Generational Theory Forum: The Fourth Turning Forum: A message board discussing generations and the Strauss Howe generational theory

Full Version: The Aging of X
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
I just saw something about Henry Rollins (1961 cohort). It reminded me that in just a bit more than 90 days, the oldest Xers will hit 56.

I'm only a few steps behind that. Mid next year I will hit 54. The last year of the vaunted "35 - 54" age bracket. The following year, marketers will view me increasingly as a curmudgeonly tightwad who is adverse to accepting new music, new trends, etc. Of course, barring some unforeseen life changer, that will not actually happen to me when I hit 55 in 2018. Being in a state of permanent arrested development I am a living example of 30 being the new 18, and 50 being the new 30. These days, the Full Retirement Age here in the US is, I believe, 67 years old for anyone born after 1960. 67 is the new 45. Therefore, sorry, most will not be able to retire at FRA!

Tongue
(09-30-2016, 05:14 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: [ -> ]I just saw something about Henry Rollins (1961 cohort). It reminded me that in just a bit more than 90 days, the oldest Xers will hit 56.

I'm only a few steps behind that. Mid next year I will hit 54. The last year of the vaunted "35 - 54" age bracket.


Double nickel for me, man.




The attitude I grown over the years toward ageing is that you just have to own it.  It's a good time.  You have all the accumulated knowledge and wisdom of a long life without the drooling and senility.

Middle Aged Man!
Damn Xers are one hell of a lot healthier than they said we would be. I'm 55 and I'm happy to be 55. I have the knowledge and wisdom that comes from the aging process, and I still have a youthful heart along with a keen interest in new things. I would NOT want to do my 20's and 30's over again that is for shit sure! My 20's were fun, but no thanks. My 40's were pretty good but I am really quite happy where I am right now.
I am in my 30s and I am happy to be in my 30s. Likewise happy to be where I am right now. Nothing wrong with being younger than 55.
taramarie Wrote:I am in my 30s and I am happy to be in my 30s. Likewise happy to be where I am right now. Nothing wrong with being younger than 55.

Nobody said there was anything wrong with being younger than 55.

It was predicted that Xers would die out quick from burning the candle at both ends, etc.  and that prediction seems to have failed.  as a Gen Jones Xer, that makes me happy.

I have generally been happy at all stages of my life, however, as I age, I see the struggles I endured in my 20's and 30's and am not interested in going back and reliving those decades.
At the start of 2017...

Any surviving Lost turn at least 117 this year.
The youngest GIs turn 93 this year.
The youngest Silent turn 75 this year.
The youngest Boomers turn 57 this year.
The youngest X turn 36 this year.
The last people born in the 20th century turn 17 or 18 (depending on whether you put the cut-off between 1999 and 2000 or between 2000 and 2001) this year.
To quote Indiana Jones, it's not the years, it's the mileage...

For those of us on the leading edge of the X cohort, we've never really known anything but brief pauses in political and economic upheaval, and at the same time, steadily accelerating technological and medical advances.

When we were children, cancer was almost always a death sentence, organ failure only slightly less so. Today, thanks to the refinement of chemotherapy and radiation treatment, we're shocked when someone not in their eighth or ninth decade succumbs to cancer. We saw the same thing with the AIDS panic in our teens and 20's. In our 40's, we'd be frustrated when a doctor (usually Boomer or Silent) told us that we had to wait for our 50's to get knees and hips replaced, those joints often the casualties of our cohort's iconic modes of pre-driving transport, the skateboard, the ten-speed, and the moped.

At the same time, we've seen food costs plunge dramatically as a share of household income, partly from the increase in female participation in the business world, and partly from improvements in distribution and preservation, which radically cut the cost per calorie per meal. Compare that to the days of Hamburger Helper (debuting in 1971) and other "meal extenders". To my mind, that's the biggest contributor to the spread of obesity and Type 2 diabetes, with our aging close behind.
Rags hits the double nickel , next Wednesday.  It's time for a retrospective.






Yeah, man , I'm a cusper.  Betwixed and all of that.   So, how many of y'all remember this stuff?  Rags was in Los Alamos/Oklahoma for these cartoons.






