldest Boomers are the parents of some of the youngest ones.

Further, Millennials are often considered the children of Boomers, and Gen Zers are often considered Gen Xers' children. But these sorts of one-to-one matchups of parents and children become less valid as the average age at which parents have their first child has gotten higher. The age range of first-time mothers-whether they are 21, or 31, or 41-"has widened dramatically," Settersten wrote in an email. "They share a life event-they all had first births at the same time-but they potentially come from different 'generations.'" (He put the term in scare quotes to note that generations are essentially social constructs.) Woodman raised this point about other life milestones, such as leaving one's childhood home, starting a committed relationship, and purchasing a house. "The life course isn't as synchronized as it once was, where everyone does stuff at the same time," he said.

That means that, from here on out, even more diversity of human experience has to be crammed into broad generational labels. Woodman said that "attach[ing] attributes to an entire group, like optimistic or pessimistic or entitled, snowflakey, resilient, or whatever, has always been a stretch, but it'll probably get even less helpful as time goes on."

Settersten made a similar point: "It probably has gotten more difficult to distinguish one generation from another, especially if you can't point to meaningful things that might define it, like a baby boom or bust; or a historical event like the Great Recession; or maybe the emergence of some new technology, if we had reason to believe that it would mark [people] as a distinct group."

The march through the Greek alphabet may continue anyway. In 2024, by McCrindle's definition, the last of Generation Alpha will be born, making way for Generation Beta, whose birth years will span from 2025 to 2039. "If the nomenclature sticks, then we will afterwards have Generation Gamma and Generation Delta," McCrindle said. Those placeholder names stand a good chance of catching on-so long as nothing important and generation-defining happens in the next half century, of course.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
15-year cycle of generational delineations

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Oh No, They've Come Up With Another Generation Label

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
How much do members of "Generation Alpha," or any generation, really have in common? The cutoff for being born into Generation X was about 1980, the cutoff for Generation Y (a.k.a. the Millennials) was about 1996, and the cutoff for Generation Z was about 2010.

# data[].attributes.headline
"A landmark generation": Introducing Gen Alpha

# data[].attributes.subject
"A landmark generation": Introducing Gen Alpha

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
“A landmark generation”: Introducing Gen Alpha

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The youngest members of this generation will be born in 2024, per social researchers.

# data[].attributes.headline
What Are the Core Characteristics of Generation Z?

# data[].attributes.subject
What Are the Core Characteristics of Generation Z?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Generation Z has emerged as a population increasingly worthy of attention, especially now as its older members are in their 20s and have become a politically engaged force in recent elections. Born after 1996, Generation Zers made up one-tenth of the 2020 electorate and have added 8.3 million newly eligible voters since November 2020. While they share a number of characteristics with Millennials, their formative years have been shaped by a drastically different world, resulting in key differences in attitudes, tendencies and outlook. Statistics compiled by the Pew Research Center and the KIDS COUNT ® Data Center paint a clear picture. Here's what we know.

Diversity Is Their Norm

One of the core characteristics of Generation Z is racial diversity. As America's demographics continue to shift, Gen Z will be the last generation that is predominantly white. As Gen Zers grew up during 2000 to 2020, the share of white kids fell from 61% to 50%. Children in immigrant families grew more common, too, jumping from 19% to 25% of the country's child population during this timeframe. The oldest Gen Zers turned 18 in 2015, and the latest data for young adults ages 18 to 24 in 2020 showed that a slight majority are 53% white, 23% are Latino, 14% are Black, 6% are Asian, 3% are two or more race groups and 1% are American Indian or Alaska Native.

For many Gen Zers, the backdrop of their early years included the country's first Black president and the legalization of gay marriage. They are more likely to have grown up amid diverse family structures - whether in a single-parent household, a multiracial household, or a household in which gender roles were blurred. As a result, they are less fazed than previous generations by differences in race, sexual orientation or religion.

They Are Our First ​"Digital Natives"

Another characteristic of Generation Z is their native use of technology. Whereas Millennials were considered ​"digital pioneers," who bore witness to the explosion of technology and social media, Gen Z was born into a world of peak technological innovation - where information was immediately accessible and social media increasingly ubiquitous.

These technological advancements have had both positive and negative effects on Gen Z. On the plus side: an abundance of information is at their fingertips, allowing Gen Zers to broaden their knowledge and be proactive in their learning. On the other hand, too much screen time can compound feelings of isolation and lead to underdeveloped social skills. Additionally, technology is changing the economy, leaving low-income Gen Zers vulnerable as they enter the workforce.

They Are Pragmatic and Financially Minded

Financial mindedness is another core characteristic of Generation Z. Many Gen Zers grew up watching their parents take huge financial hits during the Great Recession. Having witnessed their parents' struggles, this generation is driven by pragmatism and security.

While Millennials came of age during an economic boom, Gen Zers were shaped by the economic pressures their families and communities faced, like the financial stress of the rental market. Thus, they value the stability that comes with conservative spending, stable jobs and smart investments.

Many Factors Contribute to Their Mental Health Challenges

Mental health challenges are a sad characteristic of Generation Z, which has been referred to by some as the ​"loneliest generation," as their endless hours spent online can foster feelings of isolation and depression. More time spent on smartphones or watching Netflix means less time spent cultivating meaningful relationships. Additionally, many young people fall prey to the ​"compare and despair" trap that social media presents.

Gen Z kids also find their mental health affected by the turbulent state of the world. As political activism among Gen Z has increased, many Gen Zers have internalized the unrest surrounding issues like gun control, police brutality and climate change - leading to increased levels of stress.

They Are Shrewd Consumers

As consumers, Gen Z's behavior reflects their values - and the influence of an increasingly digital world. Gen Z kids can rely on their tech savvy and extensive social media platforms to make informed purchasing decisions. Their pragmatism leads them to explore and evaluate a range of options before settling on a product. In addition, they are more likely to be swayed by the recommendations of real-life users than by celebrity endorsements.

In much the same way that Gen Zers use social media as a means to curate their own personal brand, they also look at their purchasing decisions as an expression of their values and identity. As an example, they are drawn to sustainable products and brands - and are often willing to pay more for them. They value personalized products, and they are drawn to brands who share their point of view on political issues.

They Are Politically Progressive - Even Those on the Right

Most generations tend to be more left-leaning than the previous generation, and Gen Z is no exception. While Gen Zers look a lot like Millennials on many key issues, they are the most politically progressive generation yet. They are the generation most likely to see the advancement of LGBTQ rights as a positive development. Even among Republicans, Gen Zers take a more progressive stance on social issues: they agree that Black Americans are treated more unfairly in this country, they believe the government should play a greater role in solving problems and they are more likely to attribute climate change to human activity, as opposed to natural patterns.

Continue Learning About Generation Z

Gen Z is still growing up, but as they continue to come of age, early signs indicate that they will grow into engaged, conscientious stewards of our world - by being socially-minded, independent thinkers, who recognize their responsibility in shaping a more equitable future for all.

More Resources on Generation Z

Go to the KIDS COUNT Data Center for the latest statistics on children of all ages, including a new dataset on youth and young adults ages 14 to 24, capturing the majority of Gen Zers.

Sign Up for Our Email Newsletters

Stay up to date with the latest data, reports, and publications the Foundation has to offer by signing up for one of our newsletter mailing lists today!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Are the Core Characteristics of Generation Z?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Generation Z has emerged as a population increasingly worthy of attention, especially now as its older members enter young adulthood. Here's what we know about their characteristics.

# data[].attributes.headline
Defining generations: Where Millennials end and Generation Z begins

# data[].attributes.subject
Defining generations: Where Millennials end and Generation Z begins

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
For decades, Pew Research Center has been committed to measuring public attitudes on key issues and documenting differences in those attitudes across demographic groups. One lens often employed by researchers at the Center to understand these differences is that of generation.

Generations provide the opportunity to look at Americans both by their place in the life cycle - whether a young adult, a middle-aged parent or a retiree - and by their membership in a cohort of individuals who were born at a similar time.

As we've examined in past work, generational cohorts give researchers a tool to analyze changes in views over time. They can provide a way to understand how different formative experiences (such as world events and technological, economic and social shifts) interact with the life-cycle and aging process to shape people's views of the world. While younger and older adults may differ in their views at a given moment, generational cohorts allow researchers to examine how today's older adults felt about a given issue when they themselves were young, as well as to describe how the trajectory of views might differ across generations.

Pew Research Center has been studying the Millennial generation for more than a decade. But by 2018, it became clear to us that it was time to determine a cutoff point between Millennials and the next generation. Turning 38 this year, the oldest Millennials are well into adulthood, and they first entered adulthood before today's youngest adults were born.

In order to keep the Millennial generation analytically meaningful, and to begin looking at what might be unique about the next cohort, Pew Research Center decided a year ago to use 1996 as the last birth year for Millennials for our future work. Anyone born between 1981 and 1996 (ages 23 to 38 in 2019) is considered a Millennial, and anyone born from 1997 onward is part of a new generation.

Since the oldest among this rising generation are just turning 22 this year, and most are still in their teens or younger, we hesitated at first to give them a name - Generation Z, the iGeneration and Homelanders were some early candidates. (In our first in-depth look at this generation, we used the term "post-Millennials" as a placeholder.) But over the past year, Gen Z has taken hold in popular culture and journalism. Sources ranging from Merriam-Webster and Oxford to the Urban Dictionary now include this name for the generation that follows Millennials, and Google Trends data show that "Generation Z" is far outpacing other names in people's searches for information. While there is no scientific process for deciding when a name has stuck, the momentum is clearly behind Gen Z.

Generational cutoff points aren't an exact science. They should be viewed primarily as tools, allowing for the kinds of analyses detailed above. But their boundaries are not arbitrary. Generations are often considered by their span, but again there is no agreed upon formula for how long that span should be. At 16 years (1981 to 1996), our working definition of Millennials is equivalent in age span to their preceding generation, Generation X (born between 1965 and 1980). By this definition, both are shorter than the span of the Baby Boomers (19 years) - the only generation officially designated by the U.S. Census Bureau, based on the famous surge in post-WWII births in 1946 and a significant decline in birthrates after 1964.

Unlike the Boomers, there are no comparably definitive thresholds by which later generational boundaries are defined. But for analytical purposes, we believe 1996 is a meaningful cutoff between Millennials and Gen Z for a number of reasons, including key political, economic and social factors that define the Millennial generation's formative years.

Most Millennials were between the ages of 5 and 20 when the 9/11 terrorist attacks shook the nation, and many were old enough to comprehend the historical significance of that moment, while most members of Gen Z have little or no memory of the event. Millennials also grew up in the shadow of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which sharpened broader views of the parties and contributed to the intense political polarization that shapes the current political environment. And most Millennials were between 12 and 27 during the 2008 election, where the force of the youth vote became part of the political conversation and helped elect the first black president. Added to that is the fact that Millennials are the most racially and ethnically diverse adult generation in the nation's history. Yet the next generation - Generation Z - is even more diverse.

Beyond politics, most Millennials came of age and entered the workforce facing the height of an economic recession. As is well documented, many of Millennials' life choices, future earnings and entrance to adulthood have been shaped by this recession in a way that may not be the case for their younger counterparts. The long-term effects of this "slow start" for Millennials will be a factor in American society for decades.

Technology, in particular the rapid evolution of how people communicate and interact, is another generation-shaping consideration. Baby Boomers grew up as television expanded dramatically, changing their lifestyles and connection to the world in fundamental ways. Generation X grew up as the computer revolution was taking hold, and Millennials came of age during the internet explosion.

In this progression, what is unique for Generation Z is that all of the above have been part of their lives from the start. The iPhone launched in 2007, when the oldest Gen Zers were 10. By the time they were in their teens, the primary means by which young Americans connected with the web was through mobile devices, WiFi and high-bandwidth cellular service. Social media, constant connectivity and on-demand entertainment and communication are innovations Millennials adapted to as they came of age. For those born after 1996, these are largely assumed.

The implications of growing up in an "always on" technological environment are only now coming into focus. Recent research has shown dramatic shifts in youth behaviors, attitudes and lifestyles - both positive and concerning - for those who came of age in this era. What we don't know is whether these are lasting generational imprints or characteristics of adolescence that will become more muted over the course of their adulthood. Beginning to track this new generation over time will be of significant importance.

Pew Research Center is not the first to draw an analytical line between Millennials and the generation to follow them, and many have offered well-reasoned arguments for drawing that line a few years earlier or later than where we have. Perhaps, as more data are collected over the years, a clear, singular delineation will emerge. We remain open to recalibrating if that occurs. But more than likely the historical, technological, behavioral and attitudinal data will show more of a continuum across generations than a threshold. As has been the case in the past, this means that the differences within generations can be just as great as the differences across generations, and the youngest and oldest within a commonly defined cohort may feel more in common with bordering generations than the one to which they are assigned. This is a reminder that generations themselves are inherently diverse and complex groups, not simple caricatures.

In the near term, you will see a number of reports and analyses from the Center that continue to build on our portfolio of generational research. Today, we issued a report looking - for the first time - at how members of Generation Z view some of the key social and political issues facing the nation today and how their views compare with those of older generations. To be sure, the views of this generation are not fully formed and could change considerably as they age and as national and global events intervene. Even so, this early look provides some compelling clues about how Gen Z will help shape the future political landscape.

In the coming weeks, we will be releasing demographic analyses that compare Millennials to previous generations at the same stage in their life cycle to see if the demographic, economic and household dynamics of Millennials continue to stand apart from their predecessors. In addition, we will build on our research on teens' technology use by exploring the daily lives, aspirations and pressures today's 13- to 17-year-olds face as they navigate the teenage years.

Yet, we remain cautious about what can be projected onto a generation when they remain so young. Donald Trump may be the first U.S. president most Gen Zers know as they turn 18, and just as the contrast between George W. Bush and Barack Obama shaped the political debate for Millennials, the current political environment may have a similar effect on the attitudes and engagement of Gen Z, though how remains a question. As important as today's news may seem, it is more than likely that the technologies, debates and events that will shape Generation Z are still yet to be known.

We look forward to spending the next few years studying this generation as it enters adulthood. All the while, we'll keep in mind that generations are a lens through which to understand societal change, rather than a label with which to oversimplify differences between groups.
Note: This is an update of a post that was originally published March 1, 2018, to announce the Center's adoption of 1996 as an endpoint to births in the Millennial generation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Defining generations: Where Millennials end and Generation Z begins

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Pew Research Center now uses 1996 as the last birth year for Millennials in our work. President Michael Dimock explains why.

# data[].attributes.headline
Here's how the pandemic has changed societies: futurists explain

# data[].attributes.subject
Here's how the pandemic has changed societies: futurists explain

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
COVID-19

A panel of experts anticipated that online education could be one aspect of the pandemic that is here to stay Image: Julia M Cameron for Pexels

Futurist & Senior Advisor, Copenhagen Institute for Futures Studies

Junior Advisor, Copenhagen Institute for Futures Studies

Stay up to date:

COVID-19

Follow

In the Future Jobs Survey 2020, 50% of employers indicated that they expected to accelerate automation in response to the pandemic. Image: World Economic Forum

The pandemic has contributed to an accelerated global democratic recession, mainly accounted for by struggling democracies and authoritarian states. Image: Freedom House

Don't miss any update on this topic

Create a free account and access your personalized content collection with our latest publications and analyses.

Sign up for free

License and Republishing

World Economic Forum articles may be republished in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License, and in accordance with our Terms of Use.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and not the World Economic Forum.

Global Agenda

The Agenda Weekly

A weekly update of the most important issues driving the global agenda

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Here's how the pandemic has changed societies: futurists explain

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
COVID-19 A panel of experts anticipated that online education could be one aspect of the pandemic that is here to stay Image: Julia M Cameron for Pexels Futurist & Senior Advisor, Copenhagen Institute for Futures Studies Junior Advisor, Copenhagen Institute for Futures Studies Stay up to date: COVID-19 Follow In the Future Jobs Survey 2020, 50% of employers indicated that they expected to accelerate automation in response to the pandemic.

# data[].attributes.headline
Where Americans find meaning in life has changed over the past four years

# data[].attributes.subject
Where Americans find meaning in life has changed over the past four years

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Many things have changed in the United States in the past four years, from a new administration in Washington to the COVID-19 pandemic, which has disrupted work, financial security, family structures and even the ability to move around freely - to say nothing of its impact on public health.

Alongside these shifts, Americans have evolved in where they find meaning in their lives, according to a new Pew Research Center analysis of surveys conducted in September 2017 and February 2021. In both years, the Center asked a representative sample of U.S. adults to answer the following question in their own words: "What about your life do you currently find meaningful, fulfilling or satisfying? What keeps you going and why?"

Based on these surveys, here are six facts about where Americans find meaning in life and how those responses have shifted over the past four years. The analysis also examines how attitudes in the U.S. compare with those in 16 other advanced economies surveyed by the Center in 2021.

This Pew Research Center analysis examines Americans' responses to an open-ended question about what gives them meaning in life and explores how responses in the United States have changed over time as well as how they differ from those elsewhere in the world. Details about the over-time analysis can be found in the Methodology for comparing 2017 and 2021 U.S. surveys on the meaning of life.

For this analysis, we conducted nationally representative surveys of 4,867 U.S. adults from Sept. 14 to 28, 2017, and 2,596 U.S. adults from Feb. 1 to 7, 2021. Everyone who took part in both surveys is a member of the Center's American Trends Panel (ATP), an online survey panel that is recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses. This way nearly all adults have a chance of selection. The surveys were weighted to be representative of the U.S. adult population by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education and other categories.

In both surveys, respondents were asked to answer the following open-ended question: "We're interested in exploring what it means to live a satisfying life. Please take a moment to reflect on your life and what makes it feel worthwhile - then answer the question below as thoughtfully as you can. What about your life do you currently find meaningful, fulfilling or satisfying? What keeps you going and why?"

We also conducted nationally representative surveys of 16,254 adults from March 12 to May 26, 2021, in 16 advanced economies. All surveys were conducted over the phone with adults in Canada, Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom, Australia, Japan, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan. Responses are weighted to be representative of the adult population in each public. Respondents in these publics were asked a shorter version of the question asked in the U.S.: "We're interested in exploring what it means to live a satisfying life. What aspects of your life do you currently find meaningful, fulfilling or satisfying?" Responses were transcribed by interviewers in the language in which the interviews were conducted.

Researchers examined random samples of English responses, machine-translated non-English responses and responses translated by a professional translation firm to inductively develop a codebook for the main sources of meaning mentioned across the 17 publics. The codebook was iteratively improved via practice coding and calculations of intercoder reliability until a final selection of 20 codes was formally adopted ( read Appendix C of the full report).

To apply the codebook to the full collection of 18,850 responses, a team of Pew Research Center coders and professional translators were trained to code English and non-English responses, respectively. Coders in both groups coded random samples and were evaluated for consistency and accuracy. They were asked to independently code responses only after reaching an acceptable threshold for intercoder reliability. (For more on this, read Appendix A of the full report.)

Here is the question used for this analysis, along with the coded responses for each public. Open-ended responses included in the analysis and in the accompanying interactive have been lightly edited for clarity (and, in some cases, translated into English by a professional firm). Here are more details about our international survey methodology and country-specific sample designs. For respondents in the U.S., read more about the ATP's methodology.

Americans have become more likely to mention society as a source of meaning in life, but much of this emphasis is negative. The share of Americans who mention society, places and institutions - which includes references to one's local area, as well as to broader notions of the U.S., the government and social services - grew from 8% in 2017 to 14% in 2021. The increase was especially pronounced among those ages 65 and older (24% this year, up from 10%) and those without full-time jobs (17%, up from 8%).

As was the case in 2017, about half of adults who mention society (49%) bring up something negative, such as personal frustrations or difficulties. The nature of these complaints ranges widely, from economic concerns, distrust of government and partisan animosity to more general fears about the direction of the country. As one woman put it while reflecting on what she views as growing political extremism in America, "My hope is dimming because I see no light at the end of the tunnel."

The U.S. stands out as one of only three publics surveyed in 2021 where mentions of society significantly coincide with greater negativity. The other two are Italy and Spain, but in neither of them is the relationship between society and negativity as strong as it is in the U.S.

Americans - especially Republicans - have become more likely to mention freedom and independence as a source of meaning in life. Among Americans overall, 9% now mention issues such as freedom, independence and their ability to do what they want to do, including financial independence, having free time or a good work-life balance, or political freedoms like freedom of speech. This is up from 5% in 2017.

Much of this increase has occurred among Republicans and independents who lean toward the Republican Party. This year, 12% of Republicans mention freedom or independence, up from 5% in 2017. There has been no significant change among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents during this period (6% this year vs. 5% in 2017).

While Republicans in the U.S. are much more likely than Democrats to mention freedom or independence as a source of meaning in life, similar ideological divides are not evident elsewhere in the world. Mentions of freedom are not associated with right-leaning ideological views in any of the other 16 publics surveyed in 2021; in fact, in two other publics (Italy and Spain), such mentions are more common among those on the ideological left.

Mentions of freedom in the U.S. have become more common among other demographic groups, too. For example, while just 4% of parents mentioned the topic in 2017, 9% do so in 2021, matching the share of non-parents who currently mention freedom or independence as a source of meaning in life. Similarly, Americans without a college degree have become more likely to refer to the subject, now mentioning it at roughly the same rate as those with a college degree (9%).

Compared with 2017, fewer Americans now mention spouses or romantic partners as a source of meaning in life. Around one-in-ten U.S. adults (9%) now mention their spouse or romantic partner or their romantic or dating life, down from 20% in 2017. This represents one of the largest decreases across all of the sources of meaning coded as part of this project. While both married and unmarried people are now less likely to mention partners or romance, the decline has been greatest among married adults. Just 13% of married adults mention their spouse in 2021, down from nearly a third (31%) in 2017.

Despite the decline, Americans are among the most likely to mention their spouse or partner among all 17 places surveyed. Outside of the U.S., mentions of romantic partners are most common in the Netherlands (8%) and Italy (7%). But no more than 5% of adults in most other places mention their spouse or partner.

Fewer Americans now mention finances, jobs or travel as a source of meaning in life than in 2017. The share of U.S. adults who bring up their material well-being - including references to feeling safe, secure, able to cover the basics, living comfortably or being well-off - has dropped from 29% to 18% over the past four years. This decline has been concentrated among two groups in particular: married adults and White Americans. In 2017, both groups were among the most likely to point to material well-being as a source of meaning.

The share of adults who mention their job, occupation or career as a source of meaning has declined from 24% to 17% since 2017, perhaps reflecting the fact that many Americans' working lives have been upended during the coronavirus pandemic. While Americans with higher incomes and those with a college degree remain the most likely to bring up their jobs, both groups have become less likely to do so, with a decline from 37% to 27% among those in the upper-income tier and a decline from 39% to 26% among the college-educated.

The widespread travel restrictions in response to the pandemic may have also affected the share of Americans who derive meaning from travel, which declined from 6% in 2017 to 3% in 2021. But the topic of travel remains more common among college graduates and those with a total family income of $100,000 or more per year.

Older Americans have grown less likely to mention their physical or mental health as a source of meaning in life. The overall share of Americans who mention their physical or mental health or wellness fell from 19% in 2017 to 11% in 2021. And this shift has been especially pronounced among older Americans. This year, only 12% of those ages 65 and older mention their health as a source of meaning, down from 30% in 2017.

The emphasis on health has also fallen significantly among White Americans, who now mention the topic at a similar rate as Black and Hispanic Americans. In 2017, by contrast, White adults were more likely than Black and Hispanic adults to mention their health.

Most Americans are no more likely to mention difficulties or challenges than they were four years ago, although older adults are an exception. Between 2017 and 2021, the share of Americans who mention some sort of negative circumstance or difficulty when describing where they find meaning in life has remained stable - 17% of all adults. But older Americans have become more likely to mention difficulties or challenges when answering this question. Roughly a quarter of those 65 and older (27%) mention a difficulty or challenge in 2021 - more than any other age group and more than the 20% who did so in 2017. This pattern does not appear to be unique to the U.S.: In many of the other publics where the Center asked the same question in 2021, older people are also more likely to mention these kinds of difficulties.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Where Americans find meaning in life has changed over the past four years

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Many things have changed in the United States in the past four years, from a new administration in Washington to the COVID-19 pandemic, which has disrupted work, financial security, family structures and even the ability to move around freely - to say nothing of its impact on public health.

# data[].attributes.headline
U.S. has changed in key ways in the past decade, from tech use to demographics

# data[].attributes.subject
U.S. has changed in key ways in the past decade, from tech use to demographics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The past decade in the United States has seen technological advancements, demographic shifts and major changes in public opinion. Pew Research Center has tracked these developments through surveys, demographic analyses and other research. As the 2010s draw to a close, here are key ways the country looks different from 10 years ago:

From smartphones to social media, tech use has become the norm. As of 2019, nine-in-ten U.S. adults say they go online, 81% say they own a smartphone and 72% say they use social media. Growth in adoption of some technologies has slowed in recent years, in some instances because there just aren't many non-users left, especially among younger generations. For example, 93% of Millennials (ages 23 to 38 in 2019) own smartphones, and nearly 100% say they use the internet.

Social media is now a key pathway to news for Americans. In 2018, for the first time, social media sites surpassed print newspapers as a news source for Americans. One-in-five adults said they often get news from social media, slightly higher than the share who often did so from print newspapers (16%). Among social media sites, Facebook dominates in terms of news consumption: Around half of all U.S. adults (52%) now say they get news there.

Millennials have surpassed Generation Xers as the largest generation in the U.S. labor force. There were 57 million Millennials (born 1981 to 1996) working or looking for work in 2018. That was more than the 53 million Gen Xers (born 1965 to 1980) and well ahead of the 38 million Baby Boomers (born 1946 to 1964).

Following the Great Recession, the U.S. unemployment rate declined from a near record high level (9.5%) in the second quarter of 2010 to a near-record low (3.5%) in the second quarter of 2019 (figures are non-seasonally adjusted). Despite the downward trend in unemployment, the recovery in other labor market indicators has been anemic to absent in the post-Great Recession era. For example, the U.S. employment rate in 2019 is several percentage points lower than it was at the start of the Great Recession in 2007, primarily because of the aging U.S. population.

The 2010s will likely be the first decade in at least 160 years to see an increase in the average number of people living in U.S. households. This is in part because of the rising number of Americans living in multigenerational households. In 2016, a record 64 million people, or 20% of the U.S. population, lived with multiple generations under one roof, even with improvements in the U.S. economy since the Great Recession. Another factor behind the increase in household size: More Americans are "doubled up" in shared living quarters.

Nonwhites now account for the majority of the nation's newborns, as well as the majority of K-12 students in public schools. More than half of newborn babies in the U.S. are racial or ethnic minorities, a threshold first crossed in 2013. Nonwhite students also account for the majority of the nation's K-12 public school students. As of fall 2018, children from racial and ethnic minority groups were projected to make up 52.9% of public K-12 students.

It's become more common for Americans to attend church a few times a year or less (54%) than monthly or more (45%). This is just one measure by which the religious landscape of the country has changed. Since 2009, the share of Americans who describe their religious identity as atheist, agnostic or "nothing in particular" has grown from 17% to 26%, while the share who describe themselves as Christians has declined from 77% to 65%.

Americans increasingly support the legalization of marijuana. Two-thirds of U.S. adults now back legalization. A little less than a decade ago, in 2010, fewer than half (41%) did so. The change in public sentiment has been accompanied by a changing legal landscape: As of this year, 11 states and the District of Columbia have legalized small amounts of marijuana for adult recreational use, while many others have legalized it for medical use. The drug remains illegal under federal law.

Same-sex marriage has the backing of a majority of U.S. adults. Same-sex marriage is another policy area where support surpassed opposition during the 2010s. As of this year, 61% of Americans favor allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally. In 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its landmark Obergefell v. Hodges ruling, which established that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry.
Note: This post contains updated data on the use of smartphones and other technologies, as well as the generational makeup of the U.S. labor force.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
U.S. has changed in key ways in the past decade, from tech use to demographics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The past decade in the United States has seen technological advancements, demographic shifts and major changes in public opinion. Pew Research Center has tracked these developments through surveys, demographic analyses and other research. As the 2010s draw to a close, here are key ways the country looks different from 10 years ago: From smartphones to social media, tech use has become the norm.

# data[].attributes.headline
From tech to society, how we’ve changed in a decade

# data[].attributes.subject
From tech to society, how we’ve changed in a decade

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As the decade comes to a close, what's changed? PBS NewsHour takes a look at the major shifts in social norms, global economies and how technology affects our daily lives.

From smartphones to LBGTQ rights, here are some of the most memorable ways in which the world has changed over the past 10 years.

We became glued to our smartphones

When Apple CEO Steve Jobs introduced the iPhone in 2007, he promised the "revolutionary" device would "reinvent the phone."

By most measures, he was correct. Around 81 percent of Americans owned smartphones as of this past February, compared with 35 percent in 2011. We use them to find directions, read the news, take pictures and even doing our banking. Oh, and we sometimes use them to talk to each other.

As smartphones became ubiquitous, so did users' attachment to them. Average smartphone owners spend several hours on their phones each day.

