2021: generational tipping point

[Warren Dew]

(01-10-2021, 06:23 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: The American right (the vast majority of today's Republican base) doesn't hate Trump. The Washington elite do but no one on the American right cares about them these days. Like I said, let the circus begin and see the response and see how much of the Democratic base is left standing after four years of turmoil.

Indeed, it was Lindsey Graham who got greeted with calls of "traitor" by Republican voters at the airport, for voting against sustaining the electoral vote objection, not Hawley for making the objections.  Graham quickly did one of his about faces and came out against impeachment.

I wouldn't count on turmoil on the left, though, with the Democrats now cleanly controlled by Apple, Facebook, and Google.  A return to the Obama years of economic misery yes, but I expect the Fed will continue to support unrealistic stock market valuations.  Or did you mean turmoil from increasingly uninhibited MAGA rallies?

Biden got elected through electoral fraud and as President, he's in a position to make sure fraud is even easier next time around, so he'll be elected.  If you're one of the few on the right who don't believe in electoral fraud, the video on midnight ballot counting has been censored but here's an independent source of analysis:

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/...emorandum/

[pbrower2a]

The Obama years were economic hardship, but remember that those followed the worst economic downturn in 75 to 80 years. A speculative boom with rising inequality and underinvestment in plant and equipment ensures a financial panic (as in 1857, 1929, and 2008:



There is no easy way out of the consequences of such a meltdown. Obama did what was necessary, backing the banks to prevent what made the 1929-1932 meltdown so destructive. The first year and a half from the 2007 peak looks remarkably similar to the first year and a half of the 1929-1932 meltdown. The difference was the bank runs that devoured savings that could have been used to back investment in plant and equipment and corporate bank balances that paid the accounts payable.

The American economy grew its way out of the economic meltdown in the 1930's and 2010's. Of course it was hard, and even if the political mood went sharply left in the first two years of the Obama administration, the political mood went sharply to the Right soon after that. The focus of the economy after 2010 was that any improvement in the economy would have the enrichment of economic elites as the first objective, and anything in the way of that would yield.  The big difference between the 1930's and the 2010's was that the economic elites got rescued far earlier. In the 1930's they couldn't invest in the political process to achieve their ends. In the 2010's the economic elites had the funds with which to buy the political process, and that is how we got the Tea Party in Congress and its Presidential expression in Donald Trump.



OK, much of the political distress that we have had reflects the personality of Donald Trump... which I could say of political distress in Venezuela.  But note well: the economic growth that we have had is largely in higher share prices, higher corporate profits, higher compensation to business executives, higher medical costs, and (where the economy is at all vibrant) property rents. Ideally some of the economic boon for economic elites would trickle down, but that would require conspicuous consumption by economic elites -- castles and palaces, basically, with huge staffs of domestic servants. It's not appearing as 'plant and equipment'.

[David Horn]

(01-10-2021, 06:46 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: You don't know her very well. You should know everything about her since she was the one that you were really voting for in 2020. You listened, you agreed and you didn't care that Biden was showing signs of dementia and voted for him anyway.

Biden stutters, but I don't see dementia. Of course, in alt-reality it's undeniable.

[jleagans]

Hahahahahahahah. "Gen X takeover of leadership"

Not happening, sorry. The two dominant generations (Hero and Prophet) are the only ones that ever control society. The war between the two is the defining dynamic of the generational system. Look at the Boomers, their first half was a war against the GI Gen to get control (which happens around the midpoint of life, which was the 1980's and Reagan for Boomers) and their second half has been an escalating war with Millennials more and more demanding control. And as Millennials are all hitting their midpoint that control is soon to come.

The smaller generations (Silent and Nomad) never get control, and their only shot at Presidents comes at the TRANSITION from Hero to Prophet or Prophet to Hero.

FDR to Eisenhower all Prophet generation (1933-1960). 28 years of control.
JFK to George H. W. Bush were all Hero GI Generation (1961-1992) . 32 years of control.
Bill Clinton to Trump were all Prophet Boomer Generation (1993-2020). 28 years of control.