Woot, what a trip, man.  Hit the pipe and jam on, man. Cool
As a Boomer I got separated from mass culture when I started college (well, one had better abandon mass low culture for something better -- ideally , richer and more fulfilling -- once one starts college). As I graduated from college I found that the mass culture had gone from Boomer-oriented  to X-oriented. What happened? The pop musicians quit pretending to stand for any noble purposes in life or became old. OK, I found Haydn's string quartets much richer than the pap of the time.

Usually it is age 48 when the TV networks lose interest in most people. By then one either has no brand-name loyalty or is so capricious that one is beyond convincing. The only elderly people that the networks want to reach are the rich -- the ones capable of buying high-value insurance policies, financial securities, high-end marques of cars, or foreign travel. The networks get horrid ratings from golf, but they still air it. Its viewers are 'high-end', unlike people who might watch such bilge as COPS or The Jerry Springer Show.

But you can look at being aged out of the market for advertising in a good way: you are no longer being hustled. Are you tired of people trying to convince you that if you don't have the most expensive cellular phone that you are something of a freak?

I admit it -- at age 61 I am old, even if I still have a nimble mind and excellent mobility. I am old because there is much to which I cannot relate, and I see nothing wrong with being unable to relate to it.
(07-27-2017, 10:33 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-20-2017, 06:08 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: [ -> ]Forgot to mention. I'm now an adult x 3 (e.g. 54). It actually happened a few days back. Last year in the 35 - 54 demographic, then I will reach the "don't care" zone in terms of pop culture (or so the marketing types like to believe).

I've just outlived one grandma. She died young of a stroke just after hitting 54.

I guess you Gen X are still young.  The longer lived of my grandmas died a decade ago at 95.
The US won't get a better government until the Boomers are out of it - and they won't improve until they're dead.
(07-11-2018, 01:15 PM)Hintergrund Wrote: [ -> ]The US won't get a better government until the Boomers are out of it - and they won't improve until they're dead.

Boomers need one Disraeli, Juarez, Lincoln, Garibaldi, Gandhi, Churchill, FDR, Mannerheim, Adenauer, or (George Catlett) Marshall to undo the damage that not-so-great Boomers have done and thus redeem America. Donald Trump is everything wrong with an Idealist leader -- the exploiter who demands to be known as a benefactor. American Revolution? There were plenty of Idealists, then getting old if they weren't already old, as foci of Idealist tendencies and highly capable of setting a convincing moral agenda for the rest of us.

If you are thinking of X as leaders, Reactive types at their best typically take over at or soon after the end of the Crisis Era and accept the moral vision of the rapidly-disappearing Idealist generation as a moral agenda on autopilot. Thus Washington, John Adams, Truman, or Eisenhower. Without having their own grandiose vision, they set forward a calming mood. If you wonder where that puts the Gilded Presidents following the Civil War -- the Gilded took on many of the traits of a Civic/Hero generation if successful. Obama? He has the typical ethos of a 'mature Reactive' in his 60s -- and a temperament closer to that of Eisenhower than to that of an FDR.

I will predict this: Obama will not be the last of his type as President. The next effective conservative President, the sort who slows radical reforms in the name of sanity both fiscal and moral, will behave much more like Obama than like Trump. Obama is a Reactive, and not an Idealist. An Idealist would not have authorized an underworld-style hit upon Osama bin Laden even if such was fully justified. Obama is not the sort to establish a grand new moral vision for America. He was simply before his time, someone too pragmatic for such.
(07-12-2018, 09:11 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-11-2018, 01:15 PM)Hintergrund Wrote: [ -> ]The US won't get a better government until the Boomers are out of it - and they won't improve until they're dead.

Boomers need one Disraeli, Juarez, Lincoln, Garibaldi, Gandhi, Churchill, FDR, Mannerheim, Adenauer, or (George Catlett) Marshall to undo the damage that not-so-great Boomers have done and thus redeem America. Donald Trump is everything wrong with an Idealist leader -- the exploiter who demands to be known as a benefactor. American Revolution? There were plenty of Idealists, then getting old if they weren't already old, as foci of Idealist tendencies and highly capable of setting a convincing moral agenda for the rest of us.