An entire "gig economy" has been built around services that are now available at smartphone users' fingertips-from transportation to grocery delivery.

But there's a downside to this convenience: studies suggest that spending too much time on smartphones can cause depression and anxiety, and psychiatrists worry that young people's dependence on their phones borders on addiction.

Workers employed in the gig economy are likewise feeling the side effects of users' expectations for on-demand services at low costs. Lyft and Uber drivers went on strike earlier this year to protest low wages and unfair working conditions, and delivery drivers for mobile services such as DoorDash and Postmates have said even small changes to the companies' algorithms can have a significant impact on their pay.

Increased computing power has led many families to cancel their traditional cable television subscriptions in favor of streaming services such as Netflix, Amazon Prime and Hulu. By 2021, the number of American households without traditional cable subscriptions is expected to reach 48.3 percent, more than double the share in 2013.

The advent of streaming put video rental stores such as Blockbuster out of business and propelled media companies such as Disney, AT&T and NBC to cash in on the trend.

We witnessed the organizing power - and danger - of social media

Over the past 10 years, the popularity of existing social media outlets such as Facebook, Twitter, and WhatsApp grew exponentially, and new social media sites, including Instagram, Telegram and TikTok were launched.

Some of those social networking sites have been used to organize anti-government movements around the world. They played an instrumental role during the 2011 Arab Spring, when protesters against authoritarian governments took to Twitter and Facebook to organize calls for new leadership. More recently, they have been used in "leaderless" protests in Hong Kong, Lebanon and Chile.

Although social media has bolstered pro-democracy efforts around the world, it has also proven a threat to democracy. During the 2016 U.S. presidential election, Russia used Facebook and other social media outlets to sow disinformation and discord among voters to boost the candidacy of Donald Trump.

We saw the effects of climate change become very real

Over the past decade, the threat of climate change became more tangible for communities around the world.

In California, "mega wildfires" wiped out entire towns, burning across larger areas than in previous years. Europe suffered through a record-breaking heat wave, and a "blob" of warm ocean water disrupted marine ecosystems off the coast of Alaska.

Multiple studies have shown that climate change makes many natural disasters worse and recently scientists have even been able to link individual storms to climate change.

Polls show most Americans believe that climate change is happening. At the same time, debate about how to address or mitigate its effects is still a partisan issue, pitting the interests of environmental groups against workers in industries such as oil and coal.

Trump has long voiced skepticism about climate change and pedaled misleading claims about the link between the weather forecast and broader issues surrounding global warming. After Trump took office, the U.S. announced it would withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord, an international pledge by more than 200 nations to cut greenhouse gas emissions in hopes of slowing the planet's warming. That despite the fact that more conservative Republicans- 32 percent -are worried about global warming now than in the last decade

Climate skepticism isn't unique to the U.S. Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison recently expressed doubt that deadly bushfires affecting his country had any link to global warming, and Brazil's President Jair Bolsonaro has dismissed international concerns about deforestation and fires in the Amazon, which could worsen climate change.

Despite international efforts, a recent UN report found that countries haven't acted quickly enough or taken significant enough steps to combat climate change. Carbon emissions now need to be reduced by 7.6 percent each year to avoid the most devastating effects.

The crisis has already caused people to flee their homes and sparked a youth movement led by the likes of Greta Thunberg, who has traveled the world to urge older lawmakers to take more serious action with future generations in mind.

"Politicians make decisions that are expedient for getting through the next few years," said Philip Duffy, president and executive director of the Woods Hole Research Center, a Massachusetts-based think tank that focuses on climate change.

Duffy said young people are right to be angry.

"If you're a business tycoon, you think of it in terms of loss," Duffy said. To young climate change protesters, "taking policy steps to cope with climate change doesn't represent any kind of loss."

We bounced back from the recession, but inequality grew

The U.S. economy largely recovered from the 2008 recession over the past decade, with GDP growing steadily and unemployment reaching a 50-year low. Still, a majority of economists recently said in a survey that they expect a recession to occur in 2021, and many Americans remain dissatisfied with the state of the economy.

Income inequality has worsened, sending voters to populist politicians, both left and right. Far-left politicians such as 2020 presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., have crafted their campaigns around targeting the so-called "billionaire class."

Gentrification and a shortage of affordable housing has fueled displacement in cities from Washington, D.C., to Portland, and homelessness rose for three years in a row, with states such as California and Idaho struggling to accommodate those affected by the crisis.

We saw the human toll and politicization of the global migration crisis

Two of the most striking photos of the decade showed the human toll of the global migration crisis.

One, taken in 2015, showed a three-year-old Syrian boy named Aylan Kurdi, whose body was found washed up on a beach in Turkey. He had drowned after being separated from the rest of his family, which fled the Syrian Civil War and were trying to reach Greece. A similar photo went viral this past summer, showing a father who had drowned alongside his 23-month-old daughter while fleeing El Salvador for the U.S.

The victims in these photos were a few of the hundreds of thousands of people who fled their homes in recent years due to violence and political instability. In Europe, the migration crisis driven by the Syrian Civil War came to a head in 2015, when thousands of migrants were held in camps from Lesbos, Greece to Calais, France. More than 3,000 died trying to cross the Mediterranean that year.

European countries were divided on how to address the issue. While German Chancellor Angela Merkel pledged to welcome more than one million refugees to the country, many asylum-seekers were turned away from other countries such as Hungary, where Prime Minister Victor Orbàn has denounced refugees as "Muslim invaders."
WATCH: What happened after two Syrian families who made it to Germany
In the U.S., anti-immigrant rhetoric fueled Trump's ascent to the presidency in 2016, as he promised to "build a wall" to keep out migrants fleeing from Central and South America. More than three years after Trump took office, some parts of the border fencing have been replaced but no new border wall has been built.

There has been substantial backlash, however, over some of Trump's other immigration policies that were implemented, including a ban on travel from certain majority Muslim countries and the administration's "zero-tolerance" policy that systematically separated children from their families at the U.S.-Mexico border.

"We are living in an era of skepticism about migration," said Demetrios Papademetriou, former former president of the non-partisan Migration Policy Institute.

Politicians such as Trump and India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who has been criticized for a citizenship law that is seen as anti-Muslim, "know how to articulate fears and take advantage of them to gain political power," Papdemetriou said.

We had hard conversations about sex and power

The #MeToo movement first began in 2006, but it gained national and international attention after news articles in 2017 shed light on Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein's serial harassment of women in the entertainment industry.

Women around the world came forward with stories of being mistreated in the workplace. Those accusations led to the resignations of hundreds of powerful men.

Earlier that year, thousands of women descended on Washington for the Women's March following the election of Trump, who was accused of sexual harassment by more than a dozen women before taking office.

While it's difficult to quantify the impact of the movement, researchers Ro'ee Levy and Martin Mattsson did find that reporting of sex crimes to the police in the U.S. increased by 7 percent in the first three months after it started. The results held true 15 months later based on data from seven major U.S. cities.

"We sensed that the movement broadly changed public discourse," Levy and Mattson wrote in an email to the PBS NewsHour. They added that their study suggested the #MeToo movement "had a persistent effect on reporting sexual crimes."

For all the successes of the movement, there have been setbacks, too. In an interview with the PBS NewsHour, one of Bill Cosby's accusers, Lili Bernard, said the fact that the actor faced jail time for abusing women showed there had been "this tremendous shift in rape culture towards finally believing women." But his conviction was rare.

Allegations of sexual harassment and abuse at the hands of powerful men have only resulted in a handful of convictions since the movement began. Weinstein recently reached a $44 million tentative settlement agreement to resolve the civil lawsuits against him. He still faces criminal charges.

Many women saw the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court as a loss for the movement. He was accused of sexually abusing his high school classmate, Christine Blasey Ford. Although she testified about the incident, he did not face any ramifications. Republicans said the accusations were "unsubstantiated."

We watched countries grapple with LGBTQ rights and representation

The decade started with the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, a Clinton-era policy that had banned openly LGBTQ members from serving in the military. While it was a landmark legislative achievement for the LGBTQ community, gay couples were still not allowed to marry under federal law in 2010.

The U.S. legalized same-sex marriage nationwide in 2015 with the landmark Supreme Court decision Obergefell v. Hodges, which declared they had the right of "equal dignity in the eyes of the law." A number of other countries legalized same-sex marriage over the past decade, including Argentina, France, and most recently, Taiwan and Northern Ireland.

The transgender rights movement also gained steam, in part through fights over controversial "bathroom bills" that would have required people to use bathrooms based on the sex listed on their birth certificate. In 2017, Danica Roem became the first openly transgender state legislator when she won a seat in the Virginia House of Delegates.

Along with these legislative gains, television shows such as "Pose" and "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" along with acclaimed films such as "Blue Is The Warmest Color," "Carol," "Moonlight," and "Call Me By Your Name," carved out a bigger space for LGBTQ representation in pop culture. In 2014, "Orange Is the New Black" star LaVerne Cox made history when she became the first openly transgender person to be nominated for an Emmy in an acting category.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
From tech to society, how we've changed in a decade

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As the decade comes to a close, what's changed? PBS NewsHour takes a look at the major shifts in social norms, global economies and how technology affects our daily lives. From smartphones to LBGTQ rights, here are some of the most memorable ways in which the world has changed over the past 10 years.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Pew Research Center's Social & Demographic Trends Project

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
One-in-ten eligible voters in the 2020 electorate will be part of a new generation of Americans - Generation Z. Born after 1996, most members of this generation are not yet old enough to vote, but as the oldest among them turn 23 this year, roughly 24 million will have the opportunity to cast a ballot in November. And their political clout will continue to grow steadily in the coming years, as more and more of them reach voting age.

Unlike the Millennials - who came of age during the Great Recession - this new generation was in line to inherit a strong economy with record-low unemployment. That has all changed now, as COVID-19 has reshaped the country's social, political and economic landscape. Instead of looking ahead to a world of opportunities, Gen Z now peers into an uncertain future.

There are already signs that the oldest Gen Zers have been particularly hard hit in the early weeks and months of the coronavirus crisis. In a March 2020 Pew Research Center survey, half of the oldest Gen Zers (ages 18 to 23) reported that they or someone in their household had lost a job or taken a cut in pay because of the outbreak. This was significantly higher than the shares of Millennials (40%), Gen Xers (36%) and Baby Boomers (25%) who said the same. In addition, an analysis of jobs data showed that young workers were particularly vulnerable to job loss before the coronavirus outbreak, as they were overrepresented in high-risk service sector industries.

Aside from the unique set of circumstances in which Gen Z is approaching adulthood, what do we know about this new generation? We know it's different from previous generations in some important ways, but similar in many ways to the Millennial generation that came before it. Members of Gen Z are more racially and ethnically diverse than any previous generation, and they are on track to be the most well-educated generation yet. They are also digital natives who have little or no memory of the world as it existed before smartphones.

Still, when it comes to their views on key social and policy issues, they look very much like Millennials. Pew Research Center surveys conducted in the fall of 2018 (more than a year before the coronavirus outbreak) among Americans ages 13 and older found that, similar to Millennials, Gen Zers are progressive and pro-government, most see the country's growing racial and ethnic diversity as a good thing, and they're less likely than older generations to see the United States as superior to other nations.

A look at how Gen Z voters view the Trump presidency provides further insight into their political beliefs. A Pew Research Center survey conducted in January of this year found that about a quarter of registered voters ages 18 to 23 (22%) approved of how Donald Trump is handling his job as president, while about three-quarters disapproved (77%). Millennial voters were only slightly more likely to approve of Trump (32%) while 42% of Gen X voters, 48% of Baby Boomers and 57% of those in the Silent Generation approved of the job he's doing as president.

Gen Z is more racially and ethnically diverse than previous generations

Generation Z represents the leading edge of the country's changing racial and ethnic makeup. A bare majority (52%) are non-Hispanic white - significantly smaller than the share of Millennials who were non-Hispanic white in 2002 (61%). One-in-four Gen Zers are Hispanic, 14% are black, 6% are Asian and 5% are some other race or two or more races.

Gen Zers are slightly less likely than Millennials to be immigrants: 6% were born outside of the U.S., compared with 7% of Millennials at the same age. But they are more likely to be the children of immigrants: 22% of Gen Zers have at least one immigrant parent (compared with 14% of Millennials). Even as immigration flows into the U.S. have diminished in recent years, new immigrants will join the ranks of Gen Z in the years to come. As a result, this generation is projected to become majority nonwhite by 2026, according to Census Bureau projections.

In some regions of the U.S., Gen Z has already crossed this threshold. In the West, only 40% of Gen Zers are non-Hispanic white. Just as many are Hispanic, while 4% are black, 10% are Asian and 6% are some other race. In the South, 46% of Gen Zers are non-Hispanic white. Minority representation is lowest in the Midwest, where more than two-thirds of Gen Zers (68%) are non-Hispanic white.

Gen Z on track to be the best-educated generation yet

A look at older members of Generation Z suggests they are on a somewhat different educational trajectory than the generations that came before them. They are less likely to drop out of high school and more likely to be enrolled in college. Among 18- to 21-year-olds no longer in high school in 2018, 57% were enrolled in a two-year or four-year college. This compares with 52% among Millennials in 2003 and 43% among members of Gen X in 1987.

These changing educational patterns are tied to changes in immigration especially among Hispanics. Gen Z Hispanics are less likely than Millennial Hispanics to be immigrants, and previous research has shown that second-generation Hispanic youth are less likely to drop out of high school and more likely to attend college than foreign-born Hispanic youth.

Gen Zers are also more likely to have a college-educated parent than are previous generations of young people. In 2019, 44% of Gen Zers ages 7 to 17 were living with a parent who had a bachelor's degree or more education, compared with 33% of Millennials when they were the same age. Both of these trends reflect the overall trend toward more Americans pursuing higher education.

Perhaps because they are more likely to be engaged in educational endeavors, Gen Zers are less likely to be working than previous generations when they were teens and young adults. Only 18% of Gen Z teens (ages 15 to 17) were employed in 2018, compared with 27% of Millennial teens in 2002 and 41% of Gen Xers in 1986. And among young adults ages 18 to 22, while 62% of Gen Zers were employed in 2018, higher shares of Millennials (71%) and Gen Xers (79%) were working when they were a comparable age.

Gen Zers and Millennials have similar viewpoints on many major issues of the day

The views of Gen Z mirror those of Millennials in many ways. Still, survey data collected in 2018 (well before the coronavirus outbreak) shows that there are places where this younger generation stands out as having a somewhat different outlook.

For example, members of Gen Z are more likely than older generations to look to government to solve problems, rather than businesses and individuals. Fully seven-in-ten Gen Zers say the government should do more to solve problems, while 29% say government is doing too many things better left to businesses and individuals. A somewhat smaller share of Millennials (64%) say government should do more to solve problems, and this view is even less prevalent among older generations (53% of Gen Xers, 49% of Boomers and 39% of Silents).

For the most part, however, Gen Zers and Millennials share similar views on issues facing the country. These younger generations are more likely than their older counterparts to say the earth is getting warmer due to human activity: 54% of Gen Z and 56% of Millennials say this, compared with smaller shares of Gen Xers, Boomers and Silents (48%, 45% and 38%, respectively).

When it comes to race relations, Gen Zers and Millennials are about equally likely to say that blacks are treated less fairly than whites in this country. Roughly two-thirds of Gen Zers and Millennials say this, compared with about half of Gen Xers and Boomers and smaller shares among the Silent Generation.

Younger generations also share a different view of the U.S. relative to other countries in the world. Gen Zers (14%) and Millennials (13%) are less likely than Gen Xers (20%), Boomers (30%) or Silents (45%) to say the U.S. is better than all other countries. Still, pluralities of every generation except the Silent Generation say the U.S. is one of the best countries in the world along with some others.

Within the GOP, Gen Zers have sharp differences with their elders

Among Republicans and those who lean to the Republican Party, there are striking differences between Generation Z and older generations on social and political issues. In their views on race, Gen Z Republicans are more likely than older generations of Republicans to say blacks are treated less fairly than whites in the U.S. today. Fully 43% of Republican Gen Zers say this, compared with 30% of Millennial Republicans and roughly two-in-ten Gen X, Boomer and Silent Generation Republicans. Views are much more consistent across generations among Democrats and Democratic leaners.

Similarly, the youngest Republicans stand out in their views on the role of government and the causes of climate change. Gen Z Republicans are much more likely than older generations of Republicans to desire an increased government role in solving problems. About half (52%) of Republican Gen Zers say government should do more, compared with 38% of Millennials, 29% of Gen Xers and even smaller shares among older generations. And the youngest Republicans are less likely than their older counterparts to attribute the earth's warming temperatures to natural patterns, as opposed to human activity (18% of Gen Z Republicans say this, compared with three-in-ten or more among older generations of Republicans).

Overall, members of Gen Z look similar to Millennials in their political preferences, particularly when it comes to the upcoming 2020 election. Among registered voters, a January Pew Research Center survey found that 61% of Gen Z voters (ages 18 to 23) said they were definitely or probably going to vote for the Democratic candidate for president in the 2020 election, while about a quarter (22%) said they were planning to vote for Trump. Millennial voters, similarly, were much more likely to say they plan to support a Democrat in November than Trump (58% vs. 25%). Larger shares of Gen X voters (37%), Boomers (44%) and Silents (53%) said they plan to support President Trump.

Younger generations see family, societal change as a good thing

Across a number of measures, Gen Zers and Millennials stand out from older generations in their views of family and societal change. Roughly half of Gen Zers (48%) and Millennials (47%) say gay and lesbian couples being allowed to marry is a good thing for our society. By comparison, only one-third of Gen Xers and about one-quarter of Boomers (27%) say this is a good thing. Pluralities of Boomers and Gen Xers say it doesn't make a difference. Members of the Silent Generation are the most likely to view this as a bad thing for society.

There is a similar pattern in views of people of different races marrying each other, with larger shares of Millennials and Gen Zers saying this is a good thing for our society, compared with older generations. Very few across generations say this is a bad thing for society.

Gen Zers and Millennials are less likely than older generations to say that single women raising children on their own is a bad thing for society. Still, relatively few in both generations say this is a good thing for society, while about half say it doesn't make much difference (roughly similar to the shares among older generations).

When it comes to their own home life, the experiences of Gen Z reflect, in part, broad trends that have reshaped the American family in recent decades. According to a Pew Research Center analysis of Census Bureau data, about three-in-ten (29%) live in a household with an unmarried parent while 66% live with two married parents. A roughly comparable share of Millennials (69%) lived with two married parents at a similar age, but the shares among Gen Xers and Boomers were significantly larger (72% and 86%). Of those Gen Zers who are living with two married parents, in most cases both of those parents are in the labor force (64%). This compares with a slightly higher share of Millennials who were living with two parents at a comparable age (66% had two parents in the labor force) and a slightly lower share of Gen Xers (61%).

Generations differ in their familiarity and comfort with using gender-neutral pronouns

Ideas about gender identity are rapidly changing in the U.S., and Gen Z is at the front end of those changes. Gen Zers are much more likely than those in older generations to say they personally know someone who prefers to go by gender-neutral pronouns, with 35% saying so, compared with 25% of Millennials, 16% of Gen Xers, 12% of Boomers and just 7% of Silents. This generational pattern is evident among both Democrats and Republicans.

There are also stark generational differences in views of how gender options are presented on official documents. Gen Z is by far the most likely to say that when a form or online profile asks about a person's gender it should include options other than "man" and "woman." About six-in-ten Gen Zers (59%) say forms or online profiles should include additional gender options, compared with half of Millennials, about four-in-ten Gen Xers and Boomers (40% and 37%, respectively) and roughly a third of those in the Silent Generation (32%).

These views vary widely along partisan lines, and there are generational differences within each party coalition. But those differences are sharpest among Republicans: About four-in-ten Republican Gen Zers (41%) think forms should include additional gender options, compared with 27% of Republican Millennials, 17% of Gen Xers and Boomers and 16% of Silents. Among Democrats, half or more in all generations say this.

Gen Zers are similar to Millennials in their comfort with using gender-neutral pronouns. Both groups express somewhat higher levels of comfort than other generations, though generational differences on this question are fairly modest. Majorities of Gen Zers and Millennials say they would feel "very" or "somewhat" comfortable using a gender-neutral pronoun to refer to someone if asked to do so. By comparison, Gen Xers and Boomers are about evenly divided: About as many say they would feel at least somewhat comfortable (49% and 50%, respectively) as say they would be uncomfortable.

Members of Gen Z are also similar to Millennials in their views on society's acceptance of those who do not identify as a man or a woman. Roughly half of Gen Zers (50%) and Millennials (47%) think that society is not accepting enough of these individuals. Smaller shares of Gen Xers (39%), Boomers (36%) and those in the Silent Generation (32%) say the same.

Here again there are large partisan gaps, and Gen Z Republicans stand apart from other generations of Republicans in their views. About three-in-ten Republican Gen Zers (28%) say that society is not accepting enough of people who don't identify as a man or woman, compared with two-in-ten Millennials, 15% of Gen Xers, 13% of Boomers and 11% of Silents. Democrats' views are nearly uniform across generations in saying that society is not accepting enough of people who don't identify as a man or a woman.

Teens and technology

Looking at the relationship American teens have with technology provides a window into the experiences of a significant segment of Generation Z. According to a 2018 Pew Research Center survey, 95% of 13- to 17-year-olds have access to a smartphone, and a similar share (97%) use at least one of seven major online platforms.

YouTube, Instagram and Snapchat are among teens' favorite online destinations. Some 85% say they use YouTube, 72% use Instagram and 69% use Snapchat. Facebook is less popular with teens - 51% say they use this social media site. Some 45% of teens say they are online "almost constantly," and an additional 44% say they're online several times a day.

Some researchers have suggested that the growing amount of time teens are spending on their mobile devices, and specifically on social media, is contributing to the growth in anxiety and depression among this group. Teens have mixed views on whether social media has had a positive or negative effect on their generation. About three-in-ten (31%) say the effect on people their own age has been mostly positive, 24% say it's been mostly negative, and 45% say it's been neither positive nor negative.

Many teens who say social media has had a positive effect say a major reason they feel this way is because it helps them stay connected with friends and family (40% of teens who say social media has a mostly positive effect say this). For those who see the effect of social media as negative, the most common reason cited is that it leads to bullying and rumor spreading (27% of teens who say social media has a mostly negative effect say this).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
On the Cusp of Adulthood and Facing an Uncertain Future: What We Know About Gen Z So Far

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Born after 1996, the oldest Gen Zers will turn 23 this year. They are racially and ethnically diverse, progressive and pro-government, and more than 20 million will be eligible to vote in November.

# data[].attributes.headline
Six Aspects of Daily Life Rapidly Changed by COVID-19

# data[].attributes.subject
Six Aspects of Daily Life Rapidly Changed by COVID-19

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Chatham House - International Affairs Think Tank

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When the pandemic struck, many countries were quick to close their borders, turning inward in the scramble to protect lives and livelihoods. Sadly, the crisis has done little to bond nations against this shared, invisible foe - in some cases, blame for the outbreak and rows over responses actually exacerbating geopolitical tensions.

However, some effects of COVID-19 may yet unite us, in the profound ways the disease has impacted almost every part of life across the planet, giving us a rare opportunity to pause and consider how we live. News of an effective vaccine makes the prospect of a 'return to normality' more hopeful but have these dramatic accelerations in existing trends already changed how we travel, work, and consume, and the face of our cities for good?

1. Energy and emissions: A chance for change

National lockdowns have had an immediate impact on the energy sector, both in terms of consumption and production. The result has been a slump in electricity demand unparalleled since the Great Depression, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA).

Usage has typically fallen by up to 20 per cent for each month of lockdown, creating what the IEA has described as a 'prolonged Sunday' of extended low-level consumption. Although homeworking has increased domestic electricity use by around 40 per cent, this has not been enough to offset the demand lost due to the closure of offices and factories.

Overall global power use is predicted to fall by around six per cent in 2020 compared to the previous year. Antony Froggatt, deputy director of the Energy, Environment and Resources (EER) programme, says there has also been a drop in demand for oil and gas - exacerbating an existing pattern of market decline.

The other prominent trend has been the increase in renewable energy production and use. 'This experience shows that renewables technology can overcome intermittency issues, in the case of Europe at least, and that existing grids are able to cope with a higher percentage of renewables,' says Froggatt. 'In the last six months renewables have jumped to a place we would have expected to see them reach in the next five years or more.'

Fellow EER colleagues Glada Lahn and Siân Bradley, in a July comment for the OECD, see 'conflicting drivers of demand and investment in fossil fuels ... with some governments seeking an entrenched return to normal and others aiming to catalyse green growth'. They say 'the COVID-19 crisis could accelerate the global transition or reinforce carbon dependencies, setting the world on track for a later - and even more disruptive - reset'.

Last spring's drop in the oil price has shaken producer countries, many of whom were already indebted, says Lahn.

Countries that were planning growth based on fossil fuel extraction have the chance to choose a more stable, low carbon pathway for development. Established producers face renewed pressure to both reform policy and invest to break their cycle of dependence on a volatile export market in long-term decline.

Glada Lahn, Energy, Environment and Resources programme

EER's Daniel Quiggin is not optimistic about the signs from richer countries, citing the fact that by June the 50 largest economies had have targeted only 0.2 per cent of $12 trillion worth of recovery packages at low-carbon sectors.

'The signs are fairly awful, with most developed economies targeting traditional sectors. This is a missed opportunity, given that every $1 million in spending generates 7.5 full-time jobs in renewables infrastructure, 7.7 in energy efficiency, but only 2.7 in fossil fuels.'

In addition, China is the 'clear canary in the coal mine', having quickly returned emissions to pre-crisis levels - although it has surprised many by recently committing to an ambitious zero carbon target by 2060.

Climate scientists expect that 2020 emissions will likely fall by 4-7%. To meet the crucial 1.5°C threshold for stabilizing the climate from the mid-2040s, we need to see a similar drop in emissions (7.6%) take place each year for at least the next decade.

2. Dramatically inhibited travel

During lockdown, countries including the US reported drops in road traffic to levels not seen since the 1950s. At their peak, the number of vehicles on the road fell by more than 70 per cent. Air travel has plummeted by around 80 per cent globally with Europe most affected and the UK's Heathrow airport reporting a 97 per cent decline in passenger numbers in April 2020 compared to 2019.

Many airlines are facing collapse in the absence of further government bailouts, and the future of the travel industry is uncertain. Even with ideas for more radical decarbonization of airlines gaining some momentum via proposed electric planes and alternative fuels, these are still years from becoming reality, says Bernice Lee, founding director of the Hoffmann Centre.

There is no clear substitution for long-distance air travel yet, making this a challenging area to decarbonize, and making the need for innovation in aviation all the more urgent.

Bernice Lee, Executive Founding Director, Hoffmann Centre

Major cities such as Milan, London and Rome have taken the opportunity to further the expansion of pedestrian and cycling zones, loosening regulations around e-scooters and reclaiming areas with temporary dedicated lanes that could become permanent in a bid to tackle air pollution, noise, and emissions - and to maintain social distancing. But worries over the safety of public transport could see a spike in car use and ownership, potentially pushing emissions beyond pre-lockdown levels.

Quiggin believes the cost of electric vehicles (EVs) will continue to fall and reach price parity with combustion vehicles - the use of green hydrogen is also likely to rise. 'Clearly the automotive sector is a massive employer, and thus EVs represent a means to retain jobs, while potentially leading to falls in greenhouse gas emissions. As such, tax breaks should be targeted at the auto sector conditional on EV production targets.'

3. Work is being redefined

The value placed on different members of the workforce and supply chain has been - temporarily, at least - redefined. There has been some increased recognition of 'key' workers and essential frontline staff, from health and care workers to teachers, supermarket staff and delivery drivers, says Ana Yang, acting executive director of the Hoffmann Centre.

'But how or if this will translate into better longer-term pay and recognition, however, remains to be seen,' she says. 'The virus has also exposed vast societal inequalities, with zero-hours employees the most vulnerable to losing their jobs and workers in factories, warehouses and taxis being forced to make the decision to risk infection rather than lose precious income.'

Working from home has become standard for millions of white-collar employees, replacing daily commutes and meetings with flexible hours and virtual conference calls. Some organizations have been quick to jettison expensive city offices - with sectors such as finance and technology reporting 'unquestionable' higher productivity and happier staff with the new work-life balance.

Twitter was one of the first major organizations to announce staff could work from home indefinitely. As former Twitter vice-president Bruce Daisley told the Chatham House Undercurrents podcast: 'I largely believe that the office as we know it has gone. There has been such a forced reappraisal ... the idea of doing a commute to one place every day for almost every organization will be something that no longer feels necessary.'

Some months in, many are now emphasizing the social role of the office and how contact with colleagues is underestimated in terms of its benefits for mental health and productivity.

Experts gathered to discuss this shift at Chatham House's Reinventing Meetings event. According to Aude Bicquelet-Lock of the Royal Town Planning Institute, collaborative projects take longer and training is harder in a remote context.

Laïla von Alvensleben of MURAL says the acceleration in the trend has surprised those already working remotely. 'We could see the way the trend was going, but then it was just, boom!' She adds that hybrid working models - with a mix of office based teams and remote workers are more likely to be used in the future.