While the boundary years from the older generation are still pretty unclear, when I tried to map it out the last time I couldnt find a single President that was a clear Nomad (roughly 1890's/1900's).

Artist Presidents: 1920-1932, 2020+. Harding, Coolidge, Hoover, Biden. The Artist generation has done a bit better, but they only seem to be able to win after pandemics by making a "return to normalcy" appeal! And none of them have pulled two terms.

[pbrower2a]

Joe Biden will be the first Artist/Adaptive President in a century.

[mamabug]

(01-16-2021, 08:59 AM)jleagans Wrote: The war between the two is the defining dynamic of the generational system.  

And that's why we hate you both 

[pbrower2a]

(01-16-2021, 08:59 AM)jleagans Wrote: Hahahahahahahah.  "Gen X takeover of leadership"

Not happening, sorry.  The two dominant generations (Hero and Prophet) are the only ones that ever control society.  The war between the two is the defining dynamic of the generational system.  Look at the Boomers, their first half was a war against the GI Gen to get control (which happens around the midpoint of life, which was the 1980's and Reagan for Boomers) and their second half has been an escalating war with Millennials more and more demanding control.  And as Millennials are all hitting their midpoint that control is soon to come.  

The smaller generations (Silent and Nomad) never get control, and their only shot at Presidents comes at the TRANSITION from Hero to Prophet or Prophet to Hero.

FDR to Eisenhower all Prophet generation (1933-1960).  28 years of control.
JFK to George H. W. Bush were all Hero GI Generation (1961-1992) .  32 years of control.
Bill Clinton to Trump were all Prophet Boomer Generation (1993-2020).  28 years of control.

While the boundary years from the older generation are still pretty unclear, when I tried to map it out the last time I couldnt find a single President that was a clear Nomad (roughly 1890's/1900's).

Artist Presidents: 1920-1932, 2020+.  Harding, Coolidge, Hoover, Biden. The Artist generation has done a bit better, but they only seem to be able to win after pandemics by making a "return to normalcy" appeal!  And none of them have pulled two terms.

It's not small numbers; it is that the recessive (Artist/Adaptive, Nomad/Reactive) get fewer opportunities as a rule in politics. Until 2020 it was likely that the Silent generation would be skipped completely in the roster of Presidents

The more canonical position of Howe and Strauss is as such:

Washington, John Adams (Liberty: Reactive/Nomad)
Jefferson, Madison, Monroe (Republic: Civic/Hero)
J Q Adams, Jackson, Van Buren, W H Harrison Tyler (Compromise: Adaptive/Artist)
Polk (Transcendental: Idealist/Prophet)
Fillmore, Pierce: Idealist/Prophet)
Buchanan: Compromise, Artist/Adapive)
Lincoln, A. Johnson: Idealist/Prophet)
Grant, Hayes, Garfield, Arthur, Cleveland, B. Harrison, Cleveland [second time] Gilded: Reactive/Nomad*)
McKinley, T. Roosevelt, Taft, Wilson: (Progressive: Adaptive/Artist
Harding, Coolidge, Hoover, FDR (Missionary: Idealist/Prophet)
Truman, Eisenhower (Lost: Reactive/Nomad)
Kennedy, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush 41 (GI: Civic/Hero)
Clinton, Bush 43 (Boom: Idealist/Prophet)
Obama (X: Reactive/Nomad)
Trump (Boom: Idealist/Prophet)

Should Trump be impeached and expelled or resign before Wednesday, Pence would be another Boomer.

as of Wednesday... Biden (Silent: Adaptive/Artist)



*The Gilded were brought up as Reactive/Nomad, but they took on a largely Civic/Hero role after the Civil War)

[David Horn]

(01-16-2021, 03:31 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Joe Biden will be the first Artist/Adaptive President in a century.

... and prior examples are not inspiring.

[jleagans]

(01-16-2021, 04:36 PM)mamabug Wrote:

(01-16-2021, 08:59 AM)jleagans Wrote: The war between the two is the defining dynamic of the generational system.  