If you are thinking of X as leaders, Reactive types at their best typically take over at or soon after the end of the Crisis Era and accept the moral vision of the rapidly-disappearing Idealist generation as a moral agenda on autopilot. Thus Washington, John Adams, Truman, or Eisenhower. Without having their own grandiose vision, they set forward a calming mood. If you wonder where that puts the Gilded Presidents following the Civil War -- the Gilded took on many of the traits of a Civic/Hero generation if successful. Obama? He has the typical ethos of a 'mature Reactive' in his 60s -- and a temperament closer to that of Eisenhower than to that of an FDR.

I will predict this: Obama will not be the last of his type as President. The next effective conservative President, the sort who slows radical reforms in the name of sanity both fiscal and moral, will behave much more like Obama than like Trump.  Obama is a Reactive, and not an Idealist. An Idealist would not have authorized an underworld-style hit upon Osama bin Laden even if such was fully justified. Obama is not the sort to establish a grand new moral vision for America. He was simply before his time, someone too pragmatic for such.

I say Obama is clearly a hybrid, and probably a boomer. He outlined grand visions of idealism and tried to carry them out. He does not have the cynical attitude that Xers commonly have. He is certainly pragmatic and not entirely leftist by any means. But I don't know of any US president in history that I would consider thoroughly idealistic or leftist. And considering some actions by Polk, Lincoln and FDR, I would doubt that gangster-like actions by prophets/idealists are out of the question.

The main reason Obama was not able to carry through an ambitious idealistic program was the state of his country divided between center-left and a stubborn, powerful, extreme and uncompromising right-wing determined to oppose him, and which successfully used and rigged the system to do so, and continue to do so. No amount of Obama eloquence could have changed what happened. The voters in Nov 2010 are the only people responsible for any inadequacy of the Obama program for change.

Boomers and Xers have a virtually identical record of voting in recent elections and in opinion polls. Since people typically get more conservative when older, that suggests that the boomers are inherently more liberal. Also, they were more liberal and left in their voting record in youth than Xers were, and "Boomers" also includes the late 1950s cohorts and maybe the early 60s cohorts, and that distorts the supposed voting record of "Boomers," because that cuspal area is the most conservative of all voting blocks.

Of course, that assumes that voting for Democrats means supporting "good government," which our anti-boomer friend Hintergrund might not agree with.

Also, it is significant that most available leaders and candidates in the Xer generation are Reagan conservatives. So Xers, as voters in elections, may be about even overall in their D/R voting record, but those who have been motivated to become the leaders are supporters of the Reagan counter-revolution. Overall, the members of the "freedom caucus" in the House that blocks anything productive are majority Xer.

And that support of the Reagan counter-revolution is the direct cause, and only cause, of any lack of "better government" today. And the best available potential leaders for the remainder of this 4T are Boomers.


Therefore, demise of Boomers alone will not "improve government." It will be the exit of Boomers and/or Xers (and maybe some Silents) and replacement of them by Millennials that will potentially "improve" it. Replacement of Boomers by Xers will likely make it worse.

I could go on and on and knock Xers, but there are some Xers I consider fine people and even some good Xer leaders. So knocking an entire generation, whether Boomers, Xers, or whoever, is baloney. But I don't see any Xers, so far, who could beat 1946 cohort Boomer Trump or other powerful Republican candidates in a presidential election. If there were, I would be happy about it.
(07-28-2017, 03:03 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-27-2017, 10:33 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-20-2017, 06:08 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: [ -> ]Forgot to mention. I'm now an adult x 3 (e.g. 54). It actually happened a few days back. Last year in the 35 - 54 demographic, then I will reach the "don't care" zone in terms of pop culture (or so the marketing types like to believe).

I've just outlived one grandma. She died young of a stroke just after hitting 54.

I guess you Gen X are still young.  The longer lived of my grandmas died a decade ago at 95.