Elizabeth Bieniek, director of innovation at Cisco Collaboration, agrees. She notes the pandemic has not just tested the strength and security of systems but is changing how we work remotely.

She thinks virtual reality (VR), intelligent AI and hologram meetings could all help to make online meetings feel more 'natural' in future. 'People don't change, we are relational people, we like to interact ... we are community-driven, social creatures ... as the technology is evolving, we're seeing things like augmented VR coming more to the centre ... which replicates what you can do face to face in a physical environment.'

4. Warning of future 'ghost' cities

The built environment has experienced an impact from the crisis. In recent years, cities in developing countries have continued to grow as a result of inward migration from rural areas, but the pandemic has seen an acceleration of cities in developed countries trending in the opposite direction, as increasing numbers of workers have headed to the suburbs and beyond - this has led some like the UK's Confederation of British Industry (CBI) to warn of future 'ghost cities'.

Bicquelet-Lock is more upbeat, acknowledging that smaller towns could boom in hybrid working, emerging as new, active hubs as people increasingly shun long commutes for more localized 'micromobility'.

In a partnership with the London Design Biennale, Chatham House has launched an initiative calling for radical ideas to current crises, via a call to the global design community.

One of the submission themes is a move to a more 'village' lifestyle. Some, such as Paris mayor Anne Hidalgo, had already promoted this very idea. Just before the pandemic fully struck Europe, she laid out her vision of the '15-minute city' where work, produce and services are radically more localized within cycling and walking distance and less car-centric.

Others now see these innovative, greener city initiatives as the only real way of protecting the environment. Chatham House's SNF Colab initiative will launch a digital model next year of an imagined central London 100 years in the future.

Rose Abdollahzadeh, who is coordinating the project, says: 'Our consultations to create a positive projection of a future city led us to conclude that by 2035 large parts of central London would be pedestrianized and there would be a significant shift towards e-bikes and scooters as alternative forms of personal transport. But moves by many global cities in response to the pandemic show that we could get there much sooner.'

But with millions of square feet of city centre real estate standing empty, Bicquelet-Lock says there are 'no quick fixes'. And all warn of the risks of certain sections of society - for example, women and deprived communities - once again being left behind. A similar fear applies to developing countries more broadly.

5. 'Big Tech' has both winners and losers

One of the drivers behind the demise of high-street retail has been the continued expansion of online giants such as Amazon, whose profits and stock have soared. However, more broadly, the coronavirus outbreak has negatively affected businesses.

'Many sectors that require a physical customer presence, such as travel and traditional retail, are being wiped out,' says Jennifer Zhu Scott in the Asia-Pacific programme. Remote working platforms such as Zoom have boomed 'while many tech start-ups focusing on enterprise sales have been starved [of custom] during the lockdown. However, those empowering traditional industries using AI will enjoy pent-up growth - if they can survive until the pandemic is over,' she adds.

Sophia Ignatidou, an associate with the International Security programme, says we will likely see a rise of robots with supermarkets already using them to package goods and Italian hospitals even employing robots to disinfect wards.

'Employers may see potential in outsourcing more tasks to countries with lower labour costs, or impose employee surveillance technologies to ensure and quantify productivity,' she says.

The use of big data, AI and technology such as facial recognition has played a huge role so far in the pandemic. Technological applications from 'research to compliance monitoring' seem to have been effective and/or controversial in almost equal measure. As an example of the latter case, tracing apps have been criticized for their lack of privacy safeguards, and digital 'immunity certificates' have been called a 'looming disaster' by Privacy International, says Ignatidou.

Most agree AI is here to stay but 'there is the risk of the public being subjected to tech-mediated policies that it hasn't consented to', she says. Other technology in medicine, such as remote consultations, are seen as less problematic, says Global Health programme fellow Dr Ngozi Erondu.

With the precarious situation of healthcare systems for the next year or more, I think telemedicine will definitely be here to stay. This is a great opportunity to streamline and improve telemedicine and help healthcare run more smoothly.

Dr Ngozi Erondu, Associate Fellow, Global Health programme

She says: 'In countries where universal health coverage is still not in place, this can be a starting point to equitable access to affordable healthcare.'

6. Fragility of food supply has been exposed

Professor Tim Benton, director of the EER programme, observes many were surprised at how easily the fragility of 'just-in-time' economies of food supply was exposed even with massive state interventions behind the scenes - in part, this was because shortages were actually driven more by increases in demand with panic-buying rather than by reduced supply.

The pandemic has highlighted the importance of smaller, local supply networks that managed to respond and adapt rapidly to local communities' needs when national and international chains were interrupted.

'COVID-19 has shown that people do value local food networks. You saw informal markets, and adaptable businesses springing up and driving things ahead,' Benton says. However it remains to be seen how permanent or widespread any move towards more seasonal, localized produce supply chains will be, without any dedicated support or state intervention and in the face of a global recession.

EER colleague Laura Wellesley says the pandemic had a significant impact upon the meat and dairy industries. Closure of retail and hospitality venues has been the biggest driver in impact upon demand and sales, but outbreaks of COVID-19 among workers at meat-processing plants, and 'heightened scrutiny' of poor labour conditions that have contributed to these plants becoming hotspots of infection, have also been factors.

'It's really brought to light certain long-term negligent practices and low standards in the meat-packing industry, and that does have the potential among some groups to have a lasting impact upon perception and behaviours - but any real change in behaviour is likely only among those groups who would already be that way inclined,' Wellesley adds.

Nonetheless, COVID-19 has laid a foundation for people to link food safety and pandemic risk more seriously. Some 60 per cent of people polled in China said they were far less likely to consume raw meat now.

'The pandemic will increase interest in lab-grown meats, for instance, and more 'sterile' ways of producing meat. Once you get a critical mass of people who don't necessarily trust their food supply chains in the way they did before, you are opening the door to greater acceptability of the use of technology to ensure food safety,' Wellesley notes.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Six Aspects of Daily Life Rapidly Changed by COVID-19

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When the pandemic struck, many countries were quick to close their borders, turning inward in the scramble to protect lives and livelihoods. Sadly, the crisis has done little to bond nations against this shared, invisible foe - in some cases, blame for the outbreak and rows over responses actually exacerbating geopolitical tensions.

# data[].attributes.headline
In Their Own Words, Americans Describe the Struggles and Silver Linings of the COVID-19 Pandemic

# data[].attributes.subject
In Their Own Words, Americans Describe the Struggles and Silver Linings of the COVID-19 Pandemic

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
In Their Own Words, Americans Describe the Struggles and Silver Linings of the COVID-19 Pandemic

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The outbreak has dramatically changed Americans’ lives and relationships over the past year. We asked people to tell us about their experiences – good and bad – in living through this moment in history.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Modern Maze of Cultural Identity | Mashaal Hijazi | TEDxIdahoFalls

# data[].attributes.headline
Exploration: In Conflict with Modernity?

# data[].attributes.subject
Exploration: In Conflict with Modernity?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Exploration: In Conflict with Modernity? | Sophie Hollingsworth | TEDxFulbrightSydney

# data[].attributes.headline
Modernity makes us more psychologically complex

# data[].attributes.subject
Modernity makes us more psychologically complex

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Modernity makes us more psychologically complex | Tala Ammoun | TEDxRAIUL

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Consequence of Modernity | Sarabi Nikolanna Eventide | TEDxNYUShanghai

# data[].attributes.headline
Challenges of the 21st Century (young voices)

# data[].attributes.subject
Challenges of the 21st Century (young voices)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Are we procrastinating the solutions to challenges of the 21st century in the name of economic growth? asks Priyal Tale
Ralph Waldo Emerson rightly said: "Every wall is a door." But the whirling dilemma we face today is whether we are creating doors out of walls or walls out of doors? Are we creating a heaven on earth or destructing its beauty?

The progress in technology in the past 500 years has opened the potential of the human brain and spirit to us. However, the COVID19 has revealed our weaknesses in the face of contemporary problems.

Challenges of the 21 st century challenges cannot be solved by a 20 th century attitude of neglect and apathy. These can only be solved by innovation, imagination and integrity not merely of our leaders but also of every single individual on this earth.

Let's start of with analyzing some of these challenges and find potential solutions for them.

Increased inequalities

Due to development in agriculture, healthcare facilities and scientific inventions our standard of living has increased significantly. This has led to the challenges of increasing population, pollution, unsustainable use of resources to satisfy the increasing demand for our needs. The overpopulated cities remind us of the ants living in their colonies. This has resulted in multiple problems like improper urban planning, lack of sanitation facilities, drinking water, food, shelter, energy scarcity, etc. Globalisation and transportation have transformed our lives, but now we are building the walls of aggressive nationalism and protectionism which is reflected through trade wars, increasing tariffs, cyber threats and social diplomacy. This has caused an increase in the divide between rural-urban, north-south, developed-developing including other economic, social and political inequalities. Are we working enough to see that no one is left behind?

Hunger

Even a single child going hungry throws shame on the entire human species, but today, according to the WHO 850 million people go hungry everyday which adds to nearly one-tenth of the total world population. Hunger, poverty, climate change, population, pollution, floods, droughts, heatwaves, food security are all related to each other. All this can be solved by increasing awareness, education, by increasing research and use of better environment friendly alternatives. We need to cooperate with one another for the betterment of all, but instead of doing this when the world is coming closer, the people are going away because of selfish interests.

The Digital Divide

We need to understand that if the misusers of technology are getting smart, the protectors of security need to get smarter. For this technological education needs to be promoted. The growth of the internet has brought a challenge of digital divide. In all this, the children, elderly and women are affected the most due to lack of access. The gaps in education and information need to be solved by inclusive policies and schemes.

The increasing state funded cyber attacks, the wave of dis-information, fake news and the spread of false propagandas is acting as a divide, in not only individuals but also nations. The role of social media in US elections, Brexit, increase in terrorist radicalisation through false propaganda are few examples of our huge challenges.

Data is the new gold, we need to promote data security, privacy and reduce the trade monopolies to the big technological giants by increasing taxes. This money can be utilised to support the poor with Universal Basic Income.

The role of media in stopping terrorism, communalism, protectionism, fake news is very important. It has the power to educate masses. The participation of youth in every aspect is important and the government faces a challenge of creating new jobs. We need to overcome this as urgently and effectively as possible in order to reap the benefits of our demographic dividend. This can be done by tackling the 21st century challenges and predicting the future problems.

Patriarchy

The patriarchal mindset which is supposed to be an age old concept shows its roots even today. Women face many challenges like gender discrimination, unequal wages, period poverty, access to education, early marriages, etc. We have come a long way in improving the condition of women, we need to go much farther. We need to involve them in innovation, economy, sports and understand that women's issues are important for the development of the world.

Climate change

Carbon Tax is a good solution to the growing concerns of carbon emissions. Developed countries like the USA should learn that global warming and climate change will be a threat to all and will affect both developed and developing nations equally. Instead of fighting for arms and economic supremacy, we all must focus on building sustainable nature based innovations and make sure we bring them to practice.

Civil Society Participation

This chain of problems can only be stopped only if we plan and execute policies, reduce the shortcomings. For this active participation of every citizen is important. After-all we are all global citizens and we need to work for our brothers and sisters in every part of the world. We need to be mindful of the fundamental human values of community welfare, compassion, sympathy, etc. In this nature will guide us. So let the challenges be defined by us as opposed to the challenges defining us. Let's accept the challenge of passing a more beautiful, greener, healthier planet to the next generation.

Let these words of Swami Vivekananda guide us on our path to development: "Arise, awake and stop not till the goal is reached."

Feature Image: Freepik

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Challenges of the 21st century: Can we conquer them? - We Are Restless

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Are we procrastinating the solutions to challenges of the 21st century in the name of economic growth? asks Priyal Tale Ralph Waldo Emerson rightly said: "Every wall is a door." But the whirling dilemma we face today is whether we are creating doors out of walls or walls out of doors?

# data[].attributes.headline
50 Grand Challenges for the 21st Century

# data[].attributes.subject
50 Grand Challenges for the 21st Century

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Homi Kharas, senior fellow and deputy director of Brookings Institute's Global Program
The battle for sustainable development will be won or lost in cities. 150 million people are moving to cities each year. By 2050, over 7 billion people will live in cities (80% of the world), and cities will be responsible for 75% of global carbon emissions. Cities are places where infrastructure gets locked in for decades, if not centuries, but city planners must make investments now in a world where technology is changing rapidly where people live, work and play, and how they access buildings, transport, energy and waste management. The fastest growth is happening in thousands of secondary cities where mayors and city managers are not well schooled in technical urban planning. Often, these secondary cities must collaborate with each other to deliver services effectively across boundaries within larger metropolitan areas.

Carey King, assistant director, University of Texas at Austin Energy Institute
We need a discussion as to what political leaders, business leaders, and citizens think is an appropriate distribution of wealth across the entire population. This focuses on the real question (how many people have what, independent of the size of the economy, though the two are linked) instead of discussing how to shape policies and taxes to achieve an unspecified growth target independent of wealth distribution. Trump, Brexit, and Le Pen are representations that people understand growth only for the elite in the West is no longer tenable.
An issue that has not received enough attention in the media and popular understanding is that the Earth is finite and this fact will have real world physical, economic, social, and political implications. Neoclassical economics ignores this obvious fact, yet it is used to guide most policy (eg, economic projections and scenarios), including that for climate change mitigation. Thus, we are using an economic theory that is simply incapable and inapplicable for informing an unprecedented transformation of the economy.

Vijay Padmanabhan, Asian Development Bank, Technical Advisor (Urban)
The one major challenge we will face due to urbanisation will be 'water security'. We are already grappling with this problem across our developing member countries and with deteriorating river or surface water quality, lack of sufficient ground water sources and increasing dependence on sea water as a supply source, we have to bring in innovations in water management. Treatment technology, water aquifer mapping, recycling and reuse of wastewater, etc. are areas of R&D investment.

ADB is working with a large number of utilities to address these issues and as we engage on a long term basis with many cities and utilities, we will be actively exploring opportunities to bring in value for money propositions so that the utility benefits in the long term. We are also connecting with industry leaders to understand market trends so that we can bring the best to our developing member countries.

William Ryerson, founder and president, the Population Institute and Population Media Center
Perhaps a summary is that the human enterprise has outgrown the long-ability of the planet's renewable resources to support us at our current numbers and our current rates of consumption and waste generation. Climate change is just one piece of evidence of this fact. Technological improvements, while potentially important in reducing per capita impact, are not sufficient to make us sustainable unless we also stop growth in human numbers and reduce average consumption, while simultaneously lessening the gap between the richest and the poorest people on the planet. Sustainability is a term that is not well understood and is misused, but the reality is that any activity that is not sustainable will stop. So far, non-renewable resources are what are primarily driving our economic engine. But by definition, non-renewables are being depleted and for the most part will stop being economically available in this century. So we must plan rapidly for the day when humanity can live using just renewable resources, while maintaining the biodiversity that makes the planet habitable. In truth, sustainability is the ultimate environmental issue, the ultimate health issue, and the ultimate human rights issue.

Strategies that help to bring about changes in societal behaviour, including reproductive behavior, are critically important in achieving sustainability. Use of entertainment media is a key component of such strategies, since a large share of humanity consume entertainment mass media during free time. For that reason, Population Media Center utilises long-running serialised dramas in various countries to create characters that gradually evolve into positive role models for the audience to bring about changes in social norms on a broad array of critical issues. Attached are three documents that describe this work and its effects.

Jim Watson, Director of the UK Energy Research Centre
We need to think about how the system will fit together as our energy systems change.
Globally speaking there is still a lot of people - 1.5 billion or so - who do not have access to modern energy services. There is going to be a lot of rising demand from regions like Africa.

One of the big challenges of deploying new energy technologies, particularly these intermittent renewables like wind and solar, is the impact they have on the system. It used to be that in the summer it was a really quiet time for the grid operator compared to the winter, but now they are having this peak in generation in summer due to solar energy when demand is low. They are having to juggle this as we cannot store electricity in large quantities yet. This is a new way of operating for them.

With the sort of changes we are seeing in energy systems around the world, cheaper and better storage is going to be a big part of the solution. When it comes to heating for somewhere like the UK, you might need storage that lasts several months. You get a lot of energy generated in the summer and you might need it in the winter to heat homes. This is an area that is really ripe for innovation and we are really only at the start of deploying and trailing those. It is a critical part of this new system we are trying to create.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
50 grand challenges for the 21st Century

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We asked experts from the world of science and technology to describe the societal challenges that they think matter in 2017 and beyond.

# data[].attributes.headline
How the Modern World Makes Us Mentally Ill

# data[].attributes.subject
How the Modern World Makes Us Mentally Ill

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How the Modern World Makes Us Mentally Ill – Dr. Jonathan Haidt

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Strong Economy, Uncertain Future: Gen Z Enters the Workforce

This spring, commencement speakers across the country addressed some of the challenges facing the class of 2019, the first cohort of Gen Z students to graduate college. Acknowledging the burden of student debt, Robert F. Smith pledged $40 million to pay off the student loans of Morehouse College's class of 2019. Michael Bloomberg announced a $500 million investment in a program called Beyond Carbon, encouraging graduates to take action on climate change. German Chancellor Angela Merkel asked Harvard grads how they would leverage technology to create a better world.

Debt, climate change, and technology - topics Gen Z knows all too well. Generation Z, defined as people born between 1997 and 2012, has grown up in an age of skyrocketing college costs, increasing environmental awareness, and unparalleled technological progress. These developments have shaped the values and preferences of Gen Z as they enter the workforce, and many of them might be asking themselves an assortment of career-related questions: What jobs provide the most income security? What careers will make a positive impact on the world? What jobs will still be around in the future?

Gen Z Expectations for the Workforce

Recently released data from Microsoft gives us a glimpse into the minds of Gen Z college students. The survey, conducted with YouGov, asked 17-25-year olds about their career goals and expectations for entering the workforce. Unsurprisingly, the data reveals that the class of 2019 is a tech-savvy, values-driven group of young professionals.

2019 YouGov Survey Responses of Gen Z Students

Mark Sparvell, senior manager for education marketing at Microsoft, talked to BestColleges about what the typical Gen Z student looks for in a job. "They want to engage in work that has meaning and purpose," he said. "They're a socially conscious generation focused on their tech readiness, using technology to communicate and collaborate, to build ideas." Almost half of these students think technology will help them collaborate better than older generations, according to the YouGov survey.

Having work aligned with their values is also a top priority for most Gen Zers. When asked what most drives their job selection, respondents rated "contributing to the greater good" as their top priority, followed by "work/life balance" and "compensation." Forty-four percent of respondents also said they'd rather be unemployed than stuck in a job they don't love.

Icon - Quote

[GenZ wants] to engage in work that has meaning and purpose. ... They're a socially conscious generation focused on their tech readiness, using technology to communicate and collaborate, to build ideas.

Mark Sparvell, Senior Manager for Education Marketing at Microsoft

Icon - Quote

Today's young professionals also value diversity. Sparvell noted that "diversity, inclusion, and belonging are core values for Generation Z, and how businesses represent these values will impact their ability to attract and retain an entire generation of talent." This is especially important given that approximately half of Gen Z in the United States is nonwhite, according to the Pew Research Center, making it the most diverse generation in American history.

Gen Z's strength may lie in its values and diversity, but other data indicate recent college grads care just as much about job security, income, and benefits. The Wall Street Journal reports that, because they grew up during the Great Recession, Gen Z cares more about financial security than any previous generation on record. According to Forbes research, income and work hours were most important to today's young adults, and the Barna Group reports that achieving financial independence before 30 is a top priority for 64% of Gen Zers.

Financial insecurity may be the new normal in America, but this generation yearns for financial success and stability. Even so, Microsoft's research indicates that around one-third of Gen Z students are uncertain about the types of careers they want to pursue, and around one-half expect to do a job that doesn't even exist yet. This suggests that today's college grads anticipate - and are uncertain about - some of the major economic transformations that will define their future. As BestColleges discussed in May, many jobs in the future are likely to be fully automated, while others may disappear entirely due to technological innovations like artificial intelligence.

How to Get Hired After College: Future-Proof Your Skills

In response to seismic social and economic changes, many Gen Z graduates want to future-proof their careers. Entering scientific and technology fields is an excellent way to ensure their skills and knowledge remain in demand. According to the YouGov survey, these fields were the most popular among current college students, with over a quarter reporting they planned to pursue careers in STEM.

Sparvell explained these preferences, saying "[Gen Z knows] they're entering a workforce that's very different from their parents. They recognize that technology plays a significant role across all industries - not just STEM industries, but every industry."

"[LinkedIn's] top five skills really reflect the need for digital skills. So that's STEM-related areas, things connected to cloud computing, artificial intelligence, and also things that are connected to improving digital experiences ... So user interface design, people management, analytical reasoning, knowledge and ability to work with cloud and emerging cloud technologies, digital social media."

LinkedIn's Top Five Skills New Grads Are Learning

Part of what distinguishes Gen Z from previous generations isn't just their tech-savvy; it's their entrepreneurial mindset. Almost 40% of students said they would rather be self-employed than work for a company. However, Sparvell suggests every Gen Z job seeker, regardless of who they work for, would benefit from this enterprising spirit:

"What I'm interested when I interview these young people is ... how they demonstrate they can show initiative, run projects, show judgment, act ethically, responsibly, show persistency; how they are able to express their reason and success stories, their social perceptiveness."

"Soft skills" will also prove invaluable, as human reason, emotional intelligence, and ingenuity are hard to automate. "Those jobs that require intentional social skills - the ability to self-regulate, self-manage, make responsible decisions - have surged," Sparvell noted.

This means that students who aren't majoring in STEM fields can breathe a sigh of relief. LinkedIn research indicates that fields that build soft skills and analytical reasoning, including the social sciences, lead to the highest diversity of job opportunities. The majors listed below are also likely to remain in demand for the foreseeable future.

Majors Leading to Most Diverse Job Opportunities

1. Business Administration
and Management

6. Computer Science

2. Political Science
and Government

7. Economics

3. Marketing

8. Information Technology

4. Communication

9. Finance

5. Psychology

10. Sociology

Acquiring soft skills and being entrepreneurial aren't exactly part of the standard college curriculum, which is why Sparvell urges students to engage in activities outside formal education. What really distinguishes a good job candidate, and perhaps Gen Z candidates in particular, is that "they've been a mentor, they've been a tutor, they've been a coach, they've started a business, they've created a literacy app with their friends and they're helping young people learn to read."

"That's exactly the kind of people we would want to employ," Sparvell said. "They're socially conscious, they thrive on communication and feedback, they want an outlet for their ideas, they want to take action, they want to learn. And often they're doing that both within and often outside of school."

Gen Z Career Paths: The Best Jobs for College Grads

Even as they're eager to apply their tech-savvy and enterprising attitudes to their work, many Gen Z grads are uncertain which career is most likely to pay dividends in terms of income, values, flexibility, and happiness.

The number of openings for entry-level jobs is a good indicator of where to look, and LinkedIn data comes in handy here. According to their 2019 "Grads Guide to Getting Hired," there are a diversity of options to choose from - not just in STEM, but in business, education, and areas that don't even require a college degree.

If you don't know exactly what profession you're interested in, targeting specific industries - within which are any number of occupational categories - is another good way to ensure you land a job after college. Healthcare, financial services, and higher education top LinkedIn's list of top industries attracting recent graduates.

But let's not forget that Gen Z cares about having a positive impact on the world. Nursing and teaching are great examples of careers that are in-demand, future-proof, and values-driven. Nursing professions are particularly important given the need for healthcare workers who can support the rapidly growing aging population in the United States. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) projects some of the largest growth over the next decade will be in healthcare-related occupations.

Perhaps more than any other issue, Gen Z is passionate about environmental causes, including climate change, alternative energy, and conservation. New hires care whether the companies they work for are environmentally sustainable, but for those who are really passionate about these issues, it's worth knowing that the fastest-growing jobs are in the alternative energy market - and some only require a technical or associate degree.

Some Final Advice for Gen Z Grads

If nothing else, Gen Z is highly pragmatic. Their parents faced the toughest economic climate in a generation, which has influenced their desire for jobs that will survive well into the future. And even while college graduates today are uncertain about what exactly this future entails, they haven't lost sight of their values and are eager to develop skills that make a positive impact on their workplace and society as a whole.

With all that in mind, Sparvell had some concluding advice for the class of 2019: "School is great, college is great, but it's the other things - where you choose to place your attention and passion - that is more likely to get you over the line with a job. Because it's through those experiences you can actually demonstrate those value-add skills and dispositions which will set you apart."

Additional Resources

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Gen Z Career Guide: The Best Jobs for the Future | BestColleges.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This spring, commencement speakers across the country addressed some of the challenges facing the class of 2019, the first cohort of Gen Z students to graduate college. Acknowledging the burden of student debt, Robert F. Smith pledged $40 million to pay off the student loans of Morehouse College's class of 2019.

# data[].attributes.headline
A 16-Year-Old Explains 10 Things You Need to Know About Generation Z

# data[].attributes.subject
A 16-Year-Old Explains 10 Things You Need to Know About Generation Z

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
​Think about what life was like when you were 16. The clothes you wore, the places you shopped. What was most important to you then?

Whenever I speak to an organization eager to learn about Generation Z, I always ask that question. I get responses that include everything from the fleeting fashion trends of the day (bell-bottom jeans, anyone?) to the time-honored tradition of getting a driver's license.

What I hope to achieve as a 16-year-old in 2018 is probably not all that different from what anyone else wanted when they were my age. It's the way people go about reaching their goals that evolves over time-and that's what also forms the basis of most generational clashes.

For the past several years, the world has been focused on understanding and adapting to Millennials, the largest and most-educated generation in history. Born between 1981 and the mid-1990s, this group has inspired important dialogues about generational differences and challenged all industries to evolve to meet their needs. In the workplace, Millennials have helped drive a greater focus on flexibility and collaboration and a rethinking of traditional hierarchies.

Of course, any analysis of generations relies on generalities that can't possibly describe every person or situation. It's important to remember that generations exist on a continuum-and that there is a large degree of individual variation within them. The point of this type of research is to identify macro trends among age groups that can help foster workplace harmony. Essentially, it's a way of attempting to understand people better by getting a sense of their formative life experiences. The generation to which one belongs is among the many factors, such as race, religion and socioeconomic background, that can shape how a person sees the world.

But there's little doubt that gaps among the U.S. generations have widened dramatically. For example, an 8-year-old boy in the United States who grew up with a tablet will likely have more in common with an 8-year-old in China who used a similar mobile device than he will with his 70-year-old U.S. grandparents.

In thinking about the generations, a key thing to understand is that these groups are typically categorized by events rather than arbitrary dates. Generation Z's birth years are generally recognized as 1996 to 2009. The start year was chosen so that the cohort would include only those who do not remember the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. The belief is that if you were born in 1996 or later, you simply cannot process what the world was like before those attacks. For Generation Z, the War on Terror has always been the norm.

Like all other generations, mine has been shaped by the circumstances we were born into, such as terrorism, school shootings and the Great Recession. These dark events have had profound effects on the behavioral traits of the members of Generation Z, but they have also inspired us to change the world.

Earlier this year, XYZ University, a generations research and management consulting firm where I act as the director of Gen Z studies, surveyed more than 1,800 members of Generation Z globally and released a study titled " Ready or Not, Here Comes Z." The results were fascinating.

We discovered key characteristics about Generation Z and what the arrival of my generation will mean for the future of work. At 57 million strong and representing the most diverse generation in U.S. history, we are just starting to graduate from college and will account for 36 percent of the workforce by 2020.

Needless to say, Generation Z matters. And it is more important than ever for HR professionals to become familiar with the following 10 characteristics so that they know how to engage with my generation.
1. Gen Z Always Knows the Score
Members of this generation will put everything on the line to win. We grew up with sports woven into the fabric of our lives and culture. To us, the NFL truly does own a day of the week. But it's more than just professional, college or even high school teams that have shaped us; it's the youth sports that we played or watched throughout our childhoods. This is the generation of elite young teams and the stereotypical baseball mom or dad yelling at the umpire from the bleachers.

Our competitive nature applies to almost everything, from robotics to debates that test mental fortitude. We carry the mindset that we are not necessarily at school just to learn but to get good grades that will secure our place in the best colleges. Generation Z has been thrown into perhaps the most competitive educational environment in history. Right or wrong, we sometimes view someone else's success as our own failure or their failure as our success.

We are also accustomed to getting immediate feedback. A great example is the online grading portals where we can get frequent updates on our academic performance. In the past, students sometimes had to wait weeks or longer to receive a test grade. Now, we get frustrated if we can't access our scores within hours of finishing an exam-and sometimes our parents do, too.
2. Gen Z Adopted Gen X's Skepticism and Individuality
Generations are shaped by the behavioral characteristics of their parents, which is why clumping Millennials and Generation Z together is a mistake. In fact, when it comes to each generation's behavioral traits, Millennials are most similar to their parents-the Baby Boomers. Both are large, idealistic cohorts with influences that will shape consumer and workplace behavior for decades.