And that's why we hate you both 

Oh yeah, and our total ambivalence towards the other two generations that aren't Boomers doesn't help.  We only pay attention to Zoomers/X to use them or complain about them.

[jleagans]

(01-17-2021, 01:57 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(01-16-2021, 08:59 AM)jleagans Wrote: Hahahahahahahah.  "Gen X takeover of leadership"

Not happening, sorry.  The two dominant generations (Hero and Prophet) are the only ones that ever control society.  The war between the two is the defining dynamic of the generational system.  Look at the Boomers, their first half was a war against the GI Gen to get control (which happens around the midpoint of life, which was the 1980's and Reagan for Boomers) and their second half has been an escalating war with Millennials more and more demanding control.  And as Millennials are all hitting their midpoint that control is soon to come.  

The smaller generations (Silent and Nomad) never get control, and their only shot at Presidents comes at the TRANSITION from Hero to Prophet or Prophet to Hero.

FDR to Eisenhower all Prophet generation (1933-1960).  28 years of control.
JFK to George H. W. Bush were all Hero GI Generation (1961-1992) .  32 years of control.
Bill Clinton to Trump were all Prophet Boomer Generation (1993-2020).  28 years of control.

While the boundary years from the older generation are still pretty unclear, when I tried to map it out the last time I couldnt find a single President that was a clear Nomad (roughly 1890's/1900's).

Artist Presidents: 1920-1932, 2020+.  Harding, Coolidge, Hoover, Biden. The Artist generation has done a bit better, but they only seem to be able to win after pandemics by making a "return to normalcy" appeal!  And none of them have pulled two terms.

It's not small numbers; it is that the recessive (Artist/Adaptive, Nomad/Reactive) get fewer opportunities as a rule in politics. Until 2020 it was likely that the Silent generation would be skipped completely in the roster of Presidents

The more canonical position of Howe and Strauss is as such:

Washington, John Adams (Liberty: Reactive/Nomad)
Jefferson, Madison, Monroe (Republic: Civic/Hero)
J Q Adams, Jackson, Van Buren, W H Harrison Tyler (Compromise: Adaptive/Artist)
Polk (Transcendental: Idealist/Prophet)
Fillmore, Pierce: Idealist/Prophet)
Buchanan: Compromise, Artist/Adapive)
Lincoln, A. Johnson: Idealist/Prophet)
Grant, Hayes, Garfield, Arthur, Cleveland, B. Harrison, Cleveland [second time] Gilded: Reactive/Nomad*)
McKinley, T. Roosevelt, Taft, Wilson: (Progressive: Adaptive/Artist
Harding, Coolidge, Hoover, FDR (Missionary: Idealist/Prophet)
Truman, Eisenhower (Lost: Reactive/Nomad)
Kennedy, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush 41 (GI: Civic/Hero)
Clinton, Bush 43 (Boom: Idealist/Prophet)
Obama (X: Reactive/Nomad)
Trump (Boom: Idealist/Prophet)

Should Trump be impeached and expelled or resign before Wednesday, Pence would be another Boomer.

as of Wednesday... Biden (Silent: Adaptive/Artist)



*The Gilded were brought up as Reactive/Nomad, but they took on a largely Civic/Hero role after the Civil War)

Yeah I don't agree at all with Strauss Howe's dates as they never make an argument for the dates they select, they just picked arbitrarily.

I use dates based on changes in national attitudes and fit the generations into 16-20 year ranges:

Turning boundaries:

1877-Compromise-End of Civil War 4th Turning / 1st American Saeculum

1890's- Turning, either the panic or the 1896 election haven't decided

1908-1912- Not yet sure which year works best

1929

1945

1963- Start of X, JFK assassination leads to broader societal cynicism. 

1982-End of Stagflation leads to a new boom and economic optimism

2001- 9/11

Each of these years was a major, turning-long change in national attitudes.

