Why not both is because it would have to be about the people to be a generational issue.
It’s a systemic issue, and economic issue that’s certainly influenced by people, but if you gave the current generation the same economic advantages the boomers had, their scale would would be either the same or similar at the same ages.
It’s a semantic thing, I guess.
Generations aren’t the same as eras, though. Generations exist within eras, but eras don’t travel with the generation in this context.
It’s a systemic issue, and economic issue that’s certainly influenced by people, but if you gave the current generation the same economic advantages the boomers had, their scale would would be either the same or similar at the same ages.
… that’s what a generational issue means.
Generations aren’t the same as eras, though. Generations exist within eras, but eras don’t travel with the generation in this context.
Clearly they do. The era is over, but the advantages persist in the generation.
Then choose whatever terms you prefer, I ain’t het up over that.
The point is that the same people or the generation that’s at the bottom now would have equally profited from the previous circumstances, and the decline would have led to the same place for their children and grandchildren because the pressures involved were systemic, not a product of the individuals choices without that system.
I’m saying that people are people, and trying to pin the cause of a trend onto the people of a generation without the context of the systemic effects also being in the chart is misleading.
Why not both is because it would have to be about the people to be a generational issue.
It’s a systemic issue, and economic issue that’s certainly influenced by people, but if you gave the current generation the same economic advantages the boomers had, their scale would would be either the same or similar at the same ages.
It’s a semantic thing, I guess.
Generations aren’t the same as eras, though. Generations exist within eras, but eras don’t travel with the generation in this context.
… that’s what a generational issue means.
Clearly they do. The era is over, but the advantages persist in the generation.
They were in control of the era and ended it once they figured out some of the benefits they took for granted might end up going to their children
Then choose whatever terms you prefer, I ain’t het up over that.
The point is that the same people or the generation that’s at the bottom now would have equally profited from the previous circumstances, and the decline would have led to the same place for their children and grandchildren because the pressures involved were systemic, not a product of the individuals choices without that system.
I’m saying that people are people, and trying to pin the cause of a trend onto the people of a generation without the context of the systemic effects also being in the chart is misleading.