Members of Generation Z, on the other hand, are more akin to their parents from Generation X-a smaller group with a skeptical, individualistic focus-than they are to Millennials. That's why many generational traits are cyclical. Just because Millennials and members of Generation Z are closer in age does not necessarily mean they share the same belief systems.
3. Gen Z Is Financially Focused
Over the past 15 to 20 years, HR professionals have been hyper-focused on employee engagement and figuring out what makes their workers tick. What drives someone to want to get up in the morning and come to work for your organization?

As it turns out, workplace engagement matters less to Generation Z than it did to previous generations. What's most important to us is compensation and benefits. We are realists and pragmatists who view work primarily as a way to make a living rather than as the main source of meaning and purpose in our lives.

Obviously, we'd prefer to operate in an enjoyable environment, but financial stability takes precedence. XYZ University discovered that 2 in 3 Generation Zers would rather have a job that offers financial stability than one that they enjoy. That's the opposite of Millennials, who generally prioritize finding a job that is more fulfilling over one that simply pays the bills.

That financial focus likely stems in part from witnessing the struggles our parents faced. According to a study by the Pew Charitable Trust, " Retirement Security Across Generations: Are Americans Prepared for Their Golden Years?," members of Generation X lost 45 percent of their wealth during the Great Recession of 2008.

"Gen X is the first generation that's unlikely to exceed the wealth of the group that came before it," says Erin Currier, former project manager of Pew's Economic Mobility Project in Washington, D.C. "They have lower financial net worth than previous groups had at this same age, and they lost nearly half of their wealth in the recession."

Before Generation Z was decreed the 'official' name for my generation, there were a few other candidates, including the 'Selfie Generation' and 'iGen.'

Employers will also need to recognize that members of Generation Z crave structure, goals, challenges and a way to measure their progress. After all, the perceived road to success has been mapped out for us our entire lives.

At the same time, it's important to be aware of the potential for burnout among young overachievers-and to incorporate fun and breaks into the work environment and provide access to healthy escapes focused on relaxation and stress relief.

4. Gen Z Is Entrepreneurial

Even though they witnessed their parents grapple with financial challenges and felt the impact of the worst economic meltdown since the Great Depression, members of Generation Z believe there is a lot of money to be made in today's economy. Shows like "Shark Tank" have inspired us to look favorably on entrepreneurship, and we've also seen how technology can be leveraged to create exciting-and lucrative-business opportunities with relatively low overhead. Fifty-eight percent of the members of my generation want to own a business one day and 14 percent of us already do, according to XYZ University.
[
SHRM members-only toolkit: Staffing in Special Markets: College Students]
6. Gen Z Craves Human Interaction
Organizations that emphasize Generation Z's desire for entrepreneurship and allow us space to contribute ideas will see higher engagement because we'll feel a sense of personal ownership. We are motivated to win and determined to make it happen.

Before Generation Z was decreed the "official" name for my generation, there were a few other candidates, including the "Selfie Generation" and "iGen."
7. Gen Z Prefers to Work Independently
I find those proposed names both condescending and misleading. While it's often assumed that Generation Z is focused solely on technology, talking face to face is our preferred method of communication. Sure, social media is important and has undoubtedly affected who we are as a generation, but when we're communicating about something that matters to us, we seek authenticity and honesty, which are best achieved in person.

"Gen Z has the power of technology in their hands, which allows them to communicate faster, more often and with many colleagues at one time; but it also brings a danger when it's used as a crutch for messages that are better delivered face to face," says Jill Katz, CHRO at New York City-based Assemble HR. "As humans in the workplace, they will continue to seek empathy, interest and care, which are always best received face to face."

XYZ University's research found that cellphones and other electronic devices are primarily used for the purpose of entertainment and are tapped for communication only when the face-to-face option isn't available.
8. Gen Z Is So Diverse That We Don't Even Recognize Diversity
However, successfully engaging with Generation Z requires striking a balance between conversing directly and engaging online. Both are important, and we need to feel connected in both ways to be fully satisfied.

Given that members of Generation Z gravitate toward in-person interactions, HR leaders should re-evaluate how to best put the "human" aspect back into business. For example, hiring processes should emphasize in-person interviews more than online applications.
9. Gen Z Embraces Change
A great way to engage us is to hold weekly team meetings that gather everyone together to recap their achievements. Although members of Generation Z don't necessarily need a pat on the back, it's human nature to want to feel appreciated. This small gesture will give us something to look forward to and keep us feeling optimistic about our work. In addition, we tend to work best up against a deadline-for example, needing to have a project done by the team meeting-due to our experience facing time-sensitive projects at school.

Millennials generally prefer collaborative work environments, which has posed a challenge to conventional workplace cultures and structures. In fact, many workplaces have eliminated offices and lowered cubicle walls to promote more interaction. Yet recent studies indicate that totally open offices may actually discourage people from working together. The noise and lack of privacy could prompt more people to work at home or tune others out with headphones. Since different types of work require varying levels of collaboration, focus and quiet reflection, ideal workplaces incorporate room for both togetherness and alone time.

It's important to be aware of the potential for burnout among young overachievers-and to incorporate fun and breaks into the work environment and provide access to healthy escapes focused on relaxation and stress relief.

The emphasis on privacy will likely only intensify under Generation Z. Unlike Millennials, we have been raised to have individualistic and competitive natures. For that reason-along with growing research into optimal office design-we may see the trend shift away from collaborative workplaces toward more individualistic and competitive environments.

Generation Z marks the last generation in U.S. history where a majority of the population is white. Given the shifting demographics of the country, we don't focus as much on someone's color, religion or sexual orientation as some of our older counterparts might. To us, a diverse population is simply the norm. What we care about most in other people is honesty, sincerity and-perhaps most important-competence.
10. Gen Z Wants a Voice
Indeed, we have been shaped by a society that celebrates diversity and openness. A black man occupied the White House for most of our lives, and we view gay marriage as a common and accepted aspect of society.

Compared to teenagers of other generations, Generation Z ranks as the most informed. We worry about our future and are much less concerned about typical teen problems, such as dating or cliques, than we are about becoming successful in the world.

The chaos and unrest in our political system have inspired us to want to get involved and make a difference. Regardless of which side of the aisle we are on, most of us are informed and passionate about the issues facing our society today. Witness, for example, the students of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., who organized a political movement around gun control in the wake of a mass shooting at their school.
Josh Miller is a speaker, researcher and thought leader on all things Generation Z. He is the director of Gen Z studies at management consulting firm XYZ University and a high school junior in suburban Minneapolis. Illustration by Tim McDonagh
Social media allows us to have a voice in our political system even before we can vote. This opportunity has forced us to develop critical-thinking and reasoning skills as we engage in sophisticated debates about important issues that might not even affect us yet.

"Gen Z has a strong ability to adapt to change," says Paul Carney, an author and speaker on HR trends and a former HR manager with the Navy Federal Credit Union. "For those of us who have spanned many decades in the workplace, we have seen the rate of change increase and it makes most of us uncomfortable. Gen Z are the people who will help all of us adapt better."

According to numerous polls, the political views of Generation Z trend fiscally conservative (stemming from our need for financial stability) and socially liberal (fueled by diverse demographics and society).

Given how socially aware and concerned its members are, Generation Z seeks jobs that provide opportunities to contribute, create, lead and learn.

"One of the best ways I have seen leaders engage with Gen Z is to ask them how they would build a product or service or design a process," Carney says. "Gen Z has some amazing abilities to bring together information, process it and take action. When we do allow them to share ideas, great things happen."

We're also an exceptionally creative bunch. Managers will need to give members of this generation the time and freedom to come up with innovative ideas and accept that, despite our young age, we have valuable insights and skills to offer-just like the generations that came before us and those that will follow.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A 16-Year-Old Explains 10 Things You Need to Know About Generation Z

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
​Think about what life was like when you were 16. The clothes you wore, the places you shopped. What was most important to you then? Whenever I speak to an organization eager to learn about Generation Z, I always ask that question.

# data[].attributes.headline
Gen Z was fed up with the status quo. The coronavirus could reinforce their liberal politics.

# data[].attributes.subject
Gen Z was fed up with the status quo. The coronavirus could reinforce their liberal politics.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
High school student Emma Rehac speaks at a "Retire Segregation" rally as part of the youth-led education equity group IntegrateNYC in May 2019. (Yazmany Arboleda)

High school senior Emma Rehac can't help but feel resentful as leaders across the country scramble to keep families afloat through mounting unemployment and an unprecedented public health crisis.

She hears politicians looking for emergency cures to problems she and other activists were talking about long before anyone had heard of covid-19: affordable housing, utility shut-offs and health-care access among them. Now Rehac, 18, is trying to get unemployment benefits after losing her part-time teaching job at a school closed by the novel coronavirus outbreak. She's part of a historic wave of layoffs, coming of age at a hot spot of the pandemic in New York City, where drastic moves to blunt the fallout seem to Rehac to be too little, too late.

"There's so much anger and frustration that these are things that have been impacting us for so long, and it took a pandemic?" Rehac said. "Here's all of this attention and, all of a sudden, all of these resources that everyone said didn't exist."

Generation Z was already politically liberal, increasingly activist and fed up with the status quo. The oldest members of the generation - which includes those born from 1997 to 2012, according to the Pew Research Center - grew up amid soaring inequality and overwhelmingly backed Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) in the Democratic primaries for the presidential nomination.

Now the coronavirus crisis may solidify their political identity, experts say. As the pandemic and its economic havoc exacerbate disparities, some Gen Zers see grim validation of their support for the government-run programs and social-welfare policies less popular with their parents and grandparents. Seventy percent of them believe the government should be doing more to solve problems, compared to 53 percent of Gen Xers and 49 percent of baby boomers, according to Pew.

Gen Z cares " really deeply about inequalities and addressing that directly," said Kei Kawashima-Ginsberg, who directs the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement at Tufts University. "And that's part of the reason big government appeals to them ... universal health care, universal income and all that. And I think this pandemic, if anything, would really kind of affirm their position."

Images of carefree spring breakers, who traveled to beach towns last month as concerns mounted about the virus's spread, have dominated popular views of the generation. The nation erupted with fury at Miami Beach revelers who griped about bar shutdowns. They fed the worst stereotypes of young people as self-absorbed and thoughtless about the elderly most likely to die if they didn't help " flatten the curve " to slow the spread of infection so that the health-care system isn't overwhelmed.

But for another segment of the generation - which turned the trauma of school shootings and grim forecasts about the climate into millions-strong movements - the virus has energized their political activism. They see this crisis as inextricably linked to other problems that plague them and wonder whether the coronavirus pandemic could bring more people around to their calls for radical change.

As the seriousness of the crisis settled in for 17-year-old Xiye Bastida, she canceled a trip to Mexico and drew up a strict "quarantine schedule" for her weekdays holed up indoors, limiting herself to one hour of Netflix.

Sacrifice is a driving philosophy of Bastida's politics. The climate activist, whom news outlets have dubbed " America's Greta Thunberg," has begged others to make big, uncomfortable changes to avert disaster.

"It's for the greater good," she says of the societal shutdown that put her senior year in limbo.

She and other young activists have been using some of their time in self-quarantine to organize protests and grow the movements behind their own causes. They have incorporated the pandemic into their messaging about health care, climate change and income inequality.

Written into Bastida's Friday schedule: "Strike for Climate and an appropriate government response to COVID-19. "

"They will see this as a life-changing moment in many ways," Kawashima-Ginsberg predicted, "whereas older adults may see this as a really major disruption in our lives, hopefully going back. "

The crisis generation

Bastida doesn't want the world to go back to normal, even as her life in New York City is upended. Yes, prom was canceled; her parents' jobs and work visas are newly uncertain; her family has fled their apartment for a friend's home in Massachusetts, worried about staying in the building where young and old share the same elevator.

But for Bastida, back to normal would mean returning to a society in which individual interest reigns and each generation fends for its own well-being.

"Emotionally, a lot of people are very unsettled ... feeling like this is a crisis," Bastida said of the pandemic. "And this is how we feel every day. "

In a Pew poll conducted in late March, the majority of adult Gen Zers said the virus is a "major threat" to the country's economy and the health of the population. While only 22 percent saw it as a threat to their own health, a majority believe the pandemic put their personal financial situation at risk.

Recent data from the center found workers age 16 to 24 - half of whom work in the hard-hit service sector - will be disproportionately affected by layoffs due to the virus, although most high school and college students won't get checks from the government's massive stimulus plan. Researchers are wondering whether the coronavirus pandemic will become to Gen Z what the Great Recession was to millennials.

Millennials "came into adulthood in a really difficult economic time, and they really struggled to get their footing," said Kim Parker, director of social trends research at the Pew Research Center. "We thought it was going to be different for Gen Z. But now this sort of turns that all upside down."

Rather than be sidelined by that turmoil, many young activists are finding ways to push their political efforts forward.

Normally, Bastida would march out after AP Calculus and set up at city hall for a climate change protest. But in these strange new times, it was a digital strike, with video chats and tweeted pictures of cardboard signs. Social media savvy and already serving as tech support for work-from-home parents, Gen Z was perfectly fine moving online.

Joe Hobbs, a 17-year-old volunteer for Fridays for Future, the youth climate movement that Thunberg founded, said the pandemic has only intensified many young people's commitments to their causes.

"We're finding that across the globe, Fridays for Future activists and organizers are doing even more because they have nothing else to do," Hobbs said from Columbia, Md., where he's under a stay-at-home order. "They don't have school to distract them. "

March for Our Lives, the student-led group that mobilized for gun control after the Parkland, Fla., school shooting in 2018, has been tweeting about two public health emergencies: "Denial isn't a policy: not for #COVID19, and not for the gun violence epidemic."

"We need our leaders to ACT to save lives," the group wrote. "We need REAL policy solutions. "

In Harlem last week, Rehac was talking about rent cancellation at a pro-Sanders town hall held by video. New York Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo (D) has halted evictions for 90 days, but Housing Justice for All, a coalition that Rehac belongs to, is pushing him to completely wipe out those months of rent. Rehac argues it's necessary as people stare down weeks and maybe months of unemployment.

She thinks the cancel-rent campaign is gaining steam. And maybe, she added, the pain of shutting down New York City could get more people to listen about the bigger ideas: more stringent rent control, more money for affordable housing.

"If we had a #HomesGuarantee millions of people wouldn't be worried about paying rent tomorrow," Housing Justice for All tweeted as the April 1 rent due date loomed. "Or on May 1. Or on June 1. Imagine that. "

Other young devotees of Sanders, a self-described democratic socialist, also say the virus has underscored vast gaps in wealth and a broken health care system. Voters age 24 and younger favored Sanders by huge margins in this year's Democratic primaries, with three-quarters choosing him in California and Michigan exit polling.

While their turnout lags behind their elders, Gen Z will comprise 1 in 10 eligible voters at the time of the November presidential election, according to Pew.

The coronavirus crisis "really does expose all the inequities that people knew existed but maybe couldn't see as clearly until this point," said Roxie Richner. Her high school in Michigan has turned to non-graded "enrichment" activities, she said, unsure how to handle the fact that not everyone has laptops and Internet access.

For years, Richner has been a fervent Sanders supporter - holding a campaign kickoff party in her living room, volunteering ahead of the March 10 Michigan primary and feeling crushed when her candidate lost every county. But maybe, she thought, this moment of upheaval could shift politics in the United States for good. The senator from Vermont has been tweeting about the millions of Americans laid off with "nothing in the bank," the big companies that said they couldn't afford paid sick leave, and the people who would die because they waited too long to go to the hospital, anxious about the bill.

A day after celebrating her 18th birthday on March 26 with friends over FaceTime - someone tried to light a toothpick because no one had candles - she was feeling stir-crazy and scared, but also wondering if the country might emerge from all this a bit more open to her generation's demands.

"I think it does give people some insight into what it's like experiencing a time of crisis," Richner said, "and that realization that a lot of America lives in crisis mode 24-7, whether there's a pandemic or not. "

The greater good

Bastida is wondering whether the needle could move on climate change, the issue that she says became personal for her when her Mexican hometown flooded. She spent the last Friday night in March tuning in from her family friends' kitchen to a "Zoom party," which was really a planning meeting for the Earth Day demonstration that would now have to take place fully online.

"Every crisis needs to be treated like a crisis," her fellow activist Thunberg had said on a public Zoom call last month, not long before announcing she was recovering after exhibiting symptoms of covid-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus.

Bastida ran down to-dos with 11 high school and college students calling in from various time zones, some of them wearing pajamas. They wondered who they could get to appear in an Earth Day video. Willow and Jaden Smith? What about Miley Cyrus? TikTok star Charli D'Amelio?

Someone had reached out to about 50 social media influencers and gotten encouraging responses, although one had asked whether the video would be a "paid gig. "

Bastida and her friends laughed: No.

Back in the city she left, her 22-year-old friend Daphne Frias is fighting the coronavirus and pneumonia, isolated in a hotel room that ambulances wail past a dozen times a day.

Immunocompromised with cerebral palsy, Frias spent so much time in hospitals growing up that she calls herself a "professional patient." She has gotten pneumonia almost every year for the past seven years. She didn't wait for a stay-at-home order, retreating indoors before a single case of the coronavirus was confirmed in New York.

But March 9 was a beautiful, warm day, she said, and she allowed herself a trip outside. Four days later, she was coughing and tired, then dizzy and feverish. She tested positive for the coronavirus.

Her mother and sister quarantined with her at home, donning masks and gloves to throw out the garbage. Friends dropped off groceries outside their apartment. But after making a slow recovery, Frias's fever came roaring back last week, and she decided she needed to separate from her family.

Some of Frias's health-care costs were covered, she said, but other bills - the hotel room, the medications, the four-times-a-day inhalation treatments that clear her already-weak lungs - are adding up to the point that her bank sends fraud alerts. She needs savings to move to Baltimore in a few months for graduate school, where she'll work toward a medical degree and master's in public health. While she found financial relief in a friend's GoFundMe campaign, she knows others are less fortunate.

Like Bastida, her friend and fellow activist, Frias sees an opening. The usual election-year politics seem distant to her as the ups and downs of campaigns gave way to headlines about the struggles of average Americans amid the pandemic.

"We're able to listen in a way that we haven't been able to before," Frias said. "And I hope that when things go back to normal and it gets noisy again, we can remember to still listen and help people the way that we have now."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Gen Z was fed up with the status quo. The coronavirus could reinforce their liberal politics.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
High school senior Emma Rehac can't help but feel resentful as leaders across the country scramble to keep families afloat through mounting unemployment and an unprecedented public health crisis. She hears politicians looking for emergency cures to problems she and other activists were talking about long before anyone had heard of covid-19: affordable housing, utility shut-offs and health-care access among them.

# data[].attributes.headline
Generation Z Looks a Lot Like Millennials on Key Social and Political Issues

# data[].attributes.subject
Generation Z Looks a Lot Like Millennials on Key Social and Political Issues

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Pew Research Center's Social & Demographic Trends Project

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
No longer the new kids on the block, Millennials have moved firmly into their 20s and 30s, and a new generation is coming into focus. Generation Z - diverse and on track to be the most well-educated generation yet - is moving toward adulthood with a liberal set of attitudes and an openness to emerging social trends.

On a range of issues, from Donald Trump's presidency to the role of government to racial equality and climate change, the views of Gen Z - those ages 13 to 21 in 2018 - mirror those of Millennials. In each of these realms, the two younger generations hold views that differ significantly from those of their older counterparts. In most cases, members of the Silent Generation are at the opposite end, and Baby Boomers and Gen Xers fall in between.

It's too early to say with certainty how the views of this new generation will evolve. Most have yet to reach voting age, and their outlook could be altered considerably by changing national conditions, world events or technological innovations. Even so, two new Pew Research Center surveys, one of U.S. teens ages 13 to 17 and one of adults ages 18 and older, provide some compelling clues about where they may be headed and how their views could impact the nation's political landscape.

Only about three-in-ten Gen Zers and Millennials (30% and 29%, respectively) approve of the way Donald Trump is handling his job as president. This compares with 38% of Gen Xers, 43% of Boomers and 54% of Silents. Similarly, while majorities in Gen Z and the Millennial generation say government should do more to solve problems, rather than that government is doing too many things better left to businesses and individuals, Gen Xers and Boomers are more evenly divided on this issue. For their part, most Silents would like to see a less activist government.

When it comes to views on race, the two younger generations are more likely than older generations to say that blacks are treated less fairly than whites in the United States today. And they are much more likely than their elders to approve of NFL players kneeling during the national anthem as a sign of protest.

The younger generations are also more accepting of some of the ways in which American society is changing. Majorities among Gen Z and the Millennial generation say increasing racial and ethnic diversity in the U.S. is a good thing for society, while older generations are less convinced of this. And they're more likely to have a positive view of interracial and same-sex marriage than their older counterparts.

As a recent Pew Research Center report highlighted, Gen Z is the most racially and ethnically diverse generation we have seen, but this isn't all that's driving the attitudes of this generation when it comes to issues surrounding race and diversity. There are significant, if more modest, generational differences on these issues even among non-Hispanic whites.

Roughly a third of Gen Zers know someone who uses gender-neutral pronouns

While Generation Z's views resemble those of Millennials in many areas, Gen Zers are distinct from Millennials and older generations in at least two ways, both of which reflect the cultural context in which they are coming of age. Gen Zers are more likely than Millennials to say they know someone who prefers that others use gender-neutral pronouns to refer to them: 35% say this is the case, compared with a quarter of Millennials. Among each older generation, the share saying this drops: 16% of Gen Xers, 12% of Boomers and just 7% of Silents say this.

The youngest generation is also the most likely to say forms or online profiles that ask about a person's gender should include options other than "man" or "woman." Roughly six-in-ten Gen Zers (59%) hold this view, compared with half of Millennials and four-in-ten or fewer Gen Xers, Boomers and Silents.

These findings seem to speak more to exposure than to viewpoint, as roughly equal shares of Gen Zers and Millennials say society should be more accepting of people who don't identify as either a man or a woman.

Members of Gen Z also stand out somewhat in their views on the role social media plays in modern news consumption. These teens and young adults are much less likely than older generations to say the fact that more people are getting their news from social media is a bad thing for society - 39% of Gen Zers hold this view, compared with about half among each of the older generations.

Among Republicans, Gen Z stands out on some key issues

While they are young and their political views may not be fully formed, there are signs that those in Generation Z who identify as Republican or lean to the Republican Party diverge somewhat from older Republicans - even Millennials - in their views on several key issues. These same generational divides are not as apparent among Democrats.

On views about race relations, Gen Z Republicans are more likely than older generations of Republicans to say that blacks are treated less fairly than whites. Among Republicans, 43% of Gen Zers say this, compared with 30% of Millennials and roughly 20% of Gen Xers, Boomers and Silents. Gen Z Republicans are also much more likely than their GOP counterparts in older generations to say increasing racial and ethnic diversity in the U.S. is a good thing for society. On each of these measures, Democrats' views are nearly uniform across generations.

In addition, the youngest Republicans stand apart in their views on the role of government and the causes of climate change. Gen Z Republicans are much more likely than Republicans in older generations to say government should do more to solve problems. And they are less likely than their older counterparts to attribute the earth's warming temperatures to natural patterns, as opposed to human activity.

While younger and older Americans differ in many of their views, there are some areas where generation is not as clearly linked with attitudes. When it comes to the merits of having more women running for political office, majorities across generations say this is a good thing for the country. Majorities in each generation also say that, on balance, legal immigrants have had a positive impact on the U.S.

This analysis is based on a survey of 920 U.S. teens ages 13 to 17 conducted online Sept. 17-Nov. 25, 2018, combined with a nationally representative survey of 10,682 adults ages 18 and older conducted online Sept. 24-Oct. 7, 2018, using Pew Research Center's American Trends Panel. Findings based on Generation Z combine data from the teens survey with data from the 18- to 21-year-old respondents in the adult survey.

When it comes to views on political issues and the current political climate, younger generations have consistently held more liberal views than older generations in recent years. Today, members of Generation Z hold many similar views to Millennials, and both tend to be more liberal than older generations.

Seven-in-ten Gen Zers say the government should do more to solve problems in this country, while just 29% say the government is doing too many things that are better left to individuals and businesses. Gen Zers are slightly more likely to favor government activism than Millennials, and significantly more likely than older generations: 53% of Gen Xers, 49% of Baby Boomers and 39% of Silents favor government involvement over businesses and individuals.

Among Republicans and those who lean to the Republican Party, the generational divides are even starker. Roughly half (52%) of Gen Z Republicans say they think the government should be doing more to solve problems, compared with 38% of Millennial Republicans and 29% of Gen Xers. About a quarter of Republican Baby Boomers (23%) and fewer GOP Silents (12%) believe the government should be doing more.

Among Democrats, however, these generational divides largely disappear. Roughly eight-in-ten Gen Z (81%) and Millennial Democrats (79%) say the government should do more to solve problems, as do about seven-in-ten Democratic Gen Xers, Boomers and Silents.

Gen Zers' views about climate change are virtually identical to those of Millennials and not markedly different from Gen Xers. About half in all three generations say the earth is getting warmer due to human activity. Boomers are somewhat more skeptical of this than Gen Zers or Millennials. Members of the Silent Generation are least likely to say this (38%) and are more likely to say the earth is warming mainly due to natural patterns (28%) than are Gen Zers, Millennials and Gen Xers.

Among Republicans, Gen Z stands out from older generations as the least likely to say the earth is warming because of natural patterns - 18% say this. By comparison, 30% of Millennial, 36% of Gen X and roughly four-in-ten Boomer (42%) and Silent Generation Republicans (41%) say the same. Almost no generation gap exists among Democrats in views on this issue.

When it comes to views of Donald Trump, there are sizable generational divides, particularly among Republicans. Nine-in-ten Republicans in the Silent Generation approve of the job the president is doing, as do 85% of Baby Boomer Republicans and 76% of Gen X Republicans; smaller majorities of GOP Millennials (65%) and Gen Zers (59%) think he's doing a good job.

Younger generations also have a different view of the U.S. relative to other countries in the world. While pluralities of nearly all generations (with the exception of the Silent Generation) say the U.S. is one of the best countries in the world along with some others, Gen Zers and Millennials are the least likely to say the U.S. is better than all other countries. Only 14% and 13%, respectively, hold this view, compared with one-in-five Gen Xers, 30% of Boomers and 45% of Silents.

Roughly three-in-ten Gen Zers and Millennials say there are other countries that are better than the U.S.

In their views about the general direction of the country, Gen Zers are mostly downbeat, but they're not alone in that assessment. Among Gen Zers, Millennials and Gen Xers, two-thirds or more say things in this country are generally going in the wrong direction. About six-in-ten Boomers (61%) say the same. Members of the Silent Generation have a less negative view (53% say things are going in the wrong direction).

Today's 13- to 21-year-olds are only slightly more likely than Millennials to say ordinary citizens can do a lot to influence the government in Washington (53% of Gen Zers say this vs. 46% of Millennials). And their views on this issue don't differ much from those of Gen Xers, Boomers or Silents (50%, 58% and 58%, respectively, say citizens can have a lot of influence on the government).

Stark generational gaps in views on race

Younger generations have a different perspective than their older counterparts on the treatment of blacks in the United States. Two-thirds of Gen Z (66%) and 62% of Millennials say blacks are treated less fairly than whites in the U.S. Fewer Gen Xers (53%), Boomers (49%) and Silents (44%) say this. Roughly half of Silents (44%) say both races are treated about equally, compared with just 28% among Gen Z.

The patterns are similar after controlling for race: Younger generations of white Americans are far more likely than whites in older generations to say blacks are not receiving fair treatment.

Younger generations also have a different viewpoint on the issue of NFL players kneeling during the national anthem as a protest. Majorities among Gen Z (61%) and the Millennial generation (62%) approve of the protests. Smaller shares of Gen Xers (44%) and Baby Boomers (37%) favor these actions. Members of the Silent Generation disapprove of the protests by a more than two-to-one margin (68% disapprove, 29% approve).

Gen Zers and Millennials share similar views about racial and ethnic change in the country. Roughly six-in-ten from each generation say increased racial and ethnic diversity is a good thing for our society. Gen Xers are somewhat less likely to agree (52% say this is a good thing), and older generations are even less likely to view this positively.

Younger Republicans again stand out in this regard. Half of Gen Z Republicans (51%) say increased racial and ethnic diversity is a good thing for the country. This compares with 38% of Millennial, 34% of Gen X, 30% of Boomer and 28% of Silent Generation Republicans. Among Democrats, there is widespread agreement across generations.

Though they differ in their views over the changing racial and ethnic makeup of the country, across generations most Americans agree about the impact that legal immigrants have on society. On balance, all generations see legal immigration as more positive than negative. Across most generations, Democrats are more likely than Republicans to say legal immigrants are having a positive impact. However, within Gen Z there is no partisan gap on this issue.

When it comes to views about how careful people should be in using potentially offensive language, members of Gen Z are divided over whether people need to be more careful or if concerns about political correctness have gone too far. Some 46% of Gen Zers say people need to be more careful about the language they use to avoid offending people with different backgrounds, while 53% say too many people are easily offended these days over the language that others use.