[pbrower2a]

(01-17-2021, 12:11 PM)jleagans Wrote:

(01-17-2021, 01:57 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(01-16-2021, 08:59 AM)jleagans Wrote: Hahahahahahahah.  "Gen X takeover of leadership"

Not happening, sorry.  The two dominant generations (Hero and Prophet) are the only ones that ever control society.  The war between the two is the defining dynamic of the generational system.  Look at the Boomers, their first half was a war against the GI Gen to get control (which happens around the midpoint of life, which was the 1980's and Reagan for Boomers) and their second half has been an escalating war with Millennials more and more demanding control.  And as Millennials are all hitting their midpoint that control is soon to come.  

The smaller generations (Silent and Nomad) never get control, and their only shot at Presidents comes at the TRANSITION from Hero to Prophet or Prophet to Hero.

FDR to Eisenhower all Prophet generation (1933-1960).  28 years of control.
JFK to George H. W. Bush were all Hero GI Generation (1961-1992) .  32 years of control.
Bill Clinton to Trump were all Prophet Boomer Generation (1993-2020).  28 years of control.

While the boundary years from the older generation are still pretty unclear, when I tried to map it out the last time I couldnt find a single President that was a clear Nomad (roughly 1890's/1900's).

Artist Presidents: 1920-1932, 2020+.  Harding, Coolidge, Hoover, Biden. The Artist generation has done a bit better, but they only seem to be able to win after pandemics by making a "return to normalcy" appeal!  And none of them have pulled two terms.

It's not small numbers; it is that the recessive (Artist/Adaptive, Nomad/Reactive) get fewer opportunities as a rule in politics. Until 2020 it was likely that the Silent generation would be skipped completely in the roster of Presidents

The more canonical position of Howe and Strauss is as such:

Washington, John Adams (Liberty: Reactive/Nomad)
Jefferson, Madison, Monroe (Republic: Civic/Hero)
J Q Adams, Jackson, Van Buren, W H Harrison Tyler (Compromise: Adaptive/Artist)
Polk (Transcendental: Idealist/Prophet)
Fillmore, Pierce: Idealist/Prophet)
Buchanan: Compromise, Artist/Adapive)
Lincoln, A. Johnson: Idealist/Prophet)
Grant, Hayes, Garfield, Arthur, Cleveland, B. Harrison, Cleveland [second time] Gilded: Reactive/Nomad*)
McKinley, T. Roosevelt, Taft, Wilson: (Progressive: Adaptive/Artist
Harding, Coolidge, Hoover, FDR (Missionary: Idealist/Prophet)
Truman, Eisenhower (Lost: Reactive/Nomad)
Kennedy, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush 41 (GI: Civic/Hero)
Clinton, Bush 43 (Boom: Idealist/Prophet)
Obama (X: Reactive/Nomad)
Trump (Boom: Idealist/Prophet)

Should Trump be impeached and expelled or resign before Wednesday, Pence would be another Boomer.

as of Wednesday... Biden (Silent: Adaptive/Artist)



*The Gilded were brought up as Reactive/Nomad, but they took on a largely Civic/Hero role after the Civil War)

Yeah I don't agree at all with Strauss Howe's dates as they never make an argument for the dates they select, they just picked arbitrarily.

I use dates based on changes in national attitudes and fit the generations into 16-20 year ranges:

Turning boundaries:

1877-Compromise-End of Civil War 4th Turning / 1st American Saeculum

1890's- Turning, either the panic or the 1896 election haven't decided

1908-1912- Not yet sure which year works best

1929

1945

1963- Start of X, JFK assassination leads to broader societal cynicism. 

1982-End of Stagflation leads to a new boom and economic optimism

2001- 9/11

Each of these years was a major, turning-long change in national attitudes.

...can anyone tell me if there was a financial panic in the Colonies in the early 1770's? 

I see Panics of 1857, 1929, and 2008 precipitating a grim mood of a Crisis.  People can tolerate much social and political nastiness when easy money is seemingly easy to get by the simple practice of speculation and not enterprise, productivity, or innovation.  The arch-conservative economist Friedrich Hayek (1898-1992) explained clearly that speculative bubbles do not so much create wealth as they devour it.  Prices rise more rapidly than economic growth, the latter already faltering because people are not investing as much in job-creating and product-supplying plant and equipment. Any speculative bubble depends upon the assumption that there will be one last buyer who will justify the last buyer-in. Any commodity can be overpriced, and when it is there may be a throng of sellers and no buyers. 

