I just watched an awesome documentary called 2 Million Minutes. The film juxtaposes the lives of 6 high-school seniors: a boy and a girl from a suburban high-school, a boy and a girl from a school in India and a boy and a girls from a school in China. All of the students are high end students at their own school, but in the film we see that they lead very different lives.
The name "2 Million Minutes" comes from the fact that their are approximately 2 million minutes in four years of high-school. The film shows that students from America on average spend about half as much of their 2 million minutes studying than do the Chinese and the Indian students. The film also points out that students from America are much less driven than students from India and China: one of the Indian students said that he only ever goes to school and home. As you can imagine, the test scores show the effects of these increased study hours. The OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development), puts out a standardized test score around the world every year called the PISA test. The numbers show that students from Asia are outscoring American students by huge margins.
So the question is, 'are American kids falling behind in the world?' In many ways, I have to concede, yes they are. As one person mentions in the film, students in America are the only students in the world who don't think they are in competition with the rest of the world. As the world becomes closer together, as it becomes easier to allow some guy in India do a job from his computer that an American used to do, we American students will have less job opportunities than we have had in the past. And if those foreign employees are willing to put in more hours for less pay, and if they are smarter than Americans, companies are going to stop choosing America.
Why are we such weak students in comparison with the rest of the world. There are two main reasons. One is that the Indian students and Chinese students see doing well in school as their golden ticket. Both of those countries have huge populations but both have a much smaller number of respected universities. India actually has more universities than America, but in India, everyone wants to go to the India University of Technology (IIT). That one school sees 500,000 applicants per year for it's 10,000 spots. No school in America has a .02 percent acceptance rate, that's ridiculous (Harvard has an acceptance rate of 6 percent).
The second reason why students in China and India do better than American students is because American students have a different definition of success. In America, most people value the concept of balance. We would look down on the kid that only goes to school and to home. We would say 'sure, you're smart, but the real test would be if you could get good grades and balance extracurriculars."
A lot of people in America will start focusing more on school in college when they realize that the stakes are high and if they don't get good grades, they might not get a good job. This is not true across the board though because their are plenty of students who go to college and just party the whole time, a lifestyle that our movies and TV shows often promote.
This cultural trend of "balancing school work and play" will probably remain in America for awhile. But I know when I grow up, I will be telling my kids that the only way they are allowed to spend time "balancing" is if they get good grades. I will probably have to compete, at some point in my life, for a foreigners job. I will not want my kids to be as ill-prepared for the world job market as many of my American classmates are now.
Thursday, December 13, 2012
Tuesday, December 4, 2012
Indonesia, the Rookie
McKinsey Global Institute (the research center for McKinsey&Company) recently came out with an awesome economic report on Indonesia. Among other things, the report said that Indonesia, currently the world's 16th largest economy, could become the world's 7th largest economy by 2030.
Indonesia is really a very young democracy. In 1945, the country gained independence from the Dutch, but the country had an autocratic system and only two presidents up till 1999 [1]. In October of 1999, Indonesia held its first democratic election, and since then, the country has seen high growth rates, mostly staying between between 5 and 6 percent.
So why is this young democracy doing so well while plenty other "democracies" are failing worldwide? The best way to examine this is through a framework provided by Paul Collier in his book The Bottom Billion. The book lists four "traps" that some countries get stuck in that hinder the growth of that country. The traps are the "Conflict Trap," "Landlocked with Bad Neighbors," "Bad Governance in a Small Country," and the "Natural Resource Trap." Not a single one of the traps applies to Indonesia.
The Conflict Trap refers to countries that are stuck in constant civil war or has so many coups that no leader has steady control over the country for very long at all. The last civil conflict that Indonesia had was in 1998-1999 when, fed up with the General Soeherto and hurt by the Asian financial crisis of 1997, the Indonesian population revolted. Soeherto "resigned" and the country has not seen any war or coups since.
Indonesia is far from Landlocked, and is surrounded by some really great neighbors. The countries that Indonesia communicates the most with in it's region are Australia, China and Japan. Indonesia is surrounded by strong, developed nations, and great potential trade partners. However, as we will see in the Natural Resource Trap, trade with these neighbors is not the reason why Indonesia has consistently high growth rates.
