Trendspotting: Millennials Lose Their Fabled Optimism

NEWSWIRE: 4/27/20

• According to a new Pew study, just 23% of Americans believe that the economy is doing well. At the same time, the majority of people expect things will be better a year from now—but this doesn’t include those under 30, who are considerably less optimistic than older Americans. (Pew Research Center)
• NH: Across the board, Americans’ views of the economy have nosedived with stunning severity. A mere 23% say that economic conditions are excellent or good, compared to 57% back in January. Most people now say that things are “fair” (38%) or “poor” (38%). Opinions on economic conditions are far less divided than they were prior to the outbreak, with differences in views by income level, education level, and political affiliation shrinking considerably.
• There’s also widespread support for federal aid measures: Fully 88% of Americans back the stimulus package that was enacted last month, while 77% believe that it will be necessary for the government to provide additional assistance. Both Democrats and Republicans are much more united in expanding the role of government today than they were back in 2009.
• So there’s general agreement about where we are. Views diverge, however, when people are asked about the future. Most Americans (55%) believe that things will be better a year from now; only 22% think it will be worse. But there’s a huge age gap here. Optimism about the economy decreases steadily moving down the age ladder: Fully 69% of those 65 and older think things will be better. Among 50- to 64-year-olds, it’s 59%; 30- to 49-year-olds, 52%; and 18- to 29-year-olds, just 42%.
• A recent WSJ/NBC News poll points to a similar divide. The youngest voters (age 18 to 34) were the least likely to say that the economy is doing well and the most likely to have experienced some kind of economic shock due to the pandemic, such as losing a job or having their pay cut. They’re the least likely to be satisfied with the government’s response. And while about three-quarters of the public say that the crisis is bringing out the best in America, less than half of this group feels the same way. (See "Millennials Can Get Through This Crisis.")
• I recently talked about how Millennials are in the unenviable position of facing their second big economic crisis. (See “This is Not Millennials’ First Economic Crisis Rodeo.”) There I ended up focusing more on Gen Xers, because I think they tend to get overlooked in these discussions. We’re deluged with coverage on Millennials’ economic woes--see, just in the past two weeks, WSJ, Bloomberg, The Economist, and these two essays from The Atlantic. But well, it’s true. It gets a lot of coverage because it hits a nerve with readers. And I think there’s something to this generation’s cynicism about the future that isn’t just about what they’re experiencing financially. 
• Millennials are facing serious economic problems. But they’re also frustrated by the lack of leadership from a system they expected so much more from. Here we have a generation of young people who are inclined to help, who could really step forward and shine in a crisis, but they have nothing to do. There’s little sense of solidarity or mobilization coming from the top. When the U.K. asked for 250,000 volunteers to help the National Health Service recently, more than 750,000 signed up to bring groceries and supplies to elderly neighbors. We need something like that here--not only because it would be a big help to our communities, but because it would instill a much-needed sense of pride and purpose among young people who want to act, but have no obvious place to put their energy or their time.

• In 2019, Japan’s population shrank at its fastest pace ever, marking the ninth consecutive year of decline. According to the latest annual estimates, the population fell 0.22%, and the share of adults age 65 and older in the overall population rose to a record high (28.4%). (Statistics Bureau of Japan)
• NH: Japan's 2019 total population decreased at its fastest interval since the Taisho era of the 1920s. Every April, the Statistics Bureau of Japan releases an annual report on the country's population total, and the 2019 results were no surprise. The population decreased by 276,000 people, a 0.22% decline. Only seven out of 47 prefectures saw a rise in population. Of that seven, four are among Japan's top 5 most populous prefectures, reinforcing our theme that the young are abandoning the countryside to Japan's largest cities. See "Japan Deals With Sever Population Decline and Rural Flight." 
• Japan's total fertility has been below replacement for over 44 years (See "Japan Birth Rate Hits a New Low.") As the population ages and people have fewer and fewer kids, the total population will keep on dropping. Next April, I expect to be writing a very similar story about Japan's 2020 numbers.