Gen Zers' views are only modestly different from those of Millennials and Gen Xers on this topic: 39% and 38%, respectively, say people need to be more careful about the language they use, while about six-in-ten say people are too easily offended these days. Interestingly, members of the Silent Generation are closer to members of Gen Z in their views on this topic than they are to Boomers, Gen Xers or Millennials.

Gen Z and Millennials have similar views on gender and family

Since they first entered adulthood, Millennials have been at the leading edge of changing views on same-sex marriage. In 2014, when a narrow majority of all adults (52%) said they favored allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally, 67% of Millennials held that view. Today, members of Generation Z are just as likely as Millennials to say allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry has been a good thing for the country (48% of Gen Zers and 47% of Millennials hold this view). One-third of Gen Xers say this is a good thing for the country, as do 27% of Baby Boomers. Members of the Silent Generation are the least enthusiastic (18% say this is a good thing).

Relatively few Gen Zers or Millennials (15%) say same-sex marriage is a bad thing for society. Boomers and Silents are much more likely to view this change negatively (32% and 43%, respectively, say this is a bad thing). Across generations, about four-in-ten say allowing gays and lesbians to marry hasn't made much of a difference for the U.S.

In other ways, too, Gen Zers and Millennials are similar in their openness to changes that are affecting the institutions of marriage and family. Roughly half (53%) from each generation say interracial marriage is a good thing for our society. Gen Xers are somewhat less likely to agree (41% say this is a good thing), and older generations are much less likely to view interracial marriage positively. Relatively few across generations say this trend is bad for society; majorities of Silents (66%) and Boomers (60%) say it doesn't make much difference, as do 53% of Xers.

When it comes to couples living together without being married, roughly two-thirds of each generation (with the exception of Silents) say this doesn't make much of a difference for society. About one-in-five Gen Zers and Millennials say cohabitation is a good thing for society - higher than the shares for older generations. Fully 41% of Silents say this is bad thing for the country, as do about a quarter of Boomers.

Compared with their views on cohabitation, the youngest generations have a more negative assessment of the impact of single women raising children: 35% among Gen Z and 36% of Millennials say this is a bad thing for society; roughly four-in-ten Gen Xers and Boomers and 48% of Silents say the same. About half of Gen Zers and Millennials say this doesn't make much difference for society, while relatively few (15%) view it as a good thing.

Across generations, majorities say financial and child care responsibilities should be shared

In their views about gender roles within couples, members of Generation Z are virtually identical to Millennials and Gen Xers and quite similar to Baby Boomers. Large majorities in all four groups say that, in households with a mother and a father, the responsibility for providing for the family financially should be shared equally. About one-in-five Gen Zers, Millennials and Gen Xers - and a quarter of Boomers - say this responsibility should fall primarily on the fathers. Very few say mothers should be mostly responsible for this. Silents are the outliers on this issue: 40% say fathers should be mostly responsible for providing for their families financially, while 58% say this responsibility should be shared between mothers and fathers.

For the most part, there are no notable gender gaps in views on this issue; the Silent Generation is the exception. Among Gen Zers, Millennials, Gen Xers and Boomers, male and female respondents are largely in agreement that mothers and fathers should share family financial responsibility. Among members of the Silent Generation, roughly half of men (49%) but 33% of women say fathers should be mostly responsible for providing for the family financially.

Large majorities (84% or more) across generations say that responsibility for taking care of children should be shared by mothers and fathers in households with two parents. Some 13% among Gen Z say this responsibility should fall mainly to mothers; similar shares of each of the other generations say the same. Very few say raising children should fall mostly to dads. Male and female respondents across generations have similar views on this issue.

Widespread enthusiasm across generations for more women entering politics

A majority of Americans, regardless of generation, view the increasing number of women running for public office as a positive change for our society. Roughly two-thirds of Gen Zers, Millennials and Gen Xers say this is a good thing, as do 61% of Boomers and 55% of Silents. About four-in-ten in the Silent Generation (39%) say this trend doesn't make much difference for society, somewhat higher than the share among the three youngest generations (roughly three-in-ten).

There are significant gender gaps on this question, with female respondents expressing much more enthusiasm about the growing number of women running for office in each generation except the Silents. Among Gen Zers, 76% of young women, versus 57% of young men, say the fact that more women are running for office is a good thing for society. The pattern is similar for Millennials, Gen Xers and Boomers. However, among Silents, roughly equal shares of men (57%) and women (54%) say this is a good thing.

Gen Zers most likely to say forms or online profiles should offer gender options beyond 'man' and 'woman'

The recognition of people who don't identify as a man or a woman has garnered increased attention amid changing laws concerning gender options on official documents and growing usage of gender-neutral pronouns.

There are stark generational differences in views on these issues. Generation Z is the most likely of the five generations to say that when a form or online profile asks about a person's gender it should include options other than "man" and "woman"; a 59% majority of Gen Zers say this. Half of Millennials say forms or online profiles should include additional gender options, as do about four-in-ten Gen Xers (40%) and Boomers (37%) and roughly a third of those in the Silent Generation (32%).

These views vary widely along partisan lines, with generational differences evident within each party coalition, but sharpest among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents. About four-in-ten Republican Gen Zers (41%) think forms should include other gender options, compared with 27% of Republican Millennials, 17% of GOP Gen Xers and Boomers and 16% of Republican Silents. Among Democrats and Democratic leaners, half or more in all generations say this, including 71% of Gen Zers and 55% of Silents.

Gen Zers and Millennials have similar views on treatment of people who don't identify as a man or woman

When it comes to how accepting society in general is of people who don't identify as either a man or a woman, the views of Gen Zers and Millennials differ from those of older generations. Roughly half of Gen Zers (50%) and Millennials (47%) think that society is not accepting enough. Smaller shares of Gen Xers (39%), Boomers (36%) and those in the Silent Generation (32%) say the same.

A plurality of the Silent Generation (41%) say society is too accepting of people who don't identify as a man or woman. Across all generations, roughly a quarter say society's acceptance level is about right.

Again, there are large partisan gaps on this question, and Gen Z Republicans stand apart to some extent from other generations of Republicans in their views. Among Republicans, about three-in-ten Gen Zers (28%) say that society is not accepting enough of people who don't identify as a man or woman, compared with 20% of Millennials, 15% of Gen Xers, 13% of Boomers and 11% of Silents. Democrats vary little by generation in shares holding this view.

Generations differ in their familiarity and comfort with using gender-neutral pronouns

Gen Zers and Millennials are much more familiar than their elders with the idea that some people may prefer gender-neutral pronouns: 74% of Gen Zers and 69% of Millennials say they have heard "a lot" or "a little" about people preferring that others use gender-neutral pronouns such as "they" instead of "he" or "she" when referring to them, with about three-in-ten saying they have heard a lot about this. Most Gen Xers (62%) also have heard a lot or a little about people preferring gender-neutral pronouns.

There is less awareness of this among older generations. Still, half of Boomers and 45% of Silents say they have heard at least a little about gender-neutral pronouns.

Gen Zers are also the most likely among the five generations to say they personally know someone who goes by gender-neutral pronouns, with 35% saying so, compared with 25% of Millennials. Each of these younger generations is more likely than Gen Xers (16%), Boomers (12%) and Silents (7%) to say they personally know someone who prefers that others use gender-neutral pronouns when referring to them. This generational pattern is evident among both Democrats and Republicans.

In addition to their greater familiarity with gender-neutral pronouns, Gen Zers and Millennials express somewhat higher levels of comfort with using gender-neutral pronouns, though generational differences on this question are more modest. Majorities of Gen Zers (57%) and Millennials (59%) say they would feel "very" or "somewhat" comfortable using a gender-neutral pronoun to refer to someone if asked to do so, including about three-in-ten (32% of Gen Zers, 31% of Millennials) who say they would be very comfortable doing this. By comparison, Gen Xers and Boomers are evenly divided: About as many say they would feel at least somewhat comfortable (49% and 50%, respectively) as say they would be uncomfortable.

Silents are the only group in which more say they would feel uncomfortable (59%) than say they would feel comfortable (39%) using a gender-neutral pronoun to refer to someone.

There are wide party gaps on this measure across generations. Within each generation, Democrats come down on the side of feeling comfortable, rather than uncomfortable, using a gender-neutral pronoun to refer to someone if asked to do so. In contrast, for each generation of Republicans, majorities say they would feel uncomfortable doing this.

Across generations, knowing someone who goes by gender-neutral pronouns is linked to comfort levels in using these pronouns. Three-quarters of Millennials and about two-thirds of Gen Zers, Gen Xers and Boomers who personally know someone who goes by gender-neutral pronouns say they would feel very or somewhat comfortable referring to someone with a gender-neutral pronoun. Those who don't know someone are roughly 20 percentage points less likely to say the same (51% of Gen Zers, 54% of Millennials, 46% of Gen Xers and 48% of Boomers who don't know someone say this).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Generation Z Looks a Lot Like Millennials on Key Social and Political Issues

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
No longer the new kids on the block, Millennials have moved firmly into their 20s and 30s, and a new generation is coming into focus. Generation Z - diverse and on track to be the most well-educated generation yet - is moving toward adulthood with a liberal set of attitudes and an openness to emerging social trends.

# data[].attributes.headline
Defining generations: Where Millennials end and Generation Z begins

# data[].attributes.subject
Defining generations: Where Millennials end and Generation Z begins

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
For decades, Pew Research Center has been committed to measuring public attitudes on key issues and documenting differences in those attitudes across demographic groups. One lens often employed by researchers at the Center to understand these differences is that of generation.

Generations provide the opportunity to look at Americans both by their place in the life cycle - whether a young adult, a middle-aged parent or a retiree - and by their membership in a cohort of individuals who were born at a similar time.

Michael Dimock, president of Pew Research Center

As we've examined in past work, generational cohorts give researchers a tool to analyze changes in views over time. They can provide a way to understand how different formative experiences (such as world events and technological, economic and social shifts) interact with the life-cycle and aging process to shape people's views of the world. While younger and older adults may differ in their views at a given moment, generational cohorts allow researchers to examine how today's older adults felt about a given issue when they themselves were young, as well as to describe how the trajectory of views might differ across generations.

Pew Research Center has been studying the Millennial generation for more than a decade. But by 2018, it became clear to us that it was time to determine a cutoff point between Millennials and the next generation. Turning 38 this year, the oldest Millennials are well into adulthood, and they first entered adulthood before today's youngest adults were born.

In order to keep the Millennial generation analytically meaningful, and to begin looking at what might be unique about the next cohort, Pew Research Center decided a year ago to use 1996 as the last birth year for Millennials for our future work. Anyone born between 1981 and 1996 (ages 23 to 38 in 2019) is considered a Millennial, and anyone born from 1997 onward is part of a new generation.

Since the oldest among this rising generation are just turning 22 this year, and most are still in their teens or younger, we hesitated at first to give them a name - Generation Z, the iGeneration and Homelanders were some early candidates. (In our first in-depth look at this generation, we used the term "post-Millennials" as a placeholder.) But over the past year, Gen Z has taken hold in popular culture and journalism. Sources ranging from Merriam-Webster and Oxford to the Urban Dictionary now include this name for the generation that follows Millennials, and Google Trends data show that "Generation Z" is far outpacing other names in people's searches for information. While there is no scientific process for deciding when a name has stuck, the momentum is clearly behind Gen Z.

Generational cutoff points aren't an exact science. They should be viewed primarily as tools, allowing for the kinds of analyses detailed above. But their boundaries are not arbitrary. Generations are often considered by their span, but again there is no agreed upon formula for how long that span should be. At 16 years (1981 to 1996), our working definition of Millennials is equivalent in age span to their preceding generation, Generation X (born between 1965 and 1980). By this definition, both are shorter than the span of the Baby Boomers (19 years) - the only generation officially designated by the U.S. Census Bureau, based on the famous surge in post-WWII births in 1946 and a significant decline in birthrates after 1964.

Unlike the Boomers, there are no comparably definitive thresholds by which later generational boundaries are defined. But for analytical purposes, we believe 1996 is a meaningful cutoff between Millennials and Gen Z for a number of reasons, including key political, economic and social factors that define the Millennial generation's formative years.

Most Millennials were between the ages of 5 and 20 when the 9/11 terrorist attacks shook the nation, and many were old enough to comprehend the historical significance of that moment, while most members of Gen Z have little or no memory of the event. Millennials also grew up in the shadow of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which sharpened broader views of the parties and contributed to the intense political polarization that shapes the current political environment. And most Millennials were between 12 and 27 during the 2008 election, where the force of the youth vote became part of the political conversation and helped elect the first black president. Added to that is the fact that Millennials are the most racially and ethnically diverse adult generation in the nation's history. Yet the next generation - Generation Z - is even more diverse.

Beyond politics, most Millennials came of age and entered the workforce facing the height of an economic recession. As is well documented, many of Millennials' life choices, future earnings and entrance to adulthood have been shaped by this recession in a way that may not be the case for their younger counterparts. The long-term effects of this "slow start" for Millennials will be a factor in American society for decades.

Technology, in particular the rapid evolution of how people communicate and interact, is another generation-shaping consideration. Baby Boomers grew up as television expanded dramatically, changing their lifestyles and connection to the world in fundamental ways. Generation X grew up as the computer revolution was taking hold, and Millennials came of age during the internet explosion.

In this progression, what is unique for Generation Z is that all of the above have been part of their lives from the start. The iPhone launched in 2007, when the oldest Gen Zers were 10. By the time they were in their teens, the primary means by which young Americans connected with the web was through mobile devices, WiFi and high-bandwidth cellular service. Social media, constant connectivity and on-demand entertainment and communication are innovations Millennials adapted to as they came of age. For those born after 1996, these are largely assumed.

The implications of growing up in an "always on" technological environment are only now coming into focus. Recent research has shown dramatic shifts in youth behaviors, attitudes and lifestyles - both positive and concerning - for those who came of age in this era. What we don't know is whether these are lasting generational imprints or characteristics of adolescence that will become more muted over the course of their adulthood. Beginning to track this new generation over time will be of significant importance.

Pew Research Center is not the first to draw an analytical line between Millennials and the generation to follow them, and many have offered well-reasoned arguments for drawing that line a few years earlier or later than where we have. Perhaps, as more data are collected over the years, a clear, singular delineation will emerge. We remain open to recalibrating if that occurs. But more than likely the historical, technological, behavioral and attitudinal data will show more of a continuum across generations than a threshold. As has been the case in the past, this means that the differences within generations can be just as great as the differences across generations, and the youngest and oldest within a commonly defined cohort may feel more in common with bordering generations than the one to which they are assigned. This is a reminder that generations themselves are inherently diverse and complex groups, not simple caricatures.

In the near term, you will see a number of reports and analyses from the Center that continue to build on our portfolio of generational research. Today, we issued a report looking - for the first time - at how members of Generation Z view some of the key social and political issues facing the nation today and how their views compare with those of older generations. To be sure, the views of this generation are not fully formed and could change considerably as they age and as national and global events intervene. Even so, this early look provides some compelling clues about how Gen Z will help shape the future political landscape.

In the coming weeks, we will be releasing demographic analyses that compare Millennials to previous generations at the same stage in their life cycle to see if the demographic, economic and household dynamics of Millennials continue to stand apart from their predecessors. In addition, we will build on our research on teens' technology use by exploring the daily lives, aspirations and pressures today's 13- to 17-year-olds face as they navigate the teenage years.

Yet, we remain cautious about what can be projected onto a generation when they remain so young. Donald Trump may be the first U.S. president most Gen Zers know as they turn 18, and just as the contrast between George W. Bush and Barack Obama shaped the political debate for Millennials, the current political environment may have a similar effect on the attitudes and engagement of Gen Z, though how remains a question. As important as today's news may seem, it is more than likely that the technologies, debates and events that will shape Generation Z are still yet to be known.

We look forward to spending the next few years studying this generation as it enters adulthood. All the while, we'll keep in mind that generations are a lens through which to understand societal change, rather than a label with which to oversimplify differences between groups.
Note: This is an update of a post that was originally published March 1, 2018, to announce the Center's adoption of 1996 as an endpoint to births in the Millennial generation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Defining generations: Where Millennials end and Generation Z begins

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
For decades, Pew Research Center has been committed to measuring public attitudes on key issues and documenting differences in those attitudes across demographic groups. One lens often employed by researchers at the Center to understand these differences is that of generation.

# data[].attributes.headline
How modern life affects our physical and mental health

# data[].attributes.subject
How modern life affects our physical and mental health

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Modern day living is a multifaceted compendium of evolving technology and social media. Communication outlets are changing every part of our lives so rapidly that it can be tough to adjust. Are technology and media affecting our physical and mental health?

Share on Pinterest
The technological and social media advances of the past decade have taken over our lives. Do they affect our physical and mental health?

Technology has improved the lives of many people, with almost half of adults in the United States unable to imagine life without their smartphone.

The American Psychological Association's Stress in America Survey 2017 shows that 99 percent of adults own an electronic device, around 86 percent own a computer, 74 percent own a smartphone, and 55 percent own a tablet.

The survey also reports that between 2005 and 2015, the percentage of adults using social media skyrocketed from 7 percent to 65 percent, with usage rates of young adults aged between 18 and 29 increasing from 12 percent to 90 percent in that period.

Rates of technology and social media use are therefore swiftly climbing. Facebook and Instagram alone boast a combined monthly user base of 2 billion people.

Recent research by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found that teenagers aged 13 to 17 years old have shifted their preferred social media platforms and are now most likely to use Snapchat and Instagram.

Key findings of the survey included the fact that around 76 percent of teenagers use Instagram, 75 percent use Snapchat, 66 percent use Facebook, 47 percent use Twitter, and fewer than 30 percent use Tumblr, Twitch, or LinkedIn.

They also found that although 91 percent of teens use regular text messaging, 40 percent also use messaging apps such as WhatsApp, Kik, or Line.

Social media and text messaging have become an integral part of how individuals interact with their social groups. In fact, for many teenagers and young adults, text messaging and social media communication is now more likely than in-person interactions.

The technological and social media advances of the past decade have bred the "constant checker." A constant checker is a person who constantly, almost obsessively, checks their emails, texts, and social media accounts. This profile is synonymous with 43 percent of U.S. individuals.

Share on Pinterest
Constant checkers repeatedly check their text messages, emails, and social media.

Being continuously connected in this way has been linked with higher stress levels. Moreover, 18 percent of individuals have identified technology use as a significant source of stress.

On an average day in the U.S., 65 percent of adults constantly check personal email, 52 percent and 44 percent check texts and social media, respectively, and 28 percent say the same about work emails.

Stress levels among constant checkers are considerably higher than they are among people who do not engage with technology and social media as frequently.

For example, 42 percent of constant checkers worry about the effect of social media on their physical and mental health, compared with 27 percent of non-constant checkers.

Furthermore, as a result of technology, more constant checkers than non-constant checkers feel disconnected from their family, even when they are in the same room, and more than one third of constant checkers say that they are unlikely to meet with friends and family in person due to social media.

While many people strongly agree that unplugging or taking a digital detox now and then is important for mental health, in reality, only 28 percent of those people periodically switch off from technology.

Across the generations, 48 percent of Millennials, 37 percent of Gen Xers, 22 percent of Boomers, and 15 percent of Matures are worried about the negative effects of social media on their physical and mental health.

Interactions on social media can have a major impact on an individual's well-being and satisfaction. Many studies have observed that more time spent on social media is associated with an increased risk of loneliness and depression, which poses the question: are unhappy people using social media, or does social media use affect happiness?

Happiness

A recent study led by researchers at Indiana University explored the so-called friendship paradox experienced by users of social media. The friendship paradox finds that, on average, most people are less popular than their friends on social media, which may lead to reduced happiness.

"As far as we're aware, it's never been previously shown that social media users are not only less popular than their friends on average but also less happy," said lead study author Johan Bollen, associate professor in the Indiana University School of Informatics and Computing.

"This study suggests that happiness is correlated with popularity, and also that the majority of people on social networks aren't as happy as their friends due to this correlation between friendship and popularity."

Overall, the research found that users of social media might experience increased levels of social dissatisfaction and unhappiness as a result of comparing their happiness and popularity to that of their friends.

"Happy social media users may think their friends are more popular and slightly happier than they are - and unhappy social media users will likely have unhappy friends who still seem happier and more popular than they are on average," Prof. Bollen explained.

Isolation

The amount of time spent on social media could also affect mental health. National analysis led by scientists at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine (Pitt) in Pennsylvania suggests that the more time that adults aged 19 to 32 spend using social media, the more likely they are to be socially isolated.

"This is an important issue to study because mental health problems and social isolation are at epidemic levels among young adults," said Brian A. Primack, Ph.D., the director of Pitt's Center for Research on Media, Technology and Health.

"We are inherently social creatures, but modern life tends to compartmentalize us instead of bringing us together. While it may seem that social media presents opportunities to fill that social void, I think this study suggests that it may not be the solution people were hoping for."

Depression

In another study conducted by Pitt's School of Medicine, it was also found that spending extended periods on social media is associated with depression in young adults. Compared with people who checked social media less frequently, frequent checkers were 2.7 times more likely to develop depression. More than a quarter of study participants were classified as having high indicators of depression.

Likewise, settling in for a marathon binge-watching session of your favorite television show has been related to fatigue, obesity, loneliness, and depression.

However, research published in Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking says that you do not have to quit social media altogether; simply changing your behavior on social networking sites and taking an occasional break may help to lift your spirits.

"Confirming previous research, this study found that 'lurking' on Facebook may cause negative emotions. However, on the bright side, as previous studies have shown, actively connecting with close friends, whether in real life or on Facebook, may actually increase one's sense of well-being," said Brenda K. Wiederhold, Ph.D., of the Interactive Media Institute in San Diego, CA, and Virtual Reality Medical Institute in Brussels, Belgium.

Parents often struggle to balance familial and digital connections, and they can face a constant battle trying to limit their child's screen time. The importance of parental technological monitoring is only heightened by evidence such as the link between handheld screen time and speech delays in young children, the connection between mobile device addiction and depression and anxiety in college-age students, and the association between exposure to smartphone screens and lower sleep quality.

However, screen time for kids is not all bad. Research examining more than 120,000 adolescents found that evidence linking the relationship between screen time and well-being is weak at best, even at the highest levels of engagement. The findings, published in Psychological Science, suggest that moderate screen use has no effect on the well-being of teenagers.

What is more, a study published in Psychiatric Quarterly found only a small association between excessive screen time and levels of teenage depression and delinquency.

"Screens of various sorts are increasingly embedded into daily life, whether they involve education, work, socialization, or personal organization," explains study leader Prof. Christopher Ferguson, of Stetson University in DeLand, FL. "Setting narrow limits on screen time may not keep up with the myriad ways in which screens have become essential to modern life."

With the ever-increasing popularity of health apps on smartphones, depression, stress, worry, and a lack of sleep can all begin to be tackled in the same amount of time as it takes to locate a good restaurant.

Millions of people experience psychological distress and fail to pursue or receive help from mental health services. Given this disparity between need and accessibility of services, smartphone apps could help to provide affordable and engaging treatment strategies.

Video gaming is another area that has gained a bad reputation, with some research suggesting a link between video games and violence. However, a study published in the Journal of Communication found no such link between aggression observed in movies and video games, and real life violence.

"Society has a limited amount of resources and attention to devote to the problem of reducing crime," said Prof. Ferguson. "There is a risk that identifying the wrong problem, such as media violence, may distract society from more pressing concerns such as poverty, education, and vocational disparities and mental health."

Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, MD, has found that while 4 hours of video game play may trigger symptoms of depression in teenagers, frequent use of social media and instant messaging may mitigate these symptoms in some individuals.

"While playing video games for 4 hours a day can be worrisome behavior, not everyone who does so is at risk of developing symptoms of addiction or depression," said study leader Michelle Colder Carras, Ph.D., a postdoctoral researcher in the Department of Mental Health at the Bloomberg School.

"If these adolescents are sitting around playing games together with their friends or chatting regularly with their friends online as they play, this could be part of a perfectly normal developmental pattern. We shouldn't assume all of them have a problem."

Despite the potential risks to mental health, trends over the past decade show that use of technology and social media is increasing, so these problems are not likely to disappear anytime soon, with habits unlikely to change.

Furthermore, as connectivity continues to weave its way through every aspect of our work, home, and social lives, the answer may not lie in reducing our time using these channels or being able to disconnect at the flick of a switch - especially since Internet withdrawal has been linked with increased heart rate and blood pressure.

A study of 12 million Facebook users found that using the social media site is associated with living longer. However, this correlation only exists when Facebook serves to maintain and enhance our social ties in real life.

Modern life may increase the risk of some physical and mental health problems, but striking a balance between online and real-world social relationships, going forward, may help to keep our mental health in check.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How modern life affects our physical and mental health

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Modern day living is a multifaceted compendium of evolving technology and social media. Communication outlets are changing every part of our lives so rapidly that it can be tough to adjust. Are technology and media affecting our physical and mental health?

# data[].attributes.headline
How modern life is transforming the human skeleton

# data[].attributes.subject
How modern life is transforming the human skeleton

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It all started with a goat. The unfortunate animal was born in the Netherlands in the spring of 1939 - and his prospects did not look good. On the left side of his body, a bare patch of fur marked the spot where his front leg should have been. On the right, his front leg was so deformed, it was more of a stump with a hoof. Walking on all fours was going to be, let's say, problematic.

But when he was three months old, the little goat was adopted by a veterinary institute and moved to a grassy field. There he quickly improvised his own peculiar style of getting around. Pushing his back feet forwards, he would draw himself up until he was standing half-upright on his hind legs, and jump. The end result was somewhere between the hop of a kangaroo and a hare, though presumably not quite as majestic.

Sadly the plucky goat was involved in an accident soon after his first birthday, and he died. But there was one final surprise lurking in his skeleton.

For centuries, scientists had thought that our bones were fixed - that they grow in a predictable way, according to instructions inherited from our parents. But when a Dutch anatomist investigated the goat's skeleton, they found that he had begun to adapt. The bones in his hips and legs were thicker than you would expect, while the ones in his ankles had been stretched out. Finally his toes and hips were abnormally angled, to accommodate a more upright posture. The goat's frame had started to look a lot like those of animals which hop.
You might also enjoy:
* The London landmark with 20,000 skeletons in its vaults
* The bones that could shape Antarctica's fate
* The man who tried to photograph thoughts and dreams

Today it's an established fact that our skeletons are surprisingly malleable. The pure white remains displayed in museums may seem solid and inert, but the bones beneath our flesh are very much alive - they're actually pink with blood vessels - and they're constantly being broken down and rebuilt. So although each person's skeleton develops according to a rough template set out in their DNA, it is then tailored to accommodate the unique stresses of their life.

This has led to a discipline known as "osteobiography" - literally "the biography of bones" - which involves looking at a skeleton to find out how its owner lived. It relies on the fact that certain activities, such as walking on two legs, leave a predictable signature behind, such as sturdier hip bones.

And from the discovery of a curious spiky growth on the back of many people's skulls to the realisation that our jaws are getting smaller, to the enigmatic finding that German youths currently have narrower elbows than ever before, it's clear that modern life is having an impact on our bones.

For an example of how osteobiography works, take the mystery of the "strong men" of Guam and the Mariana Islands. It began with the discovery of a male skeleton on the island of Tinian, which lies 1,600 miles (2,560km) east of the Philippines in the Pacific Ocean, in 1924. The remains were dated to the 16th or 17th Century, and they were positively gigantic. The man's skull, arm bones, collarbones, and the bones of his lower legs suggested that he had been immensely strong and unusually tall.

The finding slotted in nicely with local legends of enormous ancient rulers, who had been capable of truly heroic physical feats. Archaeologists called him Taotao Tagga - "man of Tagga" - after the island's famous mythological chief Taga, who was renowned for his super-human strength.

As other graves were discovered, it became clear that the first skeleton was no anomaly; in fact as well as fiction, Tinian and the surrounding islands had been home to a race of extraordinarily brawny men. But where had they got their strength from?

As it happens, the strong men's remains were often found lying next to the answer. In the case of Taga, he was buried amongst 12 imposing carved stone pillars, which would originally have supported his house. Meanwhile, a closer inspection of his bones and others has revealed that they have similar features to those from the Tonga archipelago in the South Pacific, where people do a lot of stone working and building with massive rocks.

The largest such house on the island had pillars that were 16ft (5m) high and weighed nearly 13 tonnes each - about as much as two full-grown African elephants. This was no mysterious race of muscular giants; the men achieved their powerful builds by sheer hard work.

If, in the future, the same technique were used to piece together how people lived in 2019, the scientists would find characteristic changes in our skeletons that reflect our modern lifestyles.

"I have been a clinician for 20 years, and only in the last decade, increasingly I have been discovering that my patients have this growth on the skull," says David Shahar, a health scientist at the University of The Sunshine Coast, Australia.

The spike-like feature, also known as the "external occipital protuberance" is found at the lower back of the skull, just above the neck. If you have one, it's likely that you will be able to feel it with your fingers - or if you're bald, it may even be visible from behind.

Until recently, this type of growth was thought to be extremely rare. In 1885, when the spike was first investigated, the renowned French scientist Paul Broca complained that it even had a name at all. "He didn't like it because he had studied so many specimens, and he hadn't really seen any which had it."

