Gen-X in MidLife - Are We Really On the Sidelines?

[Eric the Green]

(02-25-2019, 07:36 AM)sbarrera Wrote:

(02-24-2019, 06:57 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Well done article.

A nomad generation was supposed to accept in mid-life the increasing progressive, more collective or community-oriented slant of society during a 4T, and use their productive and innovative skill to be effective managers of the response to the crisis, while visionary prophets provide direction and guidance, and civics the man/woman power and dedication. That depends on some blue boomers fulfilling their roles as gray champion leaders. The younger generations will power this societal shift toward collegiality and community, but some leadership will still be Boomer, and Xers are still best fitted to be effective crisis managers. But even if Gen X doesn't produce a president (except another cusper like Obama), Xers will increasingly predominate in power, while millennials predominate in voting numbers and rising stars. As you imply, in the next 10 years it will be those Xers who can adapt to the less neo-liberal individualist regime who will gain power, especially in blue states and probably the nation.

I would think though that Boomers who looked upon a career as a calling, and as a fulfilling vocation rather than just a job, were not workaholics in the sense of being impelled to work too much. The stronger survival instinct of the Xer would seem to imply workaholism because of the need to survive. Boomer parents were often lauded by the older cohort millennials as caring and good teachers. Silents were the neglectful ones.

Those who understand the direction of society and technology will help shift society away from work to survive. Didn't I just post a Ted talk about this? Ah, here it is. Maybe a European Gen Xer is well-enough immune to the survivalist mentality so prevalent among Americans (especially Gen X, but certainly not exclusively to them). Or maybe he's a millennial.
http://generational-theory.com/forum/thr...l#pid41374
"I believe in a future where the value of your work is not determined by the size of your paycheck, but by the amount of happiness you spread, and the amount of meaning you give. I believe in a future where the point of education is not to prepare you for another useless job, but for a life well lived. I believe in a future where an existence without poverty is not a privilege, but a right we all deserve."

Gen Xers enjoy preeminence in entertainment? Boy, their "entertainment" sure leaves me cold. TV shows today have no character. Give me the older GI and Silent-produced ones any day. Gen X music (and late Boomer music too for that matter) is loud and deliberately obnoxious, at least the American music. Gen Xers here have justified this as a protest against their life situation. I say they did not use their angst to develop it into a real art form. Some Gen X culture is better than others, but overall I'd say it's as weak a contribution as their Republican politicians have made. The myth makers that created the franchises were mostly boomers.

But kudos to the Xer journalist-comedians. Stephen Colbert, John Oliver, Seth Meyers and others help to make the times we live in under the cheeto in chief barely tolerable. Gen X irony has its value.

Thanks, Eric, for the thoughtful replies.

I'm not sure that neoliberalism will die in this 4T, it seems a lot of its assumptions are pretty entrenched. Of course, something will likely happen to mitigate its negative effects. The TED talker you linked to is Rutger Bregman - he is a Millennial, b 1988. He proposes Universal Basic Income as a solution to poverty, which I believe mikebert has referred to as simply a bandaid over neoliberalism, not addressing it fundamentally. But it still might make a difference.

Sorry you don't like our movies and music; I'm pretty happy with them myself. I do love a lot of the Boomer stuff, too - it's what I remember from my childhood, of course. I was weaned on Pink Floyd. 

Of course, Gen X also possesses as its own a lot of entertainment and music created by late-wave boomers, just as boomers identify with a lot created by late-wave silents. Queen's "Bohemian Rhapsody" is one example, a hugely-popular song about not caring about things, and it has nice moments, but it sure doesn't get MY juices flowing.

I like the sixties psychedelic Pink Floyd better than the quiet melodic and lyrical-emphasis seventies Pink Floyd.

I'm not sure neo-liberalism will die or not, but it might if the Bernie and AOC-types gain more power (Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez). It probably can't disappear entirely, to the extent that free market capitalism is still around and has its say. However it should be pared back to its level before Reagan-Thatcher. The assumptions of the Reagan era need to be UN-entrenched, and it could happen. I think Bregman's proposal would cut the heart out of neo-liberalism, and rob it of its fundamental assumption of blaming the poor for their use of welfare and its primary virtue of "earning a living" instead of "freeloading on the backs of taxpayers," but it would also cut back on socialist-type "paternalistic" bureaucracy.

Neo-liberalism is doomed to the extent robots take over our jobs. Having a job will then lose its virtue. If the machines do all the work, why should the saving of labor they provide only accrue to the owners of the machines? No, the proceeds of production must be distributed more equally, whether as more money for less hours, or basic income.