• According to a recent study, military recruits over the past three decades have become increasingly “gentrified.” Contrary to old stereotypes, Millennial soldiers are more likely to come from middle-class family incomes and score higher on cognitive skills tests than previous generations of recruits. (The Economist)
• NH: "Rich man's war, poor man's fight," a saying coined during the Civil War, reflects a perennial suspicion that the destitute and disadvantaged bear vastly more of the casualties of war than the privileged.
• This impression enjoyed a resurgence after America switched from a universal draft to an "all volunteer" military in the late 1970s--and it has been with us ever since. Presumably, only the poor and the dumb would be paid to be cannon fodder. Leftists like Noam Chomsky used to decry the all-volunteer army as a "mercenary army of the poor." More recently, right-wing writers have complained that trade liberalization, by creating unemployment, helps globalists recruit "a NAFTA army of the unemployed" to fight their foreign wars. Mainstream journalists routinely assume that members of the armed services are disproportionately poor, less skilled, and rural--as did the NYT columnist who recently reported that a military career is "a traditional escape route for poor, rural Americans."
• Yet what if something that everybody seems to know turns out not to be true?
• That is the conclusion reached by the four authors of a new research paper, published in the Journal of Strategic Studies, cited in this Economist story, The authors compare comprehensive lifelong data on two cohort groups of Americans. The first group, born from 1957 to 1964, consists mostly of last-wave Boomers who entered the military in the late 1970s, around the time the all-volunteer army began. The second group, born from 1980 to 1984, consists mostly of first-wave Millennials who entered the military in the late 1990s, just prior to 9/11.
• The authors find that, yes, among the older (Boomer) group, low-skill and low-income youth were indeed over-represented in the military. But they also find that, among the younger (Millennial) group, this over-representation had not just disappeared--but that Millennial servicemen and veterans are actually somewhat higher skilled and come from higher-income families than their civilian counterparts.
• In the 1979 cohort, the 2nd quintile of U.S. family income (that is, the second-poorest fifth) was most representative. And cognitive skills were flatly distributed across the middle three quintiles. By the 1997 cohort, the 4th quintile of family income was most representative. And cognitive skills also peaked in the 4th quintile. See the chart below. Among the younger cohort, the median family income of recruits was $7K higher than that of civilians. And the median family wealth was $10K higher.
• These overall findings were true for both officers and enlisted recruits and for all branches of military service. Also, at every income level except the top, young Millennials with higher cognitive skills were more likely to join the military. As The Economist puts it, "In short, soldiering has become a middle-class business."
• What changed? Well, I have been consulting for just about every branch of the military for decades now and I can tell you exactly what changed. Back in the late 1970s, the post-Vietnam era military was large (that is, it had a lot of positions to fill). The military did not value cognitive skills as much. And the military was intensely disliked by the generation (Boomers) then coming of age. It was an era of low morale. (Think: Bill Murray and Dan Aykroyd in "Stripes.") Recruiters could not be choosy.
• Over the next twenty years, the military transformed itself. Manpower needs were trimmed back, especially in the early 1990s after the end of the Cold War. The introduction of digital hi-tech weaponry raised the importance of cognitive skills. And starting during the Reagan years, an era of rising military morale, young Gen Xers took a much more positive view of the military as a vocation. (Think: Tom Cruise in "Top Gun.") Recruiters could now afford to be very choosy. 
• I have talked to many of today's (Boomer) generals, and virtually all of them agree that today's Millennial soldiers are smarter, better disciplined, and more motivated than the young recruits of their own generation. To be sure, the most affluent and educated Millennials are not likely to pursue a military career. But any recruiter will tell you: What most narrows the pool of youth they can pursue is not the reluctance of the best and brightest--but rather the one-half to two-thirds of all youth who are categorically ineligible due to inadequate education, drug use, felony convictions, or health problems. Once upon a time, we would have taken young Boomers with these issues. Now the bar is set higher.
• The positive flip side of Chomsky's "mercenary army of the poor" is that it was an army that helped poor people on upwardly mobile career paths. One criticism that could be cast at today's Millennial military is that it no longer serves that function as well as it once did. Contrary to widespread impression, the share of nonwhites in the military has not grown as fast as it has in the civilian population. Likewise, it is harder today to enter the military if you are not a U.S. citizen, are obese, or are a slow learner. For motivated achievers with a tough family background, the military remains a great choice. But, inevitably, that leaves a lot of young Americans where they are.