My Mom died two days ago at 97.
(07-12-2018, 02:32 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]I say Obama is clearly a hybrid, and probably a boomer. He outlined grand visions of idealism and tried to carry them out. He does not have the cynical attitude that Xers commonly have. He is certainly pragmatic and not entirely leftist by any means.

Yes, the Boomers can keep him, if you ask me. But why is he pragmatic?
(07-17-2018, 12:01 AM)Hintergrund Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-12-2018, 02:32 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]I say Obama is clearly a hybrid, and probably a boomer. He outlined grand visions of idealism and tried to carry them out. He does not have the cynical attitude that Xers commonly have. He is certainly pragmatic and not entirely leftist by any means.

Yes, the Boomers can keep him, if you ask me. But why is he pragmatic?

I would go with cautious … too cautious.  He never took a chance if there was another course that lead in the general direction he wanted to go, so he never accomplished much.  Even Obamacare is unlikely to last in anything like its current form.
(07-17-2018, 02:03 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-17-2018, 12:01 AM)Hintergrund Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-12-2018, 02:32 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]I say Obama is clearly a hybrid, and probably a boomer. He outlined grand visions of idealism and tried to carry them out. He does not have the cynical attitude that Xers commonly have. He is certainly pragmatic and not entirely leftist by any means.

Yes, the Boomers can keep him, if you ask me. But why is he pragmatic?

I would go with cautious … too cautious.  He never took a chance if there was another course that lead in the general direction he wanted to go, so he never accomplished much.  Even Obamacare is unlikely to last in anything like its current form.
That's not cautious. That's called "Checks and Balances".
(07-19-2018, 01:07 PM)JDG 66 Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-17-2018, 02:03 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-17-2018, 12:01 AM)Hintergrund Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-12-2018, 02:32 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]I say Obama is clearly a hybrid, and probably a boomer. He outlined grand visions of idealism and tried to carry them out. He does not have the cynical attitude that Xers commonly have. He is certainly pragmatic and not entirely leftist by any means.

Yes, the Boomers can keep him, if you ask me. But why is he pragmatic?

I would go with cautious … too cautious.  He never took a chance if there was another course that lead in the general direction he wanted to go, so he never accomplished much.  Even Obamacare is unlikely to last in anything like its current form.

That's not cautious. That's called "Checks and Balances".

Assuming that's your preference, standby for an 11 member SCOTUS as soon as it can be arranged.  The scumbaggery of the last 10 years will get balanced, because the other side is just going to follow precedent, and do whatever it can.  Obama was too much the philosopher to get into the gutter and wrestle with the pigs, but the next all-Dem government will have much less compunction.
(07-19-2018, 02:30 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-19-2018, 01:07 PM)JDG 66 Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-17-2018, 02:03 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-17-2018, 12:01 AM)Hintergrund Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-12-2018, 02:32 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]I say Obama is clearly a hybrid, and probably a boomer. He outlined grand visions of idealism and tried to carry them out. He does not have the cynical attitude that Xers commonly have. He is certainly pragmatic and not entirely leftist by any means.

Yes, the Boomers can keep him, if you ask me. But why is he pragmatic?

I would go with cautious … too cautious.  He never took a chance if there was another course that lead in the general direction he wanted to go, so he never accomplished much.  Even Obamacare is unlikely to last in anything like its current form.

That's not cautious. That's called "Checks and Balances".

Assuming that's your preference, standby for an 11 member SCOTUS as soon as it can be arranged.  The scumbaggery of the last 10 years will get balanced, because the other side is just going to follow precedent, and do whatever it can.  Obama was too much the philosopher to get into the gutter and wrestle with the pigs, but the next all-Dem government will have much less compunction.
-In 2005, the Elephants compromised with the Donkeys over judges because they didn't want to "overturn the traditions of the Senate". The Donkeys didn't return the favor. Now they're reaping what they sowed. And who knows who will start packing the court first? Big Grin

I could see a constitutional amendment with a 14 or 21 year term for SCOTUS judges, and a limit of 9, to prevent court packing.
Pages: 1 2