Feeling that something might be up, Shahar decided to investigate. Together with his colleague, he analysed over a thousand X-rays of skulls from people ranging from 18 to 86 years old. They measured any spikes and noted what each participant's posture was like.*

What the scientists found was striking. The spike was far more prevalent than they had expected, and also a lot more common in the youngest age group: one in four people aged 18-30 had the growth. Why could this be? And should we be concerned?

Shahar thinks the spike explosion is down to modern technology, particularly our recent obsession with smartphones and tablets. As we hunch over them, we crane our necks and hold our heads forward. This is problematic, because the average head weighs around 10 pounds (4.5 kg) - about as much as a large watermelon.
Text neck
When we're sitting upright, these hefty objects are balanced neatly on top of our spines. But as we lean forwards to pore over famous dogs on social media, our necks must strain to hold them in place. Doctors call the pain this can cause "text neck". Shahar thinks the spikes form because the hunched posture creates extra pressure on the place where the neck muscles attach to the skull - and the body responds by laying down fresh layers of bone. These help the skull to cope with the extra stress, by spreading the weight over a wider area.

Of course, bad posture was not invented in the 21st Century - people have always found something to hunch over. So why didn't we get the skull protuberances from books? One possibility is down to the sheer amount of time that we currently spend on our phones, versus how long a person would previously have spent reading. For example, even in 1973, well before most modern hand-held distractions were invented, the average American typically read for about two hours each day. In contrast, today people are spending nearly double that time on their phones.

Indeed, for Shahar, the biggest surprise was just how large the spikes were. Before his study, the most recent research was conducted at an osteological lab in India, in 2012. That's a lab specialising entirely in bones - as you can imagine, they have quite a lot of skulls - but the doctor there only found one with the growth. It measured 8 mm, which is so small, it wouldn't even have been included in Shahar's results. "And he thought it was significant enough to write a whole paper about it!" he says. In his own study, the most substantial growths were 30mm long.

Intriguingly, the strong men from the Mariana islands also tend to have growths on their skulls. They are thought to have developed for a similar reason - to support their powerful neck and shoulder muscles. The men may have carried heavy weights by suspending them from poles across their shoulders.

Shahar says it's likely that the modern spikes will never go away. They will continue to get bigger and bigger - "Imagine if you have stalactites and stalagmites, if no one is bothering them, they will just keep growing" - but it's rare for them to cause any trouble by themselves. If there is an issue, it will probably be caused by the other compensations that the body must make for all our hunching.

On the other side of the world, in Germany, scientists have discovered another bizarre development: our elbows are shrinking. Christiane Scheffler, an anthropologist from the University of Potsdam, was studying body measurements taken from school children when she noticed the trend.

To see exactly how much their skeletons had changed over time, Scheffler undertook a study of how robust, or "big boned", children were between 1999 and 2009. This involved calculating their "frame index", which is how a person's height compares to the width of their elbows. Then she compared her results with those from an identical study that was 10 years older. She found that the children's skeletons were becoming more and more fragile every year.

"And so we were thinking about that, what could be the reason," says Scheffler. Her first idea was that it could be genetic, but it's hard to see how a population's DNA could change that much in just 10 years. The second was that perhaps the children were suffering from poor nutrition, but this isn't really a problem in Germany. The third was that today's youth are a generation of couch potatoes.

To find out, Scheffler conducted a new study - together with some colleagues this time - in which she also asked the children to fill out a questionnaire about their daily habits, and to wear a step counter for a week. The team found a strong link between how robust the children's skeletons were and the amount of walking they were doing.

It's already well known that every time we use our muscles, we help to increase the mass of the bones that support them. "If you use them again and again, they build more bone tissue, which is measured as a higher density and bigger girth of bone," says Scheffler. The children's shrinking skeletons look like a straightforward adaptation to modern life, since it doesn't make sense to grow bone that you don't need.

But there was one surprise lurking in the data: walking was the only type of exercise that seemed to have any impact. Scheffler thinks this is because even the most avid sports fans actually devote very little time to practising. "It's not helpful if your mother takes you in the car for one or two hours per week," she says.

And though no one has looked at whether the link holds up in adults, it's likely that the same rules apply: it's not enough to simply hit the gym a couple of times a week without also walking long distances. "Because our evolution tells us that we can walk for almost 30km (19 miles) per day."

The final surprise hidden in our bones may have been happening for hundreds of years, but we've only just noticed. Back in 2011, Noreen von Cramon-Taubadel from The State University of New York at Buffalo, was studying skulls. As an anthropologist, she was keen to find out to if it was possible to tell where one was from, just by looking at its shape.

In her quest for an answer, Cramon-Taubadel had been scouring the collections of museums from all over the world for skulls to compare, and painstakingly measuring them. It was indeed the case that, on the whole, you could tell roughly where a skull was from, and who its owner was related to, just from its shape. But there was one part where this wasn't the case: the jaw.

It soon became clear that instead of being determined by genetics, the shape of the jaw was mostly affected by whether that person had grown up in a hunter-gatherer society, or a community that relied on farming. Cramon-Taubadel thinks it's all down to how much chewing we do as we're growing up. "If you think about orthodontics, obviously the reason we do that with teenagers is because their bones are still growing," says Cramon-Taubadel. "Bones are still malleable at that age and they will respond to different pressures."

In modern, farming-based societies where the food is soft and palatable, we can wolf down a meal without needing to mash it up much first. Less chewing makes for weaker muscles, which means our jaws don't develop as robustly. Another idea is that it's down to breastfeeding, because the age at which mothers wean their children varies widely, and dictates when they begin chewing more solid food.

But there's no need to mourn your weak farmer's jawline just yet. Cramon-Taubadel says the impact chewing can have on the lower face is actually fairly subtle to the naked eye. Instead, it's likely to show in our teeth. "So the main problem is that especially in post-industrial populations, we're much more likely to suffer from dental problems - dental crowding, crooked teeth, etc.," she says. "Right now, what the research is showing is that having a slightly more biomechanically tough diet, particularly in children, might be useful for counteracting some of the imbalance between the way that our teeth grow and develop and push through.".

And here there's an unexpected twist. Incredibly, it now seems that the changes to our jaws and teeth have had one welcome side effect at least - on the way that we speak. A recent study found that, as societies discovered agriculture in the Neolithic period, roughly 12,000 years ago, the changes to our bites may have allowed us to pronounce new sounds, such as "f" and "v". The researchers estimated that this transformed the languages that people spoke, from containing just 3% of these difficult sounds to 76% today.

Rather than having bites, like we do now, where the upper incisors (upper front teeth) covered the lower ones, previously adults would have had bites where they met instead. To catapult your jaw back to Neolithic times, try pushing out your lower jaw until your upper and lower teeth touch, then attempt to say "fish" or "Venice".

So what will future archaeologists make of our skeletons, when they examine them from their spaceships? If we're not careful, they'll reveal unhealthy diets, staggering levels of inactivity, and a morbid attachment to technology. Perhaps it's best to be cremated.

--
[*Editor's note: Since this article was published, some questions have been raised about the methodology of the Scientific Reports paper examining the "external occipital protuberance". For more information, see PBS NewsHour's in-depth analysis.] Join more than one million Future fans by liking us on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter or Instagram.
If you liked this story, sign up for the weekly bbc.com features newsletter, called "If You Only Read 6 Things This Week". A handpicked selection of stories from BBC Future, Culture, Capital, and Travel, delivered to your inbox every Friday.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How modern life is transforming the human skeleton

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It all started with a goat. The unfortunate animal was born in the Netherlands in the spring of 1939 - and his prospects did not look good. On the left side of his body, a bare patch of fur marked the spot where his front leg should have been.

# data[].attributes.headline
7 Modern Life Habits That Can Be Incredibly Bad For Your Brain Health

# data[].attributes.subject
7 Modern Life Habits That Can Be Incredibly Bad For Your Brain Health

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In an era of better technology, we're all being rewired to do much more to the detriment of our brains. According to specialists, our lifestyle producing us denser, slower, and less capable of original thought and is chipping away at pathways. Hyperconnectivity is increasingly taking its toll on our brains. In the end, we end up less effective and inefficient.

With regard to our health, we don't think about nurturing our brains the way we nourish our bodies. But to be our self that is most productive, we need to do much more of what improves our mental health, and less of what causes cognitive decline. Begin by adjusting your everyday habits and avoiding these common modern customs - your mind will thank you.

1. The brain drain of childbirth

Physical inactivity has its own price tags - It's connected to the development of chronic health issues such as heart issues, obesity, depression, dementia, and cancer. A lot of people are too busy to make time for "basic movement activities" that will slow cognitive decline - biking, walking, extending, etc..

Being sedentary changes the form of individual neurons in the brain. It is based on brand new research in the Journal of Comparative Neurology that suggests a connection between psychological and inactivity decline.

Regular exercise can benefit you cognitively - increase brain chemicals which promote better memory and learning, and medically. You know this. Knowledge of the advantages of exercise is not a problem in the modern world, it' therefore the application of info.

2. Think you're multitasking? Think again

Our cellular phones became military knives. We use them all the time. We text while we're walking across the road, catch up on e-mail while commuting, read or listen to podcasts while standing in a queue.

You've probably heard that multitasking is bad for your productivity. It turns out, and it's a custom that rewires the mind and makes you less productive.

Earl Miller, a neuroscientist at Massachusetts Institute of Technology and one of the world specialists on divided attention, says our brains are "not wired to multitask well... When humans think they're multitasking, they're actually merely switching from one task to another very quickly. And every time they do, there's a cost in doing this."

Multitasking also increases the stress bodily physical hormone cortisol as well as the fight-or-flight bodily physical hormone adrenaline, which can overstimulate your mind and trigger fog or scrambled thinking.

3. Information overload leads to pointless overstimulation of the brain

The sheer volume of e-mails, social upgrades, and notifications we receive may be overwhelming - it may take a bite out from the day for a lot of people. The constant flow of content, if not managed, may cause stress and lead to decision overload.

"Too Much Information" that, "Information overload is among the biggest irritations in life," writes Schumpeter of The Economist.

Some individuals proudly boast of things they can juggle within a day. Glenn Wilson, former visiting professor of psychology at Gresham College, London, discovered in his research that being in a situation where you're attempting to focus on a task, and an e-mail is sitting unread on your inbox, may lessen your successful IQ by 10 points. To maximize your brain every day, use better tools and settings to filter your information during the day. Be proactive about how you consume the media.

Prepare your brain to dismiss unnecessary information. Whenever you organize your daily life with these principles in mind, you'll increase your brain's efficiency.

4. Sitting for far too long can be hurting you.

Exercising is among the worst things we may do for our health. A UCLA study reports that individuals who're sedentary possess thinning in areas of the brain associated with memory. It finds that sitting is not just a health risk that is physical; it is a hazard that is neurological as well. The authors write in their paper, it's possible that sedentary behavior is a much more significant predictor of brain structure, namely thickness, and that physical exercise, even at higher levels, isn't sufficient to offset the damaging consequences of sitting for extended periods of time.

You may reduce the quantity of sitting you do by adopting interventions such as walking, standing while working, even for just ten minutes at a time, standup meetings, it offers an opportunity to sit, move more and conduct brief meetings.

5. That screen time can negatively affect our mental and emotional wellbeing.

Today, face-to-face interactions are increasingly being replaced by electronic tools. People spend more time online than ever before.

Anything with a screen, TV, phones, tablets, computers, video games, constitutes a screen time, explains Tom Kersting, a licensed psychotherapist, and a master in the area of mental wellness and parenting in the electronic era.

In case the majority of our waking hours is watching a screen, then we know it's too much.

A face-to-face conversation is remarkably beneficial for your brain. A study from the University of Michigan discovered that just ten minutes each day of conversation with another person improved memory and cognition.

In our study, socializing was just as effective as traditional sorts of psychological exercise to boost memory and intellectual performance, stated Oscar Academy Award Ybarra, a psychologist in UM Institute for Social Research and lead author of the study with ISR psychologist Eugene Burnstein and psychologist Piotr Winkielman of the University of California, San Diego.

The dearth of true personal interaction restricts opportunities for the brain to make better connections. It can leads to loneliness and depression, psychological conditions that contribute significantly to reduced brain health. Looking at screens all day may hurt your eyes, ears, neck, shoulders, spine, wrists, and forearms. It also interferes with getting a good night's sleep.

According to specialists, excessive screen time has a negative impact on cognitive capabilities in addition to psychological well being. Establish clear boundaries with screens to avoid developing harmful habits. The objective is not to avoid screen time completely, as that is not realistic in life. If you are going to use a device, then be cautious.

6. It's unbelievably easy for your headphones to harm the portions of the ear essential to healthy hearing.

People, by nature, love to switch up the quantity. It can make the music sounds rdquo & more fun and immersive. In the age of noise cancellation, headphones, you may easily hurt your hearing.

When the rest of the world becomes too distracting, it is trying to pop in your earbuds, crank up your favorite songs, and close yourself off to focus better.

If you regularly broadcast your music too loud, you can harm your hearing. Nevertheless, it isn't only your ears hearing loss in older adults is closely connected to brain issues, like Alzheimer's disease and loss of brain tissue.

Whenever your mind has to work so difficult to understand what is being said around you, it cannot store what you have heard into memory. Thus, shield your hearing by adjusting the number of your headphones. It is a fantastic way to preserve your hearing and permit your mind to work better.

One test we urge will be to remove your headphones, maintaining them in your preferred volume, and maintain them in front of you in an arm's length. Would you hear the music obviously? If so, try turning it down and repeating again, writes Headphonesty. Always aim to take normal breaks over the course of the evening to give the ears much needed rest.

7. Sleeping upsets your mind.

Sleep is an issue for many busy professionals. Difficulty in sleeping may have severe short term and long term implications, it may delay reaction times, sugar levels, mood, headache, impaired memory, and hormone imbalances. Recent research demonstrates that not getting sufficient sleep might actually shrink your mind.

Sleep is absolutely critical for your brain. Whenever you deprive your mind of healthful sleep, how it procedure info, consolidates memories, makes connections, and cleans toxins suffers.

The dearth of sleep slows down your thinking, impairs your memory, concentration, judgment, and decision making, and impedes learning.

Improving your sleep habits might be a significant way to increase brain health. 7-8 hours/night of sleep is vital for stimulating new connections and brain growth.

If you're worried about the health of your mind and the level of your thinking today or in the future, learn to look after your mind. Some straightforward modifications to your way of life could increase your memory, your learning, psychological durability and general health of your mind.

Author(s)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
7 Modern Life Habits That Could Be Incredibly Bad For Your Brain Health - Thrive Global

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In an era of better technology, we're all being rewired to do much more to the detriment of our brains. According to specialists, our lifestyle producing us denser, slower, and less capable of original thought and is chipping away at pathways. Hyperconnectivity is increasingly taking its toll on our brains.

# data[].attributes.headline
5 facts about the modern American family

# data[].attributes.subject
5 facts about the modern American family

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
&feature=youtu.be

The classic nuclear family, the kind imprinted on the American imagination by TV shows like Leave It To Beaver, has been left behind. In 1960, 37% of households included a married couple raising their own children. More than a half-century later, just 16% of households look like that.

Here are 5 facts about the modern family:

1 Americans are putting off life's big milestones. Today, the median age at first marriage is 29 for men and 27 for women- the highest in modern history. (In 2013, more than one-in-four (26%) of people ages 18 to 32 were married. But in 1960, well over half (65%) of Americans were.) Mothers are also waiting longer to have children. In 1960, women ages 15 to 24 accounted for 40% of mothers with infants. By 2011, that number had dropped to 22%.

2 Today, an American woman, on average, is expected to have 1.9 children, compared with a total fertility rate of 3.7 children in 1960. Current levels are below the "replacement rate" of about 2.1 children, the number of births needed for children to replace their parents in the population. Some European countries have lower total fertility rates.

3 Some 3 million (37% of) lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender adults have had a child at some point in their lives, according to the Williams Institute. Among women under the age of 50 who identify as LGBT (and live alone or with a spouse/partner), about half (48%) have a child younger than 18. Some one-in-five LGBT men say the same.

4 Families today are more blended and differently constructed. Nearly half (44%) of young people ages 18 to 29 have a step sibling. About half as many (23%) of those ages 50 to 64-and just 16% of those 65 or older-have a step sibling. More babies are born to unmarried mothers than ever before. Unmarried women accounted for 41% of births in 2011, up from just 5% in 1960. In 2011, 72% of births to black women were to unmarried mothers, compared with 53% of births to Hispanic women and 29% of births to white women. (The sample size was too small to analyze results among Asians.) But just 9% of new mothers with a bachelor's degree, regardless of race, were unmarried when they gave birth.

5 Intermarriage among people of different races is increasingly common. In 1980, just 7% of all marriages in the U.S. were between spouses of a different race or ethnicity. In 2010, that share has doubled to 15% of all new marriages in the U.S. Hispanics (26%) and Asians (28%) were most likely to "marry out," compared with 9% of whites and 17% of blacks.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
5 facts about the modern American family

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
feature=youtu.be The classic nuclear family, the kind imprinted on the American imagination by TV shows like Leave It To Beaver, has been left behind. In 1960, 37% of households included a married couple raising their own children. More than a half-century later, just 16% of households look like that.

# data[].attributes.headline
Selling Shame: 40 Outrageous Vintage Ads Any Woman Would Find Offensive

# data[].attributes.subject
Selling Shame: 40 Outrageous Vintage Ads Any Woman Would Find Offensive

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
By Lisa Hix
When iconic "Mad Magazine" illustrator Jack Davis launched his career in the early 1950s, he made a name for himself drawing nightmarish images for EC Comics titles such as "Tales From the Crypt." Horror fans today still marvel at his towering and intricately detailed fiends-corrupt men with shadowy, crevassed faces; feral werewolves with saliva dripping from their fangs; hordes of slimy skeletal corpses that seem to reach out at you; and, of course, all those dismembered body parts strewn about the pages.

But ask Davis today how he felt when he was creating these ghastly cartoons, and he reveals a side of himself that may disappoint hardcore gore groupies. "Oh, I didn't particularly care for it," the 88-year-old artist says. "My wife didn't agree with it; she didn't like the horror bit at all. But I had to do it, so I did it. I got paid for it, and the editors liked it. Evidently, it had a lot of fans."

A lot of fans, indeed. "Tales From the Crypt" and other EC horror titles, all of which folded in 1955 due to public outrage, have had a lasting impact on the horror genre. The comic not only inspired the late 1980s HBO show of the same name, it also influenced the look of countless movies and television shows, including "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" and "A Nightmare on Elm Street."

In 2013, Mondo Gallery in Austin hosted an exhibition featuring work that pays tribute to "Tales From the Crypt," both the comics and the TV show. Among the pieces in the show is a new illustration by Jack Davis of his former boss, EC Comics publisher and editor Bill Gaines, posing with the infamous Crypt-Keeper.

"Even though I wasn't around when it was originally published, the HBO 'Tales From the Crypt' was an amazing intro into a demented world of darkly comedic horror stories and vivid artwork," says Mondo CEO Justin Ishmael. "EC Comics' editor Bill Gaines is one of my heroes, and it's so incredibly exciting to combine his creations with thirty something artists that are also fans of that era."

It was Bill Gaines who gave Davis-recently honored in a 2011 Fantagraphics retrospective book called Jack Davis: Drawing American Pop Culture-his first break. The young artist, who'd been drawing since kindergarten, had published comic strips in middle school and high school, in the Navy, and at the University of Georgia. When he graduated in 1950, he hoped to land his dream job working on the newspaper funny pages so he could afford to marry his college sweetheart, Dena Roquemore.

"I wanted to be a cartoonist and get syndicated," says Davis, who worked as an assistant to Ed Dodd, creator of the syndicated "Mark Trail" comic strip, while he was in college. "I figured I had to go to New York City because that was where everything in publishing was, including the comics syndicates. I took a year at the Art Students League in New York, and I'd look for work. I'd go up and down Madison Avenue, where I was rejected at the syndicates and at a lot of the publishers."

But not all of them. "I saw a comic book one day and went down to the offices of Entertaining Comics, where I met the publisher, Bill Gaines. My work was bad, and they liked it," he says, laughing. "They gave me some stuff to work on right away, and I was very excited about that."

Soon, Davis, who was sick of being a starving artist, developed a reputation for speed, as an artist who could sketch and ink sometimes three pages in a day. "I'd have to be fast, because when you turned them in, that's when you'd get your money," Davis says. "The faster you drew, the faster the money came in."

According to Davis, Gaines was a generous boss, taking his artists and writers such as Al Feldstein, Harvey Kurtzman, and Sergio Aragonés on trips to places like Japan, Mexico, and Russia, to have adventures and enjoy good food. "At first, I was afraid of Bill Gaines, but then I began to like him," Davis recalls. "He was a great publisher, and he was very giving. He took us on trips we wouldn't have been able to afford. I was very blessed and lucky to be in his stable."

While Davis didn't relish drawing hideous and frightful images, he was a fan of spooky tales. "I loved Frankenstein and the old horror movies," he says. "I'd always loved ghost stories, too. When I was growing up, they had a show on the radio called 'Lights Out.' We used to have a gang of kids who'd get together to listen to it at night. It was great; it'd frighten you, and it probably influenced me."

At EC Comics, Davis was assigned the Crypt-Keeper, one of three "Ghoul-Lunatic" hosts in the EC horror comics line. The Crypt-Keeper headlined "Tales From the Crypt" while his rivals, the Vault-Keeper and the Old Witch, had top billing in the "The Vault of Horror" and "The Haunt of Fear" titles respectively. However, all three narrated stories in each of the three bimonthly comics, which were virtually indistinguishable except for their names.

The Crypt-Keeper, a living, long-haired humanoid fiend, told "The Crypt of Terror" stories, which were illustrated by Davis and were featured in all three comic titles. Davis made his Ghoul-Lunatic more scabrous and decrepit than EC editor Al Feldstein's original, a shadowy figure whose stringy locks covered his face. Starting in 1952 with issue #29, Davis drew all of the covers for "Tales From the Crypt" until the comic book met its end in 1955 with issue #46.

The stories in these comics are often morality tales, relying on tropes as old as time, in which people doing evil meet some horrendous end. Others were simple eye-for-eye type revenge stories, and still others were as silly as they were gross (a rotting mummy and a preserved two-headed corpse fall in love, for example). Some of them were attributed to contemporary author Ray Bradbury, and others were clearly influenced by macabre Victorian writers like Edgar Allan Poe, H.P. Lovecraft, and W.W. Jacobs. And then there were the "Tales" that were simply the wild inventions of EC editors like Feldstein, who gave Davis stories to draw.

When psychologist Frederic Wertham published his comic-damning book "The Seduction of the Innocent" in 1954, he pointed to "Foul Play!", a Jack Davis-drawn story from the May-June 1953 issue of "The Haunt of Fear," as an example of a comic that perverted children's minds. In it, a star baseball player uses his shoe spikes to poison the opposing team's best hitter. When the opposing team realizes what has happened, they plot a grisly revenge, shown in graphic detail.

Thanks to Wertham's book, which claimed that comics encouraged juvenile delinquency, concerned parents, teachers, and ministers put pressure on politicians to intervene, leading to the Senate Subcommittee on Juvenile Delinquency in April and June of 1954. This hand-slapping by the U.S. government prompted publishers to form the Comics Code Authority, which banned words like "horror" and "terror" from titles, as well as monster characters like zombies and werewolves. That spelled the end for the horror comics of the era and their explicit imagery. Feeling that EC was being targeted specifically, Gaines published his last horror comic dated for February-March 1955.

"The comics were pretty bad, pretty gruesome," Davis admits. "The Senate had an investigation, which they probably should have had. But when 'Tales of the Crypt' ended, I was very disappointed, because I needed the work."

Fortunately, Davis already had his foot in the door at new satire publication called "Mad," started by EC writer and cartoonist Harvey Kurtzman. The first issue of "Mad" in 1952 began with a Davis story called, "Hoohah!" a humorous spoof on all the cliched horror tropes he routinely depicted for EC Comics.

"I hoped that 'Mad' would catch on, and it did." says Davis, who had two young children when the magazine launched. "A lot of parents probably didn't like 'Mad.' The stories were satire, and sometimes they were good, but sometimes they were kind of bad. I don't particularly like the way it's going now," he adds. "It's stuff I don't cotton with. I'm pretty conservative now. I love the guys that are down there, they're good people, but I just don't work for 'Mad' anymore."

"Mad," in fact, was a wild success, and of all EC's horror artists, despite being singled out by Wertham, Davis came out the most unscathed by the Comics Code. His expressive faces and big-headed caricatures served comedy well at "Mad," "Panic," and later at EC competitor "Cracked." Thanks to his talent and speed, he also found work doing advertising art for the likes of Parker Brothers, Pepsi, Procter & Gamble, Purina, and the U.S. Postal Service. In the 1960s and '70s, he contributed 22 covers for "TV Guide," 36 covers for "Time" magazine, and well-known publicity posters for movies like "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World," and Woody Allen's "Bananas." Jack Davis was the go-to cartoonist of the 1970s.

But Davis is humble about his influence. "I love to draw cartoons, that's all," he says. "And I had a good rep who got me good work. But I'm retired now."
This article originally appeared on Collectors Weekly. Follow them on Facebook and Twitter.
More from Collectors Weekly:

Cheap Thrills: The Freakish Fantasy Art of Mexican Pulp Paperbacks
*
At Home With Horror: Metallica's Kirk Hammett Embraces His Inner Monster
*
Sex! Gore! Scary Monsters! Attack of the Mexican B-Movie Ads

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Selling Shame: 40 Outrageous Vintage Ads Any Woman Would Find Offensive

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By Lisa Hix When iconic "Mad Magazine" illustrator Jack Davis launched his career in the early 1950s, he made a name for himself drawing nightmarish images for EC Comics titles such as "Tales From the Crypt."

# data[].attributes.headline
Reading: Social Change and Modernization

# data[].attributes.subject
Reading: Social Change and Modernization

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Collective behavior and social movements are just two of the forces driving social change, which is the change in society created through social movements as well as external factors like environmental shifts or technological innovations. Essentially, any disruptive shift in the status quo, be it intentional or random, human-caused or natural, can lead to social change. Below are some of the likely causes.

Causes of Social Change

Changes to technology, social institutions, population, and the environment, alone or in some combination, create change. Below, we will discuss how these act as agents of social change, and we'll examine real-world examples. We will focus on four agents of change that social scientists recognize: technology, social institutions, population, and the environment.

Technology

Some would say that improving technology has made our lives easier. Imagine what your day would be like without the Internet, the automobile, or electricity. In The World Is Flat, Thomas Friedman (2005) argues that technology is a driving force behind globalization, while the other forces of social change (social institutions, population, environment) play comparatively minor roles. He suggests that we can view globalization as occurring in three distinct periods. First, globalization was driven by military expansion, powered by horsepower and wind power. The countries best able to take advantage of these power sources expanded the most, and exert control over the politics of the globe from the late fifteenth century to around the year 1800. The second shorter period from approximately 1800 C.E. to 2000 C.E. consisted of a globalizing economy. Steam and rail power were the guiding forces of social change and globalization in this period. Finally, Friedman brings us to the post-millennial era. In this period of globalization, change is driven by technology, particularly the Internet (Friedman 2005).

But also consider that technology can create change in the other three forces social scientists link to social change. Advances in medical technology allow otherwise infertile women to bear children, which indirectly leads to an increase in population. Advances in agricultural technology have allowed us to genetically alter and patent food products, which changes our environment in innumerable ways. From the way we educate children in the classroom to the way we grow the food we eat, technology has impacted all aspects of modern life.

Of course there are drawbacks. The increasing gap between the technological haves and have-nots--sometimes called the digital divide--occurs both locally and globally. Further, there are added security risks: the loss of privacy, the risk of total system failure (like the Y2K panic at the turn of the millennium), and the added vulnerability created by technological dependence. Think about the technology that goes into keeping nuclear power plants running safely and securely. What happens if an earthquake or other disaster, like in the case of Japan's Fukushima plant, causes the technology to malfunction, not to mention the possibility of a systematic attack to our nation's relatively vulnerable technological infrastructure?

Crowdsourcing: Using the Web to Get Things Done

Millions of people today walk around with their heads tilted toward a small device held in their hands. Perhaps you are reading this textbook on a phone or tablet. People in developed societies now take communication technology for granted. How has this technology affected social change in our society and others? One very positive way is crowdsourcing.

Thanks to the web, digital crowdsourcing is the process of obtaining needed services, ideas, or content by soliciting contributions from a large group of people, and especially from an online community rather than from traditional employees or suppliers. Web-based companies such as Kickstarter have been created precisely for the purposes of raising large amounts of money in a short period of time, notably by sidestepping the traditional financing process. This book, or virtual book, is the product of a kind of crowdsourcing effort. It has been written and reviewed by several authors in a variety of fields to give you free access to a large amount of data produced at a low cost. The largest example of crowdsourced data is Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia which is the result of thousands of volunteers adding and correcting material.

