As time moves on, we get new things to consider in United
States social organization. Three
articles, one each from May, June, and July, point that out.
The first, “How to Raise an American Adult,” by Nebraska
U.S. Senator Ben Sasse on May 5th in The Wall Street Journal, talked about “how he and his wife are
encouraging their own children to become fully formed, independent grown-ups.” That was a good idea, but the rest of the
subtitle, “many young Americans are locked in perpetual adolescence,” not so
much. It is true that the shares of
those under 35 living with parents, and not getting established in careers or marriages,
are still rising. Sasse cited the
percentage of those aged 25 to 29 still at home being up from 18% in 2006 to
25% last year, and, of a wider age group, the portion of those 18 to 34 living
with parents now exceeding that “living with a spouse or partner in their own
household.” All of this, though, was in
the first 500 words of the five-page story, which went downhill from there and
did not recover. Sasse disposed of the
overwhelming reason for these trends by saying “the economy has something to do
with it, of course,” but then blamed technology, prosperity, and “our
reluctance to expose young people to the demands of real work.” He said, 180 degrees from reality, that “too
many of our children simply don’t know what an adult is anymore,” and seemed to
recommend imposing artificial difficulty to “embrace the pain of work.” True, personal responsibility is critical,
but it is more important to realize that people consistently choose the paths
available to them, which has explained every difference from the success of the
“Greatest Generation,” many of whom were forced into heroism and then greeted
into careers with open arms by a country with massive pent-up consumer demand and
a clear path worldwide, to the slow-growing Millennials, who in their teens and
twenties were consistently unwanted in the job market.
The second piece, the strangely titled “Trump is not
destiny. Here’s what is,” featured Robert J. Samuelson telling us, in The Washington Post on June 11th,
that social capital, which he called “an obscure academic term” (either in
error, or he never heard of Bowling Alone),
is weakening. He cited a recent Joint
Economic Committee report which found Americans were less inclined to join with
others in “family life, the workplace, religion and community.” The figures he named were a mixture of new
and old, valid and questionable, and did not address recent trends, but did
succeed in showing that many quantitative proxies for social capital, since
about 1970, are still way down. For
example, from that year to 2015 the percentage of American children raised by
one parent has gone up from 15% to 31%, while single mothers’ share of births
went from 11% to 40%. He also stated
that the 70% members of a church or synagogue has now become 55%, though I
would like to know how increased Southern nondenominational megachurch
attendance, without affiliation in the conventional sense, is reflected
here. To no surprise, those having much
confidence in civic institutions are in the minority, with Congress bringing up
the rear at 6%.
We don’t know where we are headed with the lack of social
capital, but one thing is happening that rates to help. That is the emergence of Generation Z. Those in and around each age cohort have sought
to avoid the excesses and mistakes of the last.
Baby Boomers, who grew up in the most child-centric time of our
country’s history and often chose college majors which did not help them find
good jobs, were followed by Generation X children who were ignored, and became
the most careerist cohort to date. The
parents of Millennials saw this neglect and bubble-wrapped their progeny, who
became, instead of a group rife with loners, generally outstandingly
cooperative. And now Generation Z,
lacking an agreed-on definition but likely to be born from roughly 1999 to
2019, are starting to reach workplaces.
In contrast to their older brothers and sisters, they have received few
delusions about being special, and are willing to start at the bottom, pay
their dues, and move up – much like early Baby Boomers or those in the Silent
Generation preceding them. This is one
of two main ideas in “You Need To Treat Generation Z Well And Loyalty Will Be
Your Reward,” by Nick Morrison in Forbes
on July 3rd. The other is that
those now approaching age 20 will expect and need good training programs, to help
them develop their skills. Per Morrison,
they will be more likely to stay with employers than the job-hopping
Millennials, but will need their abilities to be used. That sounds like a fair deal to me. It is too early to tell, but it would
logically follow that Generation Z (which needs a better name) people will
leave their parents’ homes earlier, if they are sanctioned to support
themselves, and, with their marriages being earlier, will become the best young
sources of social capital we have seen since the Silents. Possibly they will make my 20-year-old
prediction, of people coming to value in-person interaction and activities more
than the online kinds, which may be seen as inferior or at least dully ordinary
propositions, finally come true. That
would be a good thing for the United States, and, if they and their children
can get hired in large numbers, or prosper through guaranteed income or unpaid
ventures, may spell the end of suggesting any special ways of raising American
adults. That may be as well as we can do,
so let’s watch the next 20 years – and hope.