Bad Governance in a Small Country is not a huge deal for Indonesia. Part of the reason for this is because Indonesia is huge; it is the largest Muslim country in the world and with a population of more than 247 million, it is the fourth most populous country in the world. And Indonesia does suffer from some corruption but Bad Governance is a bigger problem for a country if it is getting its wealth from large natural resources or foreign Aid. Indonesia's current corruption problems are not hindering the growth of the country because these leaders do not have the oppurtunity to do too much harm
To look at the Natual Resource Trap, we need to go back to those growth statistics. The 5-6 percent growth rates that Indonesia has maintained since 2000, don't actually tell the true story of Indonesia. In fact, the country had higher growth under its autocratic leadership from 1945-1999. However, at that time the country was suffering from a terrible problem, and that was the Natural Resource Trap, in one form.
The Natural Resource Trap is essentially the same thing as Dutch Disease; economies that have large natural resource deposits are unable to grow because all other productive exports that the country has to offer become crowded out by its export of oil, or minerals or whatever else. For Indonesia it was Oil. Up till the late 1900s, the Indonesian economy was reliant on oil exports. This has changed though.
The Indonesian economy is now growing at strong rates because of consumerism. According to the McKinsey report, 65 percent of Indonesia's GDP growth comes as a result of domestic consumption, a relatively high number. This means that Indonesia is not just becoming a strong player in the world economy, but they are also becoming a strong Internal economy that is capable of maintaining high growth rates even without exporting.
Indonesia is still a young Democracy, but so far they are looking good. According to the McKinsey report, the consumer population of Indonesia is still young, and as they age, the Indonesian economy will grow at even higher rates. Indonesia is still a very young Democracy, but it is so far showing a lot of economic potential.
Indonesia is really a very young democracy. In 1945, the country gained independence from the Dutch, but the country had an autocratic system and only two presidents up till 1999 [1]. In October of 1999, Indonesia held its first democratic election, and since then, the country has seen high growth rates, mostly staying between between 5 and 6 percent.
So why is this young democracy doing so well while plenty other "democracies" are failing worldwide? The best way to examine this is through a framework provided by Paul Collier in his book The Bottom Billion. The book lists four "traps" that some countries get stuck in that hinder the growth of that country. The traps are the "Conflict Trap," "Landlocked with Bad Neighbors," "Bad Governance in a Small Country," and the "Natural Resource Trap." Not a single one of the traps applies to Indonesia.
The Conflict Trap refers to countries that are stuck in constant civil war or has so many coups that no leader has steady control over the country for very long at all. The last civil conflict that Indonesia had was in 1998-1999 when, fed up with the General Soeherto and hurt by the Asian financial crisis of 1997, the Indonesian population revolted. Soeherto "resigned" and the country has not seen any war or coups since.
Indonesia is far from Landlocked, and is surrounded by some really great neighbors. The countries that Indonesia communicates the most with in it's region are Australia, China and Japan. Indonesia is surrounded by strong, developed nations, and great potential trade partners. However, as we will see in the Natural Resource Trap, trade with these neighbors is not the reason why Indonesia has consistently high growth rates.
Bad Governance in a Small Country is not a huge deal for Indonesia. Part of the reason for this is because Indonesia is huge; it is the largest Muslim country in the world and with a population of more than 247 million, it is the fourth most populous country in the world. And Indonesia does suffer from some corruption but Bad Governance is a bigger problem for a country if it is getting its wealth from large natural resources or foreign Aid. Indonesia's current corruption problems are not hindering the growth of the country because these leaders do not have the oppurtunity to do too much harm
To look at the Natual Resource Trap, we need to go back to those growth statistics. The 5-6 percent growth rates that Indonesia has maintained since 2000, don't actually tell the true story of Indonesia. In fact, the country had higher growth under its autocratic leadership from 1945-1999. However, at that time the country was suffering from a terrible problem, and that was the Natural Resource Trap, in one form.
