August 17, 2012
The Generation Game
John Quiggin in Crooked Timber (image from Wikimedia Commons):
One of the standard ploys in journalism, marketing and political commentary is the generation game. The basic idea is to label a generation ‘X’ or ‘Y’, then dissect its attitudes, culture, and relationship with other generations. The most famous generation, of course, is that of the Baby Boomers, born between the end of World War II and the early 1960s, and their most enduring contribution to the generation gap is the ‘Generation Gap’ between children and their parents.
The generation game is played with particular vigour in cultural commentary, but its reach seems to be extending all the time. No US Presidential election would now be complete without voluminous commentary on the generational backgrounds of the contenders. There is even a branch of economics called generational accounting, which is supposed to show whether one generation is subsidising another through the tax and welfare system.
At first sight, discussion of this kind can carry with it an air of fresh insight, but most of it stales rapidly. Much of what passes for discussion about the merits or otherwise of particular generations is little more than a repetition of unchanging formulas about different age groups Ð the moral degeneration of the young, the rigidity and hypocrisy of the old, and so on.
Demographers have a word (or rather two words) for this. They distinguish between age effects and cohort effects. The group of people born in a given period, say a year or a decade, is called a cohort. Members of a cohort have things in common because they have shared common experiences through their lives. But, at any given point in time, when members of the cohort are at some particular age, they share things in common with the experience of earlier and later generations when they were at the same age.
Posted by Robin Varghese at 09:36 AM | Permalink






















Comments
Nice differentiation between age effects and cohort effects
Posted by: Ivona Poyntz | Aug 17, 2012 12:56:07 PM
http://www.ajc.com/news/dekalb/emory-university-misrepresented-student-1501300.html?cxtype=rss_news_61499
Does anyone really believe other schools did not also falsify statistical data to improve their images? This is why statatics lie and one must always question them.
Posted by: W.J.Abbe | Aug 17, 2012 2:29:54 PM
This analysis, while likely valid in general terms, misses the point of current generational comparisons in developed economies, which is that generally progressive taxation systems introduced from the first quarter of the twentieth century have - within the last twenty years - been replaced by regressive systems grounded in value-added taxes, capped payroll or social insurance taxes and increasingly convoluted exceptions for investment income.
This shift - presented as ideology but likely driven by self-interest among wealthier and predominantly older voters - has, moreover, often been accompanied by still more cynical retention of social assistance targeted at such voters - witness the Ryan exception of over-55s - even though the tax cuts to those groups make such provision unaffordable.
This is more than the immemorial criticism of one generation by another - it is an exercise in pathological and ultimately corrosive politicking.
Posted by: Max | Aug 17, 2012 4:30:37 PM
Post a comment