Hayek says that it is not the panic that causes the disaster; the panic is simply the realization that the speculative boom is illusory and that the good feelings that come from it are void. People who thought themselves rich find that their assets have crashed in value. Commodity valuations, real estate, and share prices are especially vulnerable. 

With the panic comes the sudden realization that society is not so prosperous as it had been.  The assets needed for putting people back to work through investments in commercial plant and equipment, in human capital, and in public infrastructure, are gone. Entities that have accreted bad habits such as bureaucracy and internal corruption can't divest themselves rapidly enough of those, and often go bankrupt instead. 

...at this point Hayek doesn't have a solution to my liking... just accept the harsh reality and the permanent lowering of expectations.
 
Public works make sense. A  depression is a surprisingly good time for starting a business because labor (including that of the owner-operator and his family) is cheap. Real estate is available for low rents or acquisition costs. Supplies, raw materials, and inventory are available at fire-sale prices without the fire. If you hire people then the family members of that employee are likely to become loyal customers because they want that person to keep his job. Customer loyalty reappears. Owners will have perhaps a decade or two before they can cash out...  but few people are rich.

[jleagans]

There is a financial cycle that lines up with the turnings , but it’s an interest rate cycle from ALWAYS a low in the crisis to a HIGH in the middle (between 2 and 3). The stagflation of the 70s was the last IR High and it’s only gone down since .

[Warren Dew]

(01-21-2021, 06:05 AM)jleagans Wrote: There is a financial cycle that lines up with the turnings , but it’s an interest rate cycle from ALWAYS a low in the crisis to a HIGH in the middle (between 2 and 3).  The stagflation of the 70s was the last IR High and it’s only gone down since .

From what other cycles can you provide evidence for this?  I don't disbelieve you, but I'd like to know how broad the supporting data is.

[Eric the Green]

(01-17-2021, 12:11 PM)jleagans Wrote: Yeah I don't agree at all with Strauss Howe's dates as they never make an argument for the dates they select, they just picked arbitrarily.

I use dates based on changes in national attitudes and fit the generations into 16-20 year ranges:

Turning boundaries:

1877-Compromise-End of Civil War 4th Turning / 1st American Saeculum

1890's- Turning, either the panic or the 1896 election haven't decided

1908-1912- Not yet sure which year works best

1929

1945

1963- Start of X, JFK assassination leads to broader societal cynicism. 

1982-End of Stagflation leads to a new boom and economic optimism

2001- 9/11

Each of these years was a major, turning-long change in national attitudes.

I don't see how a generation can be only 16 years long.

The Strauss and Howe generation dates are correct since the Civil War. So are Turning boundaries. I see no reason to change them. They were based on biographical studies, not arbitrary choices.

A 68-year saeculum is unlikely.

2001 was definitely not the start of a fourth turning. To think so is to say that continuing the military industrial complex's maintenance of continuous war, waged far away from most peoples' lives, is the basis for turnings and generations. I say that it is just business as usual and did not mark any kind of turning shift or change. Foreign policy did not shift; it just went back to what it had been in the 1st and 2nd turning and the end of the previous 4T.

Turnings:
1865-1886 1T
1886-1908 2T
1908-1929 3T
1929-1946 4T
1946-1964 1T
1964-1984 2T
1984-2008 3T
2008-2029 4T

Generations (birth years):
Missionary 1860-1881
Lost 1882-1900
GI/Greatest 1901-1924
Silent 1925-1942
Boomer 1943-1960
X/13th 1961-1981
Millennial 1982-2002
Gen Z 2003-2024

[jleagans]

(01-21-2021, 01:57 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-21-2021, 06:05 AM)jleagans Wrote: There is a financial cycle that lines up with the turnings , but it’s an interest rate cycle from ALWAYS a low in the crisis to a HIGH in the middle (between 2 and 3).  The stagflation of the 70s was the last IR High and it’s only gone down since .