Perhaps the most striking use of crowdsourcing is disaster relief. By tracking tweets and e-mails and organizing the data in order of urgency and quantity, relief agencies can address the most urgent calls for help, such as for medical aid, food, shelter, or rescue. On January 12, 2010 a devastating earthquake hit the nation of Haiti. By January 25, a crisis map had been created from more than 2,500 incident reports, and more reports were added every day. The same technology was used to assist victims of the Japanese earthquake and tsunami in 2011.

The Darker Side of Technology: Electronic Aggression in the Information Age

The U.S. Center for Disease Control (CDC) uses the term "electronic aggression" to describe "any type of harassment or bullying that occurs through e-mail, a chat room, instant messaging, a website (including blogs), or text messaging" (CDC, n.d.) We generally think of this as cyberbullying. A 2011 study by the U.S. Department of Education found that 27.8 percent of students aged twelve through eighteen reported experiencing bullying. From the same sample 9 percent specifically reported having been a victim of cyberbullying (Robers et al. 2013).

Cyberbullying represents a powerful change in modern society. William F. Ogburn (1922) might have been describing it nearly a century ago when he defined "cultural lag," which occurs when material culture precedes nonmaterial culture. That is, society may not fully comprehend all the consequences of a new technology and so may initially reject it (such as stem cell research) or embrace it, sometimes with unintended negative consequences (such as pollution).

Cyberbullying is a special feature of the Internet. Unique to electronic aggression is that it can happen twenty-four hours a day, every day; it can reach a child (or an adult) even though she or he might otherwise feel safe in a locked house. The messages and images may be posted anonymously and to a very wide audience, and they might even be impossible to trace. Finally, once posted, the texts and images are very hard to delete. Its effects range from the use of alcohol and drugs to lower self-esteem, health problems, and even suicide (CDC, n.d.).

The Story of Megan Meier

According to the Megan Meier Foundation web site (2014a), Megan Meier had a lifelong struggle with weight, attention deficit disorder, and depression. But then a sixteen-year-old boy named Josh Evans asked Megan, who was thirteen years old, to be friends on the social networking web site MySpace. The two began communicating online regularly, though they never met in person or spoke on the phone. Now Megan finally knew a boy who, she believed, really thought she was pretty.

But things changed, according to the Megan Meier Foundation web site (2014b). Josh began saying he didn't want to be friends anymore, and the messages became cruel on October 16, 2006, when Josh concluded by telling Megan, "The world would be a better place without you." The cyberbullying escalated when additional classmates and friends on MySpace began writing disturbing messages and bulletins. That night Megan hanged herself in her bedroom closet, three weeks before what would have been her fourteenth birthday.

According to an ABC News article titled, "Parents: Cyber Bullying Led to Teen's Death" (2007), it was only later that a neighbor informed Megan's parents that Josh was not a real person. Instead, "Josh's" account was created by the mother of a girl who used to be friends with Megan.

You can find out more of Megan's story at her mother's web site: http://www.meganmeierfoundation.org/

Social Institutions

Each change in a single social institution leads to changes in all social institutions. For example, the industrialization of society meant that there was no longer a need for large families to produce enough manual labor to run a farm. Further, new job opportunities were in close proximity to urban centers where living space was at a premium. The result is that the average family size shrunk significantly.

This same shift toward industrial corporate entities also changed the way we view government involvement in the private sector, created the global economy, provided new political platforms, and even spurred new religions and new forms of religious worship like Scientology. It has also informed the way we educate our children: originally schools were set up to accommodate an agricultural calendar so children could be home to work the fields in the summer, and even today, teaching models are largely based on preparing students for industrial jobs, despite that being an outdated need. A shift in one area, such as industrialization, means an interconnected impact across social institutions.

Population

Population composition is changing at every level of society. Births increase in one nation and decrease in another. Some families delay childbirth while others start bringing children into their folds early. Population changes can be due to random external forces, like an epidemic, or shifts in other social institutions, as described above. But regardless of why and how it happens, population trends have a tremendous interrelated impact on all other aspects of society.

In the United States, we are experiencing an increase in our senior population as baby boomers begin to retire, which will in turn change the way many of our social institutions are organized. For example, there is an increased demand for housing in warmer climates, a massive shift in the need for elder care and assisted living facilities, and growing awareness of elder abuse. There is concern about labor shortages as boomers retire, not to mention the knowledge gap as the most senior and accomplished leaders in different sectors start to leave. Further, as this large generation leaves the workforce, the loss of tax income and pressure on pension and retirement plans means that the financial stability of the country is threatened.

Globally, often the countries with the highest fertility rates are least able to absorb and attend to the needs of a growing population. Family planning is a large step in ensuring that families are not burdened with more children than they can care for. On a macro level, the increased population, particularly in the poorest parts of the globe, also leads to increased stress on the planet's resources.

The Environment

Turning to human ecology, we know that individuals and the environment affect each other. As human populations move into more vulnerable areas, we see an increase in the number of people affected by natural disasters, and we see that human interaction with the environment increases the impact of those disasters. Part of this is simply the numbers: the more people there are on the planet, the more likely it is that some will be affected by a natural disaster.

But it goes beyond that. Movements like 350.org describe how we have already seen five extinctions of massive amounts of life on the planet, and the crisis of global change has put us on the verge of yet another. According to their website, "The number 350 means climate safety: to preserve a livable planet, scientists tell us we must reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere from its current level of 400 parts per million to below 350 ppm" (350.org).

The environment is best described as an ecosystem, one that exists as the interplay of multiple parts including 8.7 million species of life. However dozens of species are going extinct every day, a number 1,000 times to 10,000 times the normal "background rate" and the highest rate since the dinosaurs disappeared 65 million years ago. The Center for Biological Diversity states that this extinction crisis, unlike previous ones caused by natural disasters, is "caused almost entirely by us" (Center for Biological Diversity, n.d.). The growth of the human population, currently over seven billion and expected to rise to nine or ten billion by 2050, perfectly correlates with the rising extinction rate of life on earth.

Hurricane Katrina: When It All Comes Together

The four key elements that affect social change that are described in this chapter are the environment, technology, social institutions, and population. In 2005, New Orleans was struck by a devastating hurricane. But it was not just the hurricane that was disastrous. It was the converging of all four of these elements, and the text below will connect the elements by putting the words in parentheses.

Before Hurricane Katrina (environment) hit, poorly coordinated evacuation efforts had left about 25 percent of the population, almost entirely African Americans who lacked private transportation, to suffer the consequences of the coming storm (demographics). Then "after the storm, when the levees broke, thousands more [refugees] came. And the city buses, meant to take them to proper shelters, were underwater" (Sullivan 2005). No public transportation was provided, drinking water and communications were delayed, and FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (institutions), was headed by an appointee with no real experience in emergency management. Those who were eventually evacuated did not know where they were being sent or how to contact family members. African Americans were sent the farthest from their homes. When the displaced began to return, public housing had not been reestablished, yet the Superdome stadium, which had served as a temporary disaster shelter, had been rebuilt. Homeowners received financial support, but renters did not.

As it turns out, it was not entirely the hurricane that cost the lives of 1,500 people, but the fact that the city's storm levees (technology), which had been built too low and which failed to meet numerous other safety specifications, gave way, flooding the lower portions of the city, occupied almost entirely by African Americans.

Journalist Naomi Klein, in her book The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, presents a theory of a "triple shock," consisting of an initial disaster, an economic shock that replaces public services with private (for-profit) ones, and a third shock consisting of the intense policing of the remaining public. Klein supports her claim by quoting then-Congressman Richard Baker as saying, "We finally cleaned up public housing in New Orleans. We couldn't do it, but God did." She quotes developer Joseph Canizaro as stating, "I think we have a clean sheet to start again. And with that clean sheet we have some very big opportunities."

One clean sheet was that New Orleans began to replace public schools with charters, breaking the teachers' union and firing all public school teachers (Mullins 2014). Public housing was seriously reduced and the poor were forced out altogether or into the suburbs far from medical and other facilities (The Advocate 2013). Finally, by relocating African Americans and changing the ratio of African Americans to whites, New Orleans changed its entire demographic makeup.

Modernization

Modernization describes the processes that increase the amount of specialization and differentiation of structure in societies resulting in the move from an undeveloped society to developed, technologically driven society (Irwin 1975). By this definition, the level of modernity within a society is judged by the sophistication of its technology, particularly as it relates to infrastructure, industry, and the like. However, it is important to note the inherent ethnocentric bias of such assessment. Why do we assume that those living in semi-peripheral and peripheral nations would find it so wonderful to become more like the core nations? Is modernization always positive?

One contradiction of all kinds of technology is that they often promise time-saving benefits, but somehow fail to deliver. How many times have you ground your teeth in frustration at an Internet site that refused to load or at a dropped call on your cell phone? Despite time-saving devices such as dishwashers, washing machines, and, now, remote control vacuum cleaners, the average amount of time spent on housework is the same today as it was fifty years ago. And the dubious benefits of 24/7 e-mail and immediate information have simply increased the amount of time employees are expected to be responsive and available. While once businesses had to travel at the speed of the U.S. postal system, sending something off and waiting until it was received before the next stage, today the immediacy of information transfer means there are no such breaks.

Further, the Internet bought us information, but at a cost. The morass of information means that there is as much poor information available as trustworthy sources. There is a delicate line to walk when core nations seek to bring the assumed benefits of modernization to more traditional cultures. For one, there are obvious procapitalist biases that go into such attempts, and it is short-sighted for western governments and social scientists to assume all other countries aspire to follow in their footsteps. Additionally, there can be a kind of neo-liberal defense of rural cultures, ignoring the often crushing poverty and diseases that exist in peripheral nations and focusing only on a nostalgic mythology of the happy peasant. It takes a very careful hand to understand both the need for cultural identity and preservation as well as the hopes for future growth.

Think It Over

1. Consider one of the major social movements of the twentieth century, from civil rights in the United States to Gandhi's nonviolent protests in India. How would technology have changed it? Would change have come more quickly or more slowly? Defend your opinion.

2. Discuss the digital divide in the context of modernization. Is there a real concern that poorer communities are lacking in technology? Why, or why not?

3. Which theory do you think better explains the global economy: dependency theory (global inequity is due to the exploitation of peripheral and semi-peripheral nations by core nations) or modernization theory? Remember to justify your answer and provide specific examples.

4. Do you think that modernization is good or bad? Explain, using examples.

Self-Check: Collective Behavior and Social Movements

You'll have more success on the Self-Check, if you've completed the six Readings in this section.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Collective behavior and social movements are just two of the forces driving social change, which is the change in society created through social movements as well as external factors like environmental shifts or technological innovations. Essentially, any disruptive shift in the status quo, be it intentional or random, human-caused or natural, can lead to social change.

# data[].attributes.headline
Changing Times: How Americans spend their day reflects a shifting economy and population

# data[].attributes.subject
Changing Times: How Americans spend their day reflects a shifting economy and population

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Height shows the average hours spent on each activity each day

Intensity shows the rise or fall in minutes spent per activity, since 2003

Americans are sleeping more and working less

Americans overall are working less and sleeping more than they were a decade ago, trends that point to an aging population and fewer people in the workforce. But among those who have a job, people are working more. And in general, men spend more time than women on leisure activities, while women sleep about a half-hour more each day.

The annual American Time Use Survey, released on Friday from the Labor Department, breaks down how Americans spend their days by a number of characteristics, including employment status, gender, age and whether children are in the home.

The average American spent 3 hours and 32 minutes a day working or commuting to work last year, including weekends. That's down from 3 hours and 42 minutes in 2005 and is four minutes less than in 2014.

Meanwhile, Americans slept an average of 8 hours and 50 minutes a day in 2015, 13 minutes more than a decade earlier and two minutes more than in 2014. Leisure time-5 hours and 13 minutes a day on activities including watching television, socializing and exercise-fell by five minutes from 2014 but is still five minutes more than a decade earlier.

"Individuals who are out of the labor force, either because they're discouraged from finding a job or are in poor health, are sleeping more and reducing the overall time Americans work," said Liana Sayer, director of the Time Use Laboratory at the University of Maryland.

Those with jobs are working slightly more and have less leisure time

While the overall figures run counter to the notion that Americans have less free time, those with jobs are working slightly more. On weekdays, Americans with full-time jobs spent 8 hours and 8 minutes a day working or traveling to work, five minutes more than a decade earlier.

Dr. Sayer, a sociology professor, said the survey's underlying figures show a widening split. Those without jobs and those with less education are spending more time sleeping and watching television, offsetting increased time on the job for many better-educated workers.

Those with jobs dedicate 8 hours and 52 minutes to sleep and personal time on weekdays, a figure that increased by seven minutes from a year earlier. But they still sleep much less than those without jobs, who spent more than 10 hours per weekday sleeping or on personal care. "Not employed" people includes those who are looking for work and who are retired or otherwise choose not to work.

The jobless spend three hours more each day than working adults watching television or other leisure activities. That group, however, dedicates more than an hour a day to education, versus almost nothing for those with a job, and twice as much time on household activities.

Men are taking on more chores, but women still do the bulk of household tasks

Women spent 2 hours and 14 minutes on household activities last year, while men only spent 1 hour and 26 minutes on the same chores. The amount of time men spend on housework has increased from a decade earlier. But Dr. Sayer said that doesn't show a more equal distribution of domestic responsibilities-rather, it shows more men are living by themselves.

The average woman works 76 fewer minutes a day than the average man. That largely reflects that a smaller share of women- 56.7% in May -are in the labor force, compared with 68.9% for men.

Both men and women worked less per day in 2015 than they did in 2007, when the recession began.

Younger Americans spend more of their time asleep and at school, compared with older adults

Americans overall are sleeping more, possibly because of the aging population. But it's the youngest group surveyed-those between 15 and 24 years old-who sleep the most. The group spends 10 hours and 24 minutes on sleep and other personal care. Adults who are 65 and older spend just under 10 hours on those activities.

The younger group, most of whom are high school and colleges students, do spend much more of their time on education-2 hours and 14 minutes a day-and less on leisure. Those over 65 spend 7 hours and 14 minutes on leisure, mainly watching television.

Those with children have more care responsibilities, but sleep nearly as much as those without kids

Americans with children under 18 years old in their homes spend more time caring for family members-just under an hour and a half-than those with no children. That group only spends four minutes caring for family members.

Parents and others in homes with children sleep less and have less personal time-9 hours, 26 minutes-than those without children, who spend 14 more minutes on those activities. Among adults living in households with children under age 6, women spent one hour providing physical care, such as bathing or feeding a child. Men spent half that time (25 minutes) providing such care.

Other highlights from the survey

The latest data showed remote work is becoming more popular. On the days employed people worked in 2015, 24% did at least some tasks from home, up from 19% in 2003, the survey's first year. In this same period, people with a job worked on average 40 more minutes each workday.

On an average day, 22% of men did general housework, compared with half of women. But men are cooking and cleaning more: The share of men preparing food and cleaning their homes increased to 43% last year from about one-third in 2003.

Men spend 43 minutes more a day on leisure activities, including watching TV. Women sleep slightly more-about 25 minutes extra per day.

What is the American Time Use Survey?

The American Time Use Survey is designed to show the average day for an American ages 15 or older. In 2015, nearly 11,000 people were interviewed, the Labor Department said.

Respondents are assigned a day of the week about which to report. The interview creates a "diary" of how each person spent the previous day from 4 a.m. until 4 a.m. on the day of the interview.

For each activity, respondents are asked how long the activity lasted, where they were and who was with them. If respondents report doing more than one activity at a time, they are asked to identify which one was the "main" activity.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Height shows the average hours spent on each activity each day Intensity shows the rise or fall in minutes spent per activity, since 2003 Americans are sleeping more and working less Americans overall are working less and sleeping more than they were a decade ago, trends that point to an aging population and fewer people in the workforce.

# data[].attributes.headline
Life is Getting Better: Societal Evolution and Fit with Human Nature

# data[].attributes.subject
Life is Getting Better: Societal Evolution and Fit with Human Nature

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Social Indicators Research

Abstract

Human society has changed much over the last centuries and this process of 'modernization' has profoundly affected the lives of individuals; currently we live quite different lives from those forefathers lived only five generations ago. There is difference of opinion as to whether we live better now than before and consequently there is also disagreement as to whether we should continue modernizing or rather try to slow the process down. Quality-of-life in a society can be measured by how long and happy its inhabitants live. Using these indicators I assess whether societal modernization has made life better or worse. Firstly I examine findings of present day survey research. I start with a cross-sectional analysis of 143 nations in the years 2000-2008 and find that people live longer and happier in today's most modern societies. Secondly I examine trends in modern nations over the last decade and find that happiness and longevity have increased in most cases. Thirdly I consider the long-term and review findings from historical anthropology, which show that we lived better in the early hunter-gatherer society than in the later agrarian society. Together these data suggest that societal evolution has worked out differently for the quality of human life, first negatively, in the change from a hunter-gatherer existence to agriculture, and next positively, in the more recent transformation from an agrarian to an industrial society. We live now longer and happier than ever before.

Keywords: Quality-of-life, Life expectancy, Happiness, Evolution, Progress

Introduction

The human species has lived for most of its time in simple hunter-gatherer societies. Agrarian societies developed less than 5.000 years ago and it is only in the last 200 years that a 'modern' industrial society has come into being. Today this industrial society is rapidly transforming into a global information society.

Is this societal evolution a change for the better? There has always been much controversy over this question, and currently the dispute seems more intense than ever, possibly for the reason that we are more aware today that society is of our making and because social change is taking place at an ever increasing rate. One of the issues in this ongoing debate is the quality-of-life in modern society.1 Progress optimists believe that we live better now than earlier generations, while pessimists argue that life is getting worse.

The Positive View

The idea that life is getting better draws on several achievements of modern society. One is the unprecedented rise in the material standard of living; the average citizen lives more comfortably now than kings did a few centuries ago. Another improvement that strikes the eye is that the chance of an untimely death is greatly reduced; ever fewer people die in accidents and epidemics and fewer are murdered. A number of social evils have been abated, such as poverty, inequality, ignorance and oppression. A recent statement of this view can be found in 'It's getting better all the time' by Moore and Simon ( 2000).

This notion of improvement is typically part of an evolutionary view, in which society is seen as a human tool that is gradually perfected. This idea developed during the period of enlightenment in the 18th century and lives today. The idea that we can improve society by 'social engineering' is part of this belief and forms the ideological basis of many major contemporary institutions, such as the welfare state and development aid organizations. This journal of 'Social Indicators Research' roots in that movement.

The idea that life is getting better breaks with the traditional religious view of earthly life as a phase of penance awaiting paradise in the afterlife. It is deemed possible to reduce suffering by creating a better world and societal development is seen to head in that way, be it with some ups and downs.

The Negative View

The view that life is getting worse is typically fuelled by concern about contemporary social problems. One kind of problems is deviant behavior, such as criminality, drug use and school refusal. Another group of problems seen to reduce the quality of life is social conflicts, such as labor disputes, ethnic troubles and political terrorism. The decline of the influence of the church, the family and the local community are also seen to impoverish the quality of life of modern people, as are the rising divorce rates. A recent statement of this view is found in Easterbrook ( 2003) 'The progress paradox'.

This notion of decay is often part of the idea of society drifting away from human nature, because society has changed a lot, while human nature has not. In this view society is not a piece of equipment, but rather an uncontrollable force that presses humans into a way of life that does not really fit them. The idea that life is getting worse fits a long tradition of social criticism and apocalyptic prophecies. In this view paradise is lost and is unlikely to be restored.

Dominance of the Negative View

The negative view prevails in most discussions, both in social scientific discourse and in public opinion.

Themes in Classic Social Theory

Many renowned social theorists were typically not very positive about the quality-of-life in modern society. For instance, Marx ( 1871) prophesied that the blind forces of capitalism would result in a process of 'Verelendung' (miserysation), the working class getting ever poorer and larger. In this line Braverman ( 1974) argued that mechanization and specialization have 'degraded' work in the 20th century.

Sociologist Emile Durkheim ( 1897) was also not very positive and observed growing moral disorientation, which he called 'anomie'. In his view, the modernization process disrupts the communal basis of morality, amongst other things because social control is reduced, and he provided evidence that this development had boosted suicide rates. Many later sociologists echo this view. Appealing books written in this tradition include Riesman's ( 1950) "Lonely crowd", Ritzer's ( 1993) "The McDonaldization of society" and Putnam's ( 2000) "Bowling alone". Sociologists have become more negative about modern society over the last decade, an analysis of the sociological abstracts showed a doubling in the use of gloomy words between 1970 and 2000 (Elchardus 2004: 507).

In psychology Freud ( 1930) provides an outspoken example of the theory that life is getting worse. In his book "Unbehagen in der Kultur" (society and its discontents) Freud asserts that any social organization requires the repression of instinctual urges, and that the development of modern society necessitates ever more repression of natural impulses. Hence he believed that societal civilization is antithetical to human happiness and that we are typically less happy than our primitive forefathers. Likewise, some evolutionary psychologists believe that natural selection cannot keep pace with societal development (e.g., Nesse 2004:1343).

Focus in Social Reporting

Social statistics deal with misery in the first place. There are statistics for accidents rates, suicide rates, depression rates, drug abuse, victimization and poverty, but few for enjoyment of life.2 Moreover social reports tend to emphasize negative trends on these matters. This is at least the case in current western society; in the former communist countries social statistics were typically used to emphasize positive developments in an attempt to conceal a deteriorating quality-of-life.

Majority in Public Opinion

Survey studies in modern nations show wide support for the idea that life was better in the 'good old days'. In the USA the majority agrees with the statement "In spite of what some people say, the lot of the average man is getting worse, not better". Support for this idea is growing, the percent affirmative answers rose from about 55% in the 1970s to 70% in the early 1990s. Curiously, this idea is not reflected in self-reports of an individual's own life, since most people feel that the quality of their personal life has improved (Hagerty 2003).

Relevance of the Issue

This discussion is not just some academic matter to be argued over in ivory towers; it has profound policy implications. If modernization makes society less livable, we should try to stop the process, or at least to slow it down. Conservatives have a strong point in this case and can convincingly argue for restorative policies. However, if modernization tends to improve the quality-of-life, we better go along, which would rather fit the liberal political agenda. In the latter case there is also ground to further modernization, which would support various reformist tendencies in advanced nations and justifies missionary activities such as 'development aid' for 'under-developed' nations.

Measurement of Quality of Life

How can we assess whether life gets better or worse? This first requires a clear definition of quality-of-life and next a feasible operationalisation of this concept.

Concepts of 'Quality of Life'

The term 'quality-of-life' serves as a catchword for different notions of the good life. It is used in fact to denote a bunch of quali ties of life, which can be ordered on the basis of the following two distinctions.

A first distinction is between opportunities for a good life and the outcomes of life. This distinction is quite common in the field of public-health research. Pre-conditions for good health, such as adequate nutrition and professional care are seldom mixed up with the concept of health. A second difference is between external and inner qualities. In the first case the quality is in the environment, in the latter it is in the individual. This distinction is also quite common in public health. External pathogens are distinguished from inner afflictions. Combining of these two dichotomies yields a fourfold matrix, presented in Fig. 1 .

In the upper half of the figure, we see, next to the outer opportunities in one's environment, the inner capacities required to exploit these. The environmental conditions can be denoted by the term livability, the personal capacities with the word life-ability. This difference is not new. In sociology, the distinction between 'social capital' and 'psychological capital' is sometimes used in this context, and in the psychology of stress the difference is labeled negatively in terms of 'burden' and 'bearing power'.

The lower half of the figure is about the quality of life with respect to its outcomes. These outcomes can be judged by their value for one's environment and by their value for oneself. The external worth of a life is denoted by the term utility of life. The inner valuation of a life is called enjoyment of life. These matters are of course related. Knowing that one's life is useful will typically add to ones appreciation of life. Yet useful-lives are not always happy lives and not every 'good-for-nothing' is unhappy.

Livability of the Environment

The left top quadrant denotes the meaning of good living conditions, which I call 'livability'. One could also speak of the 'habitability' of an environment, though that term is also used for the quality of housing in particular. Elsewhere I have explored the concept of livability in more detail (Veenhoven 1996:7-9).

Ecologists see livability in the natural environment and describe it in terms of pollution, global warming and degradation of nature. Currently, they associate livability typically with environmental preservation. City planners see livability in the built environment and associate it with sewer systems, traffic jams and ghettos. Here the good life is seen to be the fruit of human intervention. In public health this all is referred to as a 'sane' environment.

Society is central in the sociological view. Firstly, livability is associated with the quality of society as a whole. Classic concepts of the 'good society' stress material welfare and social equality, sometimes equating the concept more or less with the welfare state. Current communitaristic notions emphasize close networks, strong norms and active voluntary associations. The reverse of this livability concept is 'social fragmentation'. Secondly, livability is seen in one's position in society. For a long time, the emphasis was on the 'under-class' but currently attention is shifting to the 'outer-class'. The corresponding antonyms are 'deprivation' and 'exclusion'.

Life-Ability of the Person

The right top quadrant denotes inner life-chances. That is: how well we are equipped to cope with the problems of life. I call this 'life-ability', which contrasts elegantly with 'livability'.

The most common depiction of this quality of life is an absence of functional defects. This is 'health' in the limited sense, sometimes referred to as 'negative health'. In this context, doctors focus on unimpaired functioning of the body, while psychologists stress the absence of mental defects. This use of words presupposes a 'normal' level of functioning. A good quality of life is seen to be the body and mind working as designed. This is the common meaning used in curative care.

Next to absence of disease, one can consider excellence of function. This is referred to as 'positive health' and associated with energy and resilience. Psychological concepts of positive mental health also involve autonomy, reality control, creativity and inner synergy of traits and strivings. This broader definition is the favorite of the training professions and is central to the 'positive psychology' movement.

Utility of Life

The left bottom quadrant represents the notion that a good life must be good for something more than itself. I refer to these external turnouts as the 'utility' of life. When evaluating the external effects of a life, one can consider its functionality for the environment. In this context, doctors stress how essential a patient's life is to their intimates. At a higher level, quality of life is seen as a contribution to society. Historians see quality in the additions an individual can make to human culture, and rate for example the lives of great inventors higher than those of anonymous peasants. Moralists see quality in the preservation of the moral order, and would deem the life of a saint to be better than that of a sinner. In this vein, the quality of a life is also linked to effects on the ecosystem. Ecologists see more quality in a life lived in a 'sustainable' manner than in the life of a polluter.

Enjoyment of Life

Finally, the bottom right quadrant represents the inner outcomes of life. That is the quality of life in the eye of the beholder. As we deal with conscious humans, this quality boils down to subjective appreciation of life. This is commonly referred to by terms such as 'subjective wellbeing', 'life-satisfaction' and 'happiness' in a limited sense of the word.

Humans are capable of evaluating their life in different ways. We have, in common with all higher animals, an ability to appraise our situation affectively. We feel good or bad about particular things and our mood level signals overall adaptation. As in animals these affective appraisals are automatic, but unlike other animals, humans can reflect on this experience. We have an idea of how we have felt over the last year, while a cat does not. Humans can also judge life cognitively by comparing life as it is with notions of how it should be.

Happiness can be defined as the degree to which a person evaluates the overall quality of his or her present life-as-a-whole positively. In other words, how much the person likes the life he/she leads.3 This evaluation appears to draw on affective information in the first place, if people appraise how happy there are, they estimate how well they feel most of the time (Veenhoven 2009b).

Analogous Concepts in Biology

In evolutionary biology, external living conditions are referred to as the 'biotope' or 'habitat'. A biotope can be a more or less suitable for a species, depending on e.g., availability of food, shelter and competition. This is analogous to what I call 'livability'. An organism's capability to survive in the environment is called 'fitness' by biologists. This latter term acknowledges the fact that the capabilities must meet (fit) environmental demand. This is equivalent to what I call 'life-ability'. With respect to outcomes of life biologists also distinguish between external and internal effects. External effects are various ecological functions, such as being prey for other creatures, and the continuation of the species. This is analogous to what I call the 'utility' of life. The outcome of life for the organism itself is depicted as 'survival', which is seen to result from the fit between capabilities and environment. This notion corresponds to what I call 'enjoyment of life'. Below I will argue that this is more than mere correspondence, because subjective enjoyment is also a signal of good adaptation. These biological concepts are summarized in Fig. 2 .

Measuring Quality of Life

Quality of life in nations is usually measured using indexes that involve indicators from each of the quadrants in Fig. 1 , for instance the human development index (UNDP 1990) includes income per head (top left), education (top right) and life expectancy (bottom right). Yet this makes no sense and the figures help us to see why not.

Comprehensive Measurement not Possible

Quality of life cannot be measured by totaling quadrants. There is no point in combining the qualities in the upper and the lower half of the figure, since this involves the adding of chances and outcomes. Combining the qualities at the left and the right makes little sense either and in particular not in the case of life chances, where it is not the sum that matters, but rather the fit between external conditions and inner capacities.

Still another problem is that three of these four qualities cannot be measured very well. We can only make guesses about the features that constitute the livability of an environment and it is also quite difficult to establish what abilities are most required. Though it is clear that some necessities must be met, it is not so clear what is required on top of these, and in what quantities and in what mix. Measuring the utility of life is not really feasible either, since external effects are quite diverse and often difficult to assess. Due to this lack of sound scientific criteria, any measurements depend very much on assumption and ideology and hence there is little agreement how to measure these qualities of life.