• As more people telecommute, the average workday is getting longer—or at the very least, its hours are changing. The traditional 9-to-5 schedule is going out the window as workers get to their computers earlier and field requests from their co-workers (and kids) at all hours of the day. (Bloomberg)
• NH: Are people working longer during quarantine? This Bloomberg piece says so, but its logic may be misleading. The article pulls data from NordVPN, a private network provider. They claim that US workers are staying connected to their servers for three more hours than before quarantine. Bloomberg takes this to mean that employees are now working three extra hours. But being connected to a server doesn't mean you're necessarily working. I'm sure many of you have left your computer running while you were taking a walk, helping the kids with online learning, or perfecting your French press technique.
• Slack has released similar data that people are sending messages later into the evening than they were before. But again, this could mean people are working longer, or it could mean people are working the same amount but at different times of the day.
• Past surveys show mixed results on how remote workers spend their time. One study of telecommuters reported that 40% struggle "unplugging after work hours." But other studies have shown remote workers often devote business hours to non-work activities. One study from Tsheets found that 64% of telecommuters admit to attending to personal tasks during work time, while 39% admit to spending over an hour on individual needs. See chart below.
• Nonetheless, the average American is saving 4.43 hours a week by not commuting. The question is, how are you spending the time?

• Since the start of the pandemic, young people in cities around the country have moved back in with their parents to wait it out. But it hasn’t been an easy decision: Many are worried about getting their parents or grandparents sick. (Los Angeles Times)
• NH: Ask people to describe life in the era of COVID-19, and you’ll probably get a lot of examples that reflect greater physical and social distancing. Closed businesses. Empty city streets. Face masks. Zoom meetings. All of this is true, but with one major exception: family.
• When shelter-in-place orders went into effect, thousands of young people left crowded cities and even more crowded apartments to stay with their parents. The suburbs are quieter, there’s a lot more space, and it’s comforting to be with Mom and Dad in uncertain times. Families and extended families are (literally) closer than ever.
• And for many of those returning home, the biggest issue isn’t figuring out how to get along under one roof. (If anything, a lot of families are enjoying the company.) It’s weighing the safety of being under one roof with two or three generations together. Some have theorized that Italy’s tight-knit, multigenerational family culture is one of the reasons why the virus has proven to be so deadly there. Close, frequent contact between the young and the elderly may well raise the risk of infection--and no one wants to be the person who puts a frail relative in danger.

• Discount clothing stores like TJ Maxx and Ross thrived during the 2008 recession, but in a pandemic, they’re struggling to compete with department stores. The off-price retailers don’t have online sales to tide them over—and even if they did, it’s questionable whether shoppers are comfortable rummaging for deals anymore. (Bloomberg)
• NH: This isn't just about discount clothing; it's about all discount retail. Places like dollar stores, thrift shops, and discount clothing stores usually do great business during economic downturns, but not this time. In the age of social distancing, it's all about online capabilities. That's why Amazon and Walmart are doing so well; you can shop and not come in to contact with a single person. Goodwill and Family Dollar aren't set up for large scale e-commerce. Retailers like TJ Maxx have closed their stores and distribution centers, knowing they can't compete with the online giants. Their goal is to keep cash on hand for when governors lift shelter in place orders.
• But even as states begin to reopen, I don't see people feeling comfortable rummaging through clothes racks or movie bins. While Millennials might love to go thrift shopping, the fear of clothing pre-owned by a COVID-19 patient might even keep Macklemore away. (I'm having flashbacks to high school history class and smallpox blankets.) And while I'm sure stores will advertise their sanitary precautions, why take the risk when you can order online? See "Let's Go Thrift Shopping… The New Millennial Pastime."

• As a result of the COVID-19 outbreak, the poverty rate in the U.S. could reach its highest level in 50 years. A new report from researchers at Columbia University projects that if unemployment hits 30% (as the Fed predicts), more than 21 million people will be added to the ranks of the poor. (Center on Poverty and Social Policy)
• NH: This is a bleak report, to put it mildly. If quarterly unemployment does indeed hit 30% and stays there, researchers predict that the poverty rate for the year will rise from 12.4% to 18.9%. This would exceed the poverty levels at the peak of the Great Recession and be the highest on record since 1967. Though it's worth noting that in 1967, LBJ's war on poverty was focused on elevating the elderly and rural blacks. But during this crisis it is working-age adults and children, particularly urban blacks and Hispanics, that could be hit the hardest. Even the best case scenario, which sees employment rates recovering quickly after the summer, predicts that the poverty rate will reach levels comparable to the Great Recession.
• The authors used the Census Bureau’s Supplemental Poverty Measure for their calculations. The SPM (unlike the official measure) takes into account non-cash benefits and subtracts expenses like medical and child care costs. For a family of four who rents their home, the SPM threshold was $28,166 in 2018. In a 30% unemployment scenario, nearly 1 in 5 Americans would be under this threshold.
• Big caveat: These numbers don’t factor in the CARES Act or any additional assistance programs that might be enacted in the coming weeks. It’s very unlikely that we’ll see the worst case scenario since it assumes a world in which policymakers aren’t responding at all. But this report does provide a glimpse at the hardship that we’re in for as people wait for their checks in limbo--and the extent to which the neediest Americans, who have benefited significantly from the strong economic growth in recent years, are at risk of seeing it all vanish overnight.