From what other cycles can you provide evidence for this?  I don't disbelieve you, but I'd like to know how broad the supporting data is.

Kondatieff cycle is the topic that usually spins into this stuff . Civil war to ww2 is harder to pinpoint, but 1896 was the silver vs gold election so debt was the major issue .

[jleagans]

(01-25-2021, 07:01 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(01-17-2021, 12:11 PM)jleagans Wrote: Yeah I don't agree at all with Strauss Howe's dates as they never make an argument for the dates they select, they just picked arbitrarily.

I use dates based on changes in national attitudes and fit the generations into 16-20 year ranges:

Turning boundaries:

1877-Compromise-End of Civil War 4th Turning / 1st American Saeculum

1890's- Turning, either the panic or the 1896 election haven't decided

1908-1912- Not yet sure which year works best

1929

1945

1963- Start of X, JFK assassination leads to broader societal cynicism. 

1982-End of Stagflation leads to a new boom and economic optimism

2001- 9/11

Each of these years was a major, turning-long change in national attitudes.

I don't see how a generation can be only 16 years long.

The Strauss and Howe generation dates are correct since the Civil War. So are Turning boundaries. I see no reason to change them. They were based on biographical studies, not arbitrary choices.

A 68-year saeculum is unlikely.

2001 was definitely not the start of a fourth turning. To think so is to say that continuing the military industrial complex's maintenance of continuous war, waged far away from most peoples' lives, is the basis for turnings and generations. I say that it is just business as usual and did not mark any kind of turning shift or change. Foreign policy did not shift; it just went back to what it had been in the 1st and 2nd turning and the end of the previous 4T.

Turnings:
1865-1886 1T
1886-1908 2T
1908-1929 3T
1929-1946 4T
1946-1964 1T
1964-1984 2T
1984-2008 3T
2008-2029 4T

Generations (birth years):
Missionary 1860-1881
Lost 1882-1900
GI/Greatest 1901-1924
Silent 1925-1942
Boomer 1943-1960
X/13th 1961-1981
Millennial 1982-2002
Gen Z 2003-2024

Biography is almost the definition of arbitrary . People can’t decide the gens, the gens decide the people . 

My years are built on major national attitude shifts . National shifts , to sharply good or bad, change parenting immediately and impacting the children being born . 

And saeculum length I would argue should be in line with human life expectancy so in the 1800s 68 or less was about right .

[Eric the Green]

(01-27-2021, 02:37 AM)jleagans Wrote:

(01-25-2021, 07:01 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(01-17-2021, 12:11 PM)jleagans Wrote: Yeah I don't agree at all with Strauss Howe's dates as they never make an argument for the dates they select, they just picked arbitrarily.

I use dates based on changes in national attitudes and fit the generations into 16-20 year ranges:

Turning boundaries:

1877-Compromise-End of Civil War 4th Turning / 1st American Saeculum

1890's- Turning, either the panic or the 1896 election haven't decided

1908-1912- Not yet sure which year works best

1929

1945

1963- Start of X, JFK assassination leads to broader societal cynicism. 

1982-End of Stagflation leads to a new boom and economic optimism

2001- 9/11

Each of these years was a major, turning-long change in national attitudes.

I don't see how a generation can be only 16 years long.

The Strauss and Howe generation dates are correct since the Civil War. So are Turning boundaries. I see no reason to change them. They were based on biographical studies, not arbitrary choices.

A 68-year saeculum is unlikely.

2001 was definitely not the start of a fourth turning. To think so is to say that continuing the military industrial complex's maintenance of continuous war, waged far away from most peoples' lives, is the basis for turnings and generations. I say that it is just business as usual and did not mark any kind of turning shift or change. Foreign policy did not shift; it just went back to what it had been in the 1st and 2nd turning and the end of the previous 4T.