Measuring happiness is less problematic however. Since happiness is an overall judgment of life, we cease to have the problem of trying to add and compare apples and oranges: as happiness a state of mind for an individual we can assess it rather easily by asking that person how happy he or she feels.

Most Inclusive Measure is How Long and Happy People Live

In biology, 'survival' is assumed to result from the 'fit' between the abilities of the organism and environmental demands. This fit cannot be observed as such, but is typically inferred from survival rates. If an organism perishes before its programmed lifetime, there is apparently something wrong with this chance constellation.

In this line we can also infer the life chances in a human society from the outcomes in happiness. If people live happily, their environment is apparently sufficiently livable and their abilities appropriate. This may not appeal to supporters of the theory that happiness is a culturally constructed illusion,4 but it fits well with the view that happiness is a biological signal of how well we thrive.5

In simple animals, good adaptation reflects only in survival, in higher animals, good adaptation also reflects in hedonic experience. Negative affect is indicative of poor adaptation and tends to inhibit the organism, while positive affect is indicative of good adaptation and works as a 'go' signal (Frederickson 1998; Nesse 2004). So, an animal that does not feel good is probably not doing well.

This inner experience is no great issue in biology, because we cannot assess how animals feel. Still there is ground to see hedonic experience as an additional manifestation of good adaptation and in this vein one could argue that an animal that feels well most of its lifetime seems to be better adapted than an animal that lives equally long but feels less well. Humans are capable of reflecting on their experiences, and can condense positive and negative affects into an overall appraisal of happiness. They are also capable of communicating that appraisal to investigators. Hence in the case of humans we can use the additional sign of good adaptation and assess how long and happy they live.

The degree to which people live long and happy is denoted in the right bottom quadrant in Fig. 1 and is the most inclusive measure of outcomes of life for the individual. It is also indicative for the qualities denoted by the two top quadrants. If people live long and happy, their environment is apparently livable and their life-abilities must be adequate. So, this measure covers in fact three of the four quadrants and is therefore the most comprehensive measure of quality-of-life available. I have underpinned this position in more detail elsewhere and distinguished this measure of 'apparent' quality-of-life from currents counts of 'presumed' blessing (Veenhoven 1996, 2000a).

Measure of Happy Life Years

The degree to which people live long and happy in a society can be measured by combining two sources of information: average longevity in the country and average happiness.

Measurement of Longevity in Nations

How long people live in a country can be assessed using civil registration and by assessing the average number of years between birth and death. This will give an adequate measure for past generations, but not for those still alive. Hence, a next step is to estimate how long the living remain alive and these estimates can be generalized to give a general population average. This estimate is called 'life expectancy' and is commonly used in world health statistics. Data is available for almost all countries in the world and yearly updates are published in the human development reports (UNDP 2008).

Measurement of Happiness in Nations

Happiness was defined as subjective enjoyment of one's life as a whole. Since that is something people have in mind, it can be measured using questioning. A common survey question is: Since the 1970's, such questions have been included in many surveys worldwide and there is now a growing body of data on happiness in nations. Presently there are comparable surveys in 143 nations. The data have been brought together in the 'World Database of Happiness ( 2009)', collection of 'Happiness in Nations'(Veenhoven 2009a).

There are many qualms about such simple self-reports of happiness, in particular about their validity and about comparability across nations. Elsewhere I have considered the objections and inspected the empirical evidence for claims about bias (Veenhoven 1993). I found no proof for any of the objections, so I assume that happiness can be measured in this way. Others have come to the same conclusion (Diener 1994; Saris et al. 1998). Suffice to note that cross-national differences in happiness correspond in the predicted way with national rates of depression (VanHemert et al. 2002), and suicide (Helliwell 2007).

Combination with Longevity

How long and happy people live in a country can be measured by combining information about length of life, drawn from civil registrations of births and deaths, with data on average appreciation of life as assessed in surveys. The following simple formula can be applied:

Suppose that life expectancy in a country is 60 years, and that the average score on a 0-10-step happiness scale is 5. Converted to a 0-1 scale, the happiness score is than 0.5. The product of 60 and 0.5 is 30. So the number of happy life years is 30 in that country. If life expectancy is also 60 years but average happiness 8, the number of happy life years is 48 (60 × 0.8).

Theoretically, this indicator has a broad variation. The number of happy life years is zero if nobody can live in the country, and will be endless if society is ideal or its inhabitants immortal. The practical range is between about 10 and 70 years. Presently at least, life expectancy at birth in nations varies between 40 and 80 years, while average happiness varies between 0.3 and 0.8. The number of happy-life-years (HLY) will always be lower than standard life expectancy. It can equal real length of life only if everybody is perfectly happy in a country (score 1 on scale 0 to 1).

A high HLY means that citizens live both long and happily; a low HLY implies that the life of the average citizen is short and miserable. Medium HLY values can mean three things: (1) both moderate length-of-life and moderate appreciation-of-life, (2) long but unhappy life, and (3) short but happy life. I treat these intermediate outcomes as equal, but one can of course prefer one to the other.

I have described this indicator in more detail elsewhere (Veenhoven 1996, 2000a, 2005a). It scored highest in a scholarly review of social indicators (Hagerty et al. 2001).

Quality of Life in Modern Society

Using this indicator, we can now answer the question whether life is getting better or worse in modern society. For this purpose I will first compare the quality-of-life in more and less modern nations in the early 2000s. Next consider the available data on trends over the last decades.

Difference Between More and Less Modern Nations

The present day world counts about 180 nation states and for 143 of these we know how long and how happy its citizens lived in the period 2000-2008 (Veenhoven 2009c). These cases cover about 90% of the world's population.

The level of modernity or 'development' of these nations can be measured in different ways; since there are different views on the essence of modernity, there are also different indicators of the matter. Some focus on the mode of production and measure modernity by the ratio of agrarian and industrial production, whereas others see mental development as the core and measure modernity using the average level of education. There are also several multi dimensional indicators of modernity, such as the human development index mentioned above and the index of social progress (Estes 1984). All these measures appear to be highly correlated with buying power per head (UNPD 2008), and since this measure is available for all the nations I use it in this analysis.

In the scattergram of Fig. 3 , the number of happy life years is plotted vertically and income per head horizontally. One can easily see that there is a strong correlation, HLY being systematically higher in rich nations than in poor ones. The correlation is +0.85. Other indicators of modernity yield similar results. HLY is also positively correlated with industrialization (r = +0.44), education (r = +0.73), urbanization (r = +0.74), and also with individualization (r = + 0.74). The correlations are strong and leave no doubt that people live longer and happier in the most modern societies. This point is elaborated in more detail elsewhere (Heylighen and Bernheim 2000; Diener and Diener 1996).

The pattern is similar if we consider happiness and longevity separately. The correlation of modernity, as measured by income per head, with average happiness is +0.78 and the correlation with life-expectancy +0.67. These effects are largely independent; controlling for life expectancy, the partial correlation of modernity with happiness is still +0.60. Controlling for happiness, the partial correlation of modernity with life-expectancy is much less, but still +0.23. This independence of the effects is another justification for the use of this combined measure of happy life years.

Trend of Happy Life Years in Modern Nations over the Last Decades

The differences observed in the cross-sectional analysis above could be due to intervening variables, for example they may be due to the fact that modern nations are mainly found in moderate climate zones or to variation in genetic endowment. Such distortions can be controlled for if we compare over time within separate nations. If life is getting better, this must also manifest in a positive trend.

Assessment of the development in HLY in nations requires trend data on happiness and life expectancy. In the case of life expectancy this is no problem, since considerable time series are available for many nations. Time series on happiness are less abundant however. Series of 30 years or longer and based on identical survey questions are available for only 11 nations and these are all highly developed ones. These nations are: the USA since 1945, Japan since 1958 and for the first nine member states of the European Union since 1973.6 Trend lines are presented in Fig. 4 and reveal a spectacular rise in happy life years in the modern world. Over the last 35 years, Americans came to live 6.5 more happy years, the Japanese 5 and West-Europeans 4.6 more happy life years.

In Japan and the USA, his rise in HLY is largely due to rising longevity, the level of happiness having remained about the same.7 In the EU nations, the rise is also produced by an increase in average happiness. A look at trends in other countries of the world shows an almost universal rise of longevity over these years (WHO 2008), which is in most countries paralleled by a rise in average happiness (Veenhoven 2009a).

This upward trend is not the result of the happy getting happier, but rather the result of a reduction in the number of very unhappy persons in the population. This manifests in a lowering of the standard deviations in all nations, also in the ones where the average remained at the same level (Veenhoven 2005b). Likewise, the gains in longevity are greater at the bottom of the distribution than at the top. So the rise in degree of quality-of-life went together with a reduction of inequality in quality of life.

All this shows that life is getting better rather than worse, at least in the most modern nations of today.

Temporary Drops

This is not to say that life has got better in all countries during the last decades. Happiness and longevity dramatically plunged in the former communist countries in the 1990s, in particular in Russia (Veenhoven 2001), probably in response to the sudden transformations in these societies. The latest data suggest that the post-communist nadir is passed (Baltatescu 2006). We see this also in the case of Russia in Fig. 4 .

One must also realize that the effects of economic development are less smooth than suggested in Fig. 3 . In some cases at least, early industrialization was accompanied by a shortening of life and even by a reduction in average body size (Komlos 1998). The wide variation in the left half of Fig. 3 can be interpreted as an indication that similar things are happening in today's developing nations. Further it is beyond doubt that progress causes the 'pain of incomprehension' during periods of transition (Hays 1994).

Quality-of-Live over Human History

The above evidence concerns contemporary societies and does not rule out that quality-of-life has been better in earlier times. All the cases considered are modern to some extent. Hence these data cannot settle the question of whether we would have lived better in an ancient society.

One way to check this would be to look at the quality-of-life in present day 'primitive' societies. Yet there are few such societies today and the few that remain are to be found in poor ecological conditions, impinged on by 'modern' society to their detriment. Moreover, the last century's anthropological research does not give us a clear picture of the quality-of-life in the primitive societies that were surveyed. There are accounts of positive features in such societies, such as Mead's ( 1953) description of relaxed sexual practices in Samoa, but there is also evidence of rampant evils, such as violence and superstition (Edgerton 1992). Anthropologists have never attempted to assess happiness, possibly because of their belief in cultural relativism (Thin 2008). Recently psychologists Biswas-Diener et al. ( 2005) did better in study on happiness among the Inughuit, the Amesh and the Maasai, in which they found the herding Maasai to be about as happy as people in modern western societies, while the agricultural Amesh appeared to be much less happy.

More important clues can be found in historical anthropology and in particular in work by Maryanski and Turner ( 1992) and Sanderson ( 1995). This literature departs from the insight that the human species developed in the context of hunter-gatherer bands and that this type of social organization prevailed for most of the 50.000 years that Homo sapiens has existed. More complex kinds of societies seem to have developed only fairly recently in human history, first horticultural societies, then agrarian societies and finally our present day industrial society, which is rapidly becoming post-industrial in the west (Lenski et al. 1995, Chap. 1). There are good indications that these types of societies were not equally livable, and in particular that the agrarian phase marked a historic dip in human quality-of-life.

Less Free in Agrarian Society

One indication is that the development of freedom seems to have followed a U-curve over human history. Hunter-gatherer societies can impose few constraints on their members, since dissenters can support themselves for a while and join other bands. Accumulation of wealth and power is difficult in these conditions and hence this kind of society tends to be free and egalitarian.

This changes profoundly in an agrarian society, where survival requires control of the land and people became more dependent on their family and vulnerable to exploitation by a warrior caste. According to Maryanski and Turner ( 1992) this drove mankind into the 'social cage' of collectivistic society. In their view, such strong social bonds are less required in the context of industrial existence, among other things because the ongoing division of labor involves a shift of dependencies to anonymous institutions such as the state. Durkheim ( 1897) described that latter phenomenon as the change from 'mechanic solidarity' to 'organic solidarity'.

This theory fits the above observation that people live happier in the most modern societies of this time and in particular it fits the observed relation between happiness and freedom in nations (Veenhoven 1999). It also provides an explanation for the ongoing migration from the land to cities.

Less healthy in Agrarian Society

Another sign of the low quality-of-life in agrarian society can be found in anthropometric indicators of health. The average health of past generations can to some extend be reconstructed from human remains. On the basis of excavated bones and teeth we can estimate how long people have lived and to some degree how healthy they were when they lived.

Research along these lines suggests that people lived about equally long in early hunter-gatherer societies and later agrarian societies, but that they lived more healthily in the former than in the latter. Hunter-gatherers appear to have been better-nourished and less disease ridden than historical agrarian populations and they seem to have been less burdened with work. Much of the literature on this subject is reviewed in Sanderson ( 1995: 340-343). Apparently, the obvious advantages of a sedentary pastoral life are counter balanced in some way, amongst other things probably by increased exposure to disease and to social stress. Present day industrial societies score better on anthropometric indicators than both of the other types do. We live longer and healthier than ever and also grow taller than our forefathers ever did.

Such historical data cover health and longevity and can be combined in an index of healthy life years that concurs with the measure of 'disability adjusted life years' that is currently used by the WHO ( 2004). This resembles the 'happy life years' I used in the above analysis of contemporary nations, but it is not quite the same. Since survey research is a recent invention we will probably never know how happy people were in the past. Hence we must make do with the available data on health and longevity. Still, these matters appear to be strongly correlated with happiness8 and both can be seen as manifestations of human thriving.

If we consider the data on longevity it is also easy to see that our forefathers cannot have lived as many happy years as we do now. The average length of life was about 45, both in a hunter-gatherer society and in an agrarian society. This means that the HLY could not be higher than 45, even if everybody was perfectly happy. This is clearly below the level in present day modern nations, where HLY varies between 50 and 60 (cf. Fig. 3 ).

Long Term Pattern

Together these data suggest that societal evolution has worked out differently on the quality of human life, first negatively in the change from hunter-gatherer existence to agriculture and next positively in the recent transformation from an agrarian to an industrial society. This pattern is depicted graphically in Fig. 5 .

It is not unlikely that the upward trend will continue in the future, both happiness and longevity are likely to rise. Currently average happiness ranges between 3.2 (Tanzania) and 8.5 (Iceland). This means that there is still much to win. There is no reason to assume that Tanzania cannot reach the level of Iceland. The maximally possible average may be close to 9. An average of 10 in a nation is clearly not possible, not only because human life involves inevitable suffering but also because no society can serve everybody's needs equally well.

It is also quite likely that longevity will continue to rise. The underdeveloped nations are catching up at an unprecedented rate, and there is reason to expect that longevity will further extend in the developed world, among other things as the result of medical technology. There is speculation that the average life might be extended to 100 years or more (Manton et al. 1991; Vaupel and Lundström 1993). For the time being at least, gains in length of life have not come at the cost of quality of life. Elderly people are slightly happier than the middle-aged. The dotted trend line at the right side of Fig. 5 depicts these projections.

Discussion

These findings raise several questions: one is about compatibility with claims to the contrary and in particular with reports of alarming rises in rates of depression in modern society. A second question is what are the mechanisms behind the recent rise in the quality of human life and the third is to ask why progress pessimism still prevails in the social sciences.

No 'Loss of Happiness in Market Democracies'?

The results of this study directly contradict those of Lane ( 2000). In his much-cited book 'The loss of happiness in advanced market democracies' Lane presents evidence of declining happiness using similar survey data. How does he come to such a different conclusion? The first answer is that Lane considers only the case of the USA. As noted in section 3.2, happiness has remained at the same level in this country, while it has risen in several other western nations. Secondly, Lane presents data for an era when happiness declined slightly in the USA, i.e., the years 1972-1994. When we consider all the available data for the USA (1946-2002), we see no decline. Thirdly, Lane only considers the trend for 'very happy' responses and thus fails to acknowledge that the percentage of 'unhappy' responses has declined. Ott ( 2001) has discussed these flaws in more detail. Lastly, Lane does not acknowledge that Americans live longer now and that this is a blessing given their high level of happiness. In his eagerness to promote 'the medicine of more companionship', Lane has overstated the disease.

No Contradiction with Rising Rates of Depression?

Mental illness is no exception in modern societies, about 16% of the US citizens have experienced episodes of serious depression and every year depression interferes with effective functioning of some 6% of them for two weeks or more (Kessler et al. 2003). There are signs of increasing rates of depression, especially among youth and there is talk about a depression epidemic (Seligman 1990: 10). How does this fit with a rising number of happy life years?

The first thing to note is that depression is strongly correlated with happiness. Depressed individuals are clearly less happy and there is a strong correlation between rates of depression and average happiness in nations (VanHemert et al. 2002). A second point to keep in mind is that depression is temporary in most cases, and good times can balance the bad times. Thirdly, we are not sure that the rate of depression has risen. There is an increase in the numbers for people diagnosed as being depressed, but this may due to better recognition by professionals of the signs of depression and by better treatments being available to cure depression. It is possible that depression is less well recognized in under developed nations, not only because the people are less aware of the syndrome, but also because bad feelings can be more easily attributed to bad conditions. However it is also possible that in modern societies people are more aware of how they feel, because they have more choice and use how they feel more to help them to assess what they want. If there is a real rise in rates of depression in modern society, that can still co-exist with a rise in average happiness. Modernization can be to the advantage of a majority, but can come at the expense of a minority who are pushed into depression; no society can suit the needs of all equally well. If this has happened at all, it has not resulted in a split between happy and unhappy, since the dispersion of happiness is lessening in modern societies (Veenhoven 2005b).

Why is life getting better?

The observed growth of years lived happily and healthily can be attributed to several factors. One is obviously that several common evils of the past have been overcome in modern societies or at least much abated. For instance, few in the West die of hunger anymore and the chance of being killed is greatly reduced. A second factor is in the increased freedom in modern individualized society. The social system allows us more opportunity to choose and we have also become more capable of making choices which, taken together, has increased our chance that we will live a life that fits our individual needs (Veenhoven 1999). This links up with a third explanation, which is that modern society provides a challenging environment that fits an innate human need for self-actualization. In this view, the human species evolved in rather tough conditions and therefore typically thrives in modern society with its complexities, competition and choices.9 Probably, increased self-understanding has also contributed to the quality-of-life of modern man. Lastly, a more 'critical' explanation could be that the modern nations successfully exploit the rest of the world. There may be some truth in this contention, but life is also getting better in most non-western nations. Most of the poor countries became less poor over the last decade and life expectancy is also rising in most countries (UNDP 2002, 2004).

Why then do we still believe that life is getting worse?

This leaves us with the question of why so many people think that our quality of life is decreasing and, in particular, why this belief is so strong among trained society watchers.

One answer to this question is that we tend to overestimate present problems; yesterday's problems are not only less vivid in our minds, but we also know that we survived them. This may link up with an innate tendency to be alert to signs of danger. This perceptual bias is enhanced by the professional interest of journalists and social scientists who earn their living dealing with social problems and for that reason tend to emphasize evil. These tendencies seem to veil our awareness of actual improvements in the quality of the life we live. Possibly this works as a self-denying prophecy; the overstatement of problems results in timely solutions.

Conclusion

Societal evolution has not always improved the quality of life. The change from hunter-gatherer bands to agrarian society seems to have involved deterioration, but the later transition to modern industrial society brought a change for the better. We now live longer and are healthier than ever before and we are probably also happier. There are good reasons to believe that this trend will continue in the near future.

Open Access

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.

Footnotes

¹The quality of individual life in society is only one of the themes in a wider debate about the quality of society and in fact a rather recent theme. Most of the discourse about societal development is about power, contribution to human civilization and moral value. This difference between quality in and of society is elaborated in Veenhoven (2009d).

²Of the 34 social indicators mentioned by the OECD ( 2006) 15 denote negative matters, such as 'suicide' and 'prisoners'. Most of the other indicators have a neutral connotation (e.g., health expenditures).

³I have elaborated this definition in more detail elsewhere (Veenhoven 1984, Chap. 2).

⁴Elsewhere I have discussed this theory and shown that it is wrong (Veenhoven 1991, 1995, 2010).

⁵This signal theory of happiness fits well with the findings of long-term follow-up studies that happiness predicts longevity (e.g., Danner et al. 2001).

⁶These data are available in the data file 'Trends in Nations' which forms part of the World Database of Happiness (Veenhoven 2009a).

⁷The data presented in de world database of happiness show no consistent increase in average happiness in Japan and the USA. Still there claims that happiness has actually gone up in these nations (Stevenson and Wolfers 2008).

⁸ See note 5.

⁹In this line I have explained why people do not thrive better in welfare states (Veenhoven 2000b).

Earlier versions of this paper have been published in: Yew-Kwang Ng & Lok Sang Ho (Eds.) 'Happiness and Public Policy, Theory, Case studies and Implications' Palgrave-Macmillan, New York, 2006, pp. 19-44 and in the European Psychologist, 2005, 10:330-343.

References

Baltatescu, S. M. (2006). Transition is over, Wait to see the benefits: A comparative evaluation of the effects of post-communist transition on life satisfaction. (Paper presented at conference' The End of Transition?', Budapest).

Danner DD, Snowdow DA, Friesen WV. Positive emotions in early life and longevity findings from the nun study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2001;80:804-813. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.80.5.804. [[PubMed] [CrossRef] Google Scholar]

Frederickson BL. What good are positive emotions? Review of General Psychology. 1998;2:300-319. doi: 10.1037/1089-2680.2.3.300. [[PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] Google Scholar]

Freud, S. (1930). Das Unbehagen in der Kultur. Abriss der Psychoanalyse. (Frankfurt am Main: Fischer).

Kessler, R. C., Berglund, P., Demler, O., Jin, R., Koretz, D., Merikangas, K. R., et al. (2003). The epidemiology of major depressive disorder. JAMA, 289, 3095-3105. [PubMed]

Nesse RM. Natural selection and the elusiveness of happiness. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, Biological Sciences. 2004;359:1333-1347. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2004.1511. [[PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] Google Scholar]

Stevenson, B. & Wolfers, J. (2008). Economic growth and happiness: reassessing the easterlin paradox. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 1, 1-87.

Thin, N. (2008). Realizing the substance of their happiness: How anthropology forgot about HOMO GAUISUS. In: A. Corsin Jimenez (Ed.), Culture and well-being (pp. 134-155). London: Pluto Press.

UNPD (1990, 2002, 2004, 2008). Human development report. United Nations Development Program (UNDP). New York: Oxford University Press.

Vaupel, J. W. & Lundström, H. (1993). The future of mortality at older ages in developed countries. In W. Lutz (Ed.), The future population of the world: What can we assume today?. London: IIASA. Earthscan Publications Ltd.

Veenhoven, R. (1993). Happiness in nations. Rotterdam: RISBO. A 2004 update is available on: http://worlddatabaseofhappiness.eur.nl/hap_nat/introtexts/intronat-contents.html.

Veenhoven R. The cross-cultural pattern of happiness. Test of predictions implied in three theories of happiness. Social Indicators Research. 1995;34:33-68. [Google Scholar]

Veenhoven, R. (2009a). World database of happiness: Continuous register of research on subjective enjoyment of life. The Netherlands: Erasmus University Rotterdam. Available at http://worlddatabaseofhappiness.eur.nl.

Veenhoven, R. (2009b). How do we assess how happy we are? In: A. Dutt, & B. Radcliff, (Eds.), Happiness, Economics and Politics (pp. 45-69). USA: Edward Elgar Publishers.

Veenhoven, R. (2009c). Happy life years in 143 nations 2000-2008. World database of happiness, Rank report 2009-2a. Available at: http://worlddatabaseofhappiness.eur.nl/hap_nat/findingreports/RankReport_HappyLifeYears.htm.

Veenhoven R. Well-being [in nations and well-being of nations: Is there a conflict between individual and society? Social Indicators Research. 2009;91:5-21. doi: 10.1007/s11205-008-9323-7. [CrossRef] Google Scholar]

Veenhoven, R. (2010). How universal is happiness? Chapter 11 In E. D. Diener, J. F. Helliwell & D. Kahneman (Eds.) International Differences in Well-Being. New York: Oxford University Press.

World Database of Happiness. See Veenhoven 2009.

Articles from Social Indicators Research are provided here courtesy of Springer

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Life is Getting Better: Societal Evolution and Fit with Human Nature

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Human society has changed much over the last centuries and this process of 'modernization' has profoundly affected the lives of individuals; currently we live quite different lives from those forefathers lived only five generations ago. ...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As a member of the generation that has been blamed for ruining everything from dinner to retirement, I am relieved to discover that it will soon all be someone else's fault. Though this comes at the cost of Death creeping ever closer, sinking the blade of his scythe into the edge of my avocado toast, I'll take what reprieve I can get.

Coming to shoulder the burden is a generation the psychologist Jean Twenge calls "iGen" - like iPhones, but people. They love not only iPhones but also a number of other things beginning with i, such as individualism, irreligiosity and (we're straining a touch here) "in person no more." Twenge defines them thus: "Born in 1995 and later, they grew up with cell phones, had an Instagram page before they started high school, and do not remember a time before the Internet."

Twenge gives away most of her argument in the book's ponderous full title, which is iGen: Why Today's Super-Connected Kids are Growing Up Less Rebellious, More Tolerant, Less Happy - and Completely Unprepared for Adulthood - and What That Means for the Rest of Us. In short, Twenge believes that smartphones and other screens promote antisocial behavior, prolong childhood and increase loneliness, depression and political disengagement.

If this sounds familiar, you may have encountered her book about millennials, Generation Me: Why Today's Young Americans are More Confident, Assertive, Entitled - and More Miserable than Ever Before, which covers similar ground with the similar cocktail of exaggeration and alarmism that landed her national media coverage, including spots on NPR, Good Morning America and recently The Atlantic, which ran part of her new book in a recent issue.

Intergenerational carping is one of our great human traditions, like storytelling, or art. With it, we relieve anxiety around aging and mortality, and congratulate ourselves at being better than our replacements. The young may inherit the earth, but we will tell them they're doing it wrong until our very last breaths. Twenge has distinguished herself by monetizing this instinct; she drops a plug for her business, iGen Consulting, within the first few pages. With her consulting business and her chapters on how to best market to millennials, she positions herself as an expert in selling things to teenagers. That the book's two apparent ends - helping kids and inducing them to buy things - might be opposed does not seem to have occurred to her.

But no matter. The real problem with iGen is that Twenge draws her conclusions first and then collects evidence that supports those conclusions, ignoring evidence that doesn't. It's a mix of polls, anecdotes, interviews and material gathered haphazardly from various online sources, but the one thing that unites the book is Twenge's sloppiness.

For instance, Twenge argues that young people have become increasingly self-absorbed since the advent of the Internet. One piece of evidence she uses is a search she ran through Google's Ngram (which searches through printed books) for the phrase "I love me." She found a sharp spike in the phrase in the last few decades. But "I love me" sounds slightly off - surely most people say "I love myself." And lo, if you search "I love myself" (as I would guess Twenge did first), you find that the phrase fluctuated with much less satisfying results, and in fact occurred at a higher frequency in, for instance, the 1770s, than in the early 2000s. So, Twenge discovered a grammatical shift and disguised it as a cultural one.

It's a small example, but the book is dizzying with this brand of deceptive spin. She also often treats correlation as if it were causation, and likes to make speculative comments and then proceed as if they are fact. For instance, she writes that an online commenter is "presumably older" because she expresses views in line with Twenge's theory of generations, and then proceeds as if those views were evidence of generational differences.

Twenge interviewed 23 young people from 12-20 for her book, but manages to turn each into a stereotype rather than a person, trafficking in particular in the trivialization of teenage girls. She describes young women as "pretty," "pretty," "beautiful" and "strikingly pretty." Instead of speaking, they "gush" or "chirp." The boys she interviews, in contrast, are "unusually focused," or "unusually empathetic for a teenage boy." The message is clear; the girls are ditzy, and the expectations for the boys are so low that they impress by merely being polite. It isn't a surprising message for a book whose animating principle is broad generalizations about an entire generation, but it is nonetheless tiresome.

"Like the ducks they imitate in their selfies, iGen'ers are calm and composed on the surface but paddling madly underneath," she writes. That tone - melodramatic but still trying to stay down with the kids - is found throughout, as when she reports in a tone of bemused alarm that kids sometimes ask each other to send "noodz." But in spite of the clumsiness of her own writing, Twenge likes to deride the expressive abilities of young people, saying that more of them may know the right emoji than facial expression for a situation. Maybe, but surely one of them could come up with a better name for themselves than "iGen'ers."

Ah well. Homer wrote: "As the generations of leaves, so are the generations of men." Teenagers will keep duckfacing, noodz will be shared, Twenge will collect consulting fees, academics will keep publishing careful rebuttals of her research that no one reads, and the world will probably keep on turning. Don't worry, iGen: There's always someone next.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Move Over Millennials, Here Comes 'iGen' ... Or Maybe Not

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As a member of the generation that has been blamed for ruining everything from dinner to retirement, I am relieved to discover that it will soon all be someone else's fault. Though this comes at the cost of Death creeping ever closer, sinking the blade of his scythe into the edge of my avocado toast, I'll take what reprieve I can get.