• It’s an ongoing debate among scientists: Is it possible for humans to live to 150? In this piece, two professors present contrasting views and offer some updates on recent developments in the field of aging. (The Wall Street Journal)
• NH: This pair of essays is a great read. On one side is Jay Olshansky at the University of Illinois at Chicago, who has for many years been the leading pessimist in the debate over life extension. On the other side is Steven Austad at the U. of Alabama in Birmingham, who is subbing in here for James Vaupel as a spokesman for the optimists' camp.
• The two are friends and apparently have made a bet of $300 each on whether or not someone living today will live to reach age 150. Since the winner will probably not be determined until the year 2150 or so, neither professor (not even Austad) expects to be alive when the winner is declared. At that time, the money put in trust (expected to accumulate to $1 billion by then) will be paid out to the winner's descendants. Talk about long-term investing! I am reminded of the famous bet between Julian Simon and Paul Ehrlich back in 1980 over the future price of commodities. (The optimist definitely won that one.)
• Olshansky makes a good argument. He points out that the large gains in life expectancy that societies have achieved over the last two centuries have come mainly from public health measures that lower the mortality rates of the nonelderly. Even slow gains over the multiple chronic diseases of aging are likely to be much more difficult and expensive. There comes a point, he believes, when we are trying to "age" humans beyond what our bodies were designed for. "Humans are no more capable of routinely living to 100 as a population than we are expected to all run a 4-minute mile, high-jump 8 feet, or dunk a basketball—at least not in these bodies with this body design."
• But Austad fights back with powerful arguments of his own. Most importantly, he points out that we are beginning to discover biological pathways (unlocked, for example, by supplements like rapamycin, metformin, fisetin, and statins) that control the aging process itself. In other words, we don't have to conquer the chronic diseases of aging one by one. Eventually, we will be able to simply "dial down" the inflammatory drivers of all of these diseases with one therapy.
• It's a close fight. And ultimately I come out in favor of Austad's optimist camp. There is simply too much unrealized potential in the emerging science of anti-aging. No, I'm don't go so far as Ray Kurzweil's transhumanism crowd. I don't think humans will become immortal, and I don't believe (even in theory) that we can download our "wetware into software." Still, I am optimistic about the attainable.

• Thanks to growing interest from Millennials, the Enneagram has never been more popular. The personality test has spawned an industry of workshops, coaches, and get-togethers among enthusiasts eager to “find their type.” (Los Angeles Times)
• NH: Young Boomers, once upon a time, fell in love with the Myers Briggs personality type indicator. (Are you an ENTJ? Or an INFP?) Subsequently, the universe of personality type indicators has expanded. There is the emerging academic study of five core personality types (CANOE). Then there is Gallup's Strength Finder test (from Learner to Maximizer). And then there is the True Colors typology (Are you Green? or Blue?). Nowadays, you can even translate your Myers Briggs type into representative animals.
• Millennials, apparently, are falling in love with a new type of indicator. It's called the Enneagram. It sorts people into nine archetypes (from "Peacemaker" to "Challenger"). There is even a musician (Ryan O'Neal, of Sleeping at Last) who has composed a song for each personality type. Millennials are drawn to quantifiable metrics that can help them measure, evaluate, compare, and even (perhaps) understand their own personalities and their relationships with other people. Knowing you have a number (1 through 9) apparently makes this left-brained generation feel more in control.

DID YOU KNOW?

Gimme Something Good. Around the world, people are anxious and grieving. And if online traffic is any indication, they’re all looking for one thing: good news. According to The New York Times, content creators are seeing an unprecedented level of demand for feel-good stories, whether they’re told in print or through images. Google searches for the term “good news” surged at the end of March and remain four times more popular than they were a month ago. Upworthy, the notorious good-news site whose sensational headlines launched a thousand memes, has seen its Instagram follower count jump 65% and its on-site page views increase 47% in a month. To meet the demand, several traditional publishers have spun off “good news” outlets: National Geographic created a coronavirus-free newsletter called “Your Weekly Escape.” The Washington Post upped the frequency of its once-weekly newsletter “The Optimist” while launching another called “Your Daily Break,” which highlights one uplifting story a day.