Turnings:
1865-1886 1T
1886-1908 2T
1908-1929 3T
1929-1946 4T
1946-1964 1T
1964-1984 2T
1984-2008 3T
2008-2029 4T

Generations (birth years):
Missionary 1860-1881
Lost 1882-1900
GI/Greatest 1901-1924
Silent 1925-1942
Boomer 1943-1960
X/13th 1961-1981
Millennial 1982-2002
Gen Z 2003-2024

Biography is almost the definition of arbitrary . People can’t decide the gens, the gens decide the people . 

My years are built on major national attitude shifts . National shifts , to sharply good or bad, change parenting immediately and impacting the children being born . 

And saeculum length I would argue should be in line with human life expectancy so in the 1800s 68 or less was about right .

Biography was a good empirical basis for studying life histories of different people of different times.

People decide the gens, and gens decide the people. As the authors put it, events determine outlook, and outlook determines events. It works both ways.

The authors picked out the right national attitude shifts. You picked out 9-11, which is wrong, and shows you don't quite have a handle on it.

The saeculum was longer in times when life expectancy was shorter, according to S&H. So that doesn't quite work. And life expectancy did not decline in the late 1800s from what it had been earlier. Your schedule of 68 years or less for shorter life spans suggests a saeculum from 1809 (or later) to 1877. I can't see that the first decade of the 19th century was part of a 4th turning; can you?

By the way, first turnings are full of racism and repressive trends. Witness the Alien and Sedition Acts, the KKK during Reconstruction, and the McCarthy era. First turnings are no better than other turnings; it's just an emphasis on conformity instead of fragmentation (3T).

[jleagans]

"Which is wrong" . Little wild to argue that 9/11 is unfathomable as a national attitude shift lol. The authors didn't pick attitude shifts (so you say), they picked people.

I would like theory to fit the life expectancies, but in reality I think anything is possible between 16-20 years. History has its rough edges. For example, 1930-1945 is set in stone.

Somehow Strauss/Howe argue that Boomers DON"T start in 1946? Don't buy it.

[Eric the Green]

(01-28-2021, 02:26 AM)jleagans Wrote: "Which is wrong" .  Little wild to argue that 9/11 is unfathomable as a national attitude shift lol.  The authors didn't pick attitude shifts (so you say), they picked people.

I would like theory to fit the life expectancies, but in reality I think anything is possible between 16-20 years.  History has its rough edges.  For example, 1930-1945 is set in stone.  

Somehow Strauss/Howe argue that Boomers DON"T start in 1946?  Don't buy it.

There was no attitude shift after 9-11. It was a war; wars happen in all turnings, and they don't usually shift the turnings. The author Neil Howe picked the 2008 recession, and from his remarks I have heard originally picked the date 2008, while Strauss picked 2005. And I picked 2008 too.

The Civil War started soon after a 4T started, according to the authors, but the turning started with the secession crisis and Lincoln's election. And many of us question that date as the start of a 4T, and their deletion of a civic generation. According to Shelby Foote, the civil war soldiers had civic traits. They were morally guided, not wild individualists.

History has its rough edges, but they happen a bit farther apart than you say, in my estimation. It's more like 18-24 years, but the great depression/WWII was only 17 years. The average length of both generations and turnings is 20-21 years.

What is set in stone, so to speak, is the length of the modern saeculum of about 84 years. If some turnings get speeded up because of events (such as the JFK assassination or the early end of WWII), then following turning(s) get longer to make up the difference (like the 3T from 1984 to 2008).

Strauss and Howe argue that Boomers started in 1943. Did you read the book or look at their website and its charts? Generations always start a few years before turnings. The first turning dates from 1946, but not Boomers. According to the authors (and I agree), the date 1946 given for the first Boomers is for demographic purposes, not generation characteristics; although the name Boomers is demographic. The same applies for the choice by Pew Research for 1996 as the start of Gen Z.

[mamabug]

If I had to pick a marker that indicates a point where we had definitely transitioned into a 4T, I would pick Occupy Wall Street and the mirror populist Tea Party Movement (so around 2010/2011 when both took off). We may have started entering the era earlier, but that point was where the seeds of the current conflicts first sprouted.