The Natural Resource Trap is essentially the same thing as Dutch Disease; economies that have large natural resource deposits are unable to grow because all other productive exports that the country has to offer become crowded out by its export of oil, or minerals or whatever else. For Indonesia it was Oil. Up till the late 1900s, the Indonesian economy was reliant on oil exports. This has changed though.
The Indonesian economy is now growing at strong rates because of consumerism. According to the McKinsey report, 65 percent of Indonesia's GDP growth comes as a result of domestic consumption, a relatively high number. This means that Indonesia is not just becoming a strong player in the world economy, but they are also becoming a strong Internal economy that is capable of maintaining high growth rates even without exporting.
Indonesia is still a young Democracy, but so far they are looking good. According to the McKinsey report, the consumer population of Indonesia is still young, and as they age, the Indonesian economy will grow at even higher rates. Indonesia is still a very young Democracy, but it is so far showing a lot of economic potential.
Friday, November 16, 2012
Where's the Money?
Recently I read an awesome article from Fortune magazine called the "Death of Cash". The article mostly talks about Jack Dorsey, co-founder of Twitter and CEO of Square, an upcoming company that a couple years ago released a small credit card reader that could be plugged into the iPhone and accept payments. More recently, the company has released an app called Pay With Square that allows customers to make purchases without even taking their phone out of their pocket.
A lot of other companies are also starting to produce technologies that allow users to make purchases straight from their smart phones. One of the most popular is the Starbucks app that allows customers to essentially do the same thing as Pay With Square, but only at Starbucks. This new trend in mobile phone payment caused Fortune writer Miguel Helft to presume that cash will soon become obsolete.
This is an interesting idea really; it is possible that in the future, paper money will not exist? All of our money will be simply be bytes of data on a computer that can be sent from one person to another. This obviously has its limitations. For one, a lot of stores have to offer the mobile payment option before people start using it and currently, the majority of stores are not offering. Second, not having cash means that everyone needs to have a smartphone to make these payments which at the moment is unrealistic. Currently, around 50 percent of people own smartphones. This is a high number but it would need to be higher for mobile payments to become the norm. Also, phones are unreliable sometimes. If my iPhone was also my only wallet I would have to put a really protective case on it, and then I still wouldn't feel safe.
My point is that cash will never disappear entirely, but it is possible that cash will become much less common. In the future, if you need to lend a guy 5 bucks, all you would need to do would be to press a few buttons on your phone, as easy as sending a text message. Stores and restaurants could charge you by name, matching your picture with the people who are currently in the store by GPS and you would need only to sign off on the purchase, no ugly cash transfer or credit card payments (though this may make that part at the end of the date with the argument about who pays for dinner a little awkward).
The implications of this society are interesting. We already use fiat money. Cash is made up. The Fed controls how much is in circulation, the people decide that they will accept cash as payment but really, cash is just made up. To go from made up dollars to made up bytes of data shouldn't be too hard. But I think people might be a little nervous about making the switch.
The perks of paying for things through a smartphone are obvious: for the customer, discounts and coupons could be used much more easily, for the store, all purchases can be tracked easily and advertisements and discounts could be better targeted, and for everyone, payment would be much faster. If the perks can outweigh people's fears, then I am confident that many people will make the switch from cash to phones.
This has interesting implications though. When I think about a world without cash, I have to ask "what about the kids?" Imagine our kids (generation Z) growing up and never seeing paper money in their lives. What will they think money is? Sure it could be a more friendly society, you can walk into the ice cream shop and just say "put it on my tab." But it will also be a confusing society. Growing up without being able to see money makes money seem not real. Its hard to trust a banking system made up of bleeps of data. We have grown far from the days where money was backed by commodity, but even today some people want to go back to the gold standard. If people struggle with seeing the value in money now, how will they fare when there is no physical bills?
Truly it doesn't matter though. If "5 dollars" taken out of an account of money still equals one burrito, I will be happy to make a big switch to mobile payment. In the end its as easy as that. People will make the switch because of the perks I said and then their friends will make the switch because other people are. I don't think cash is going to die anytime soon, but it has a bleak future.
A lot of other companies are also starting to produce technologies that allow users to make purchases straight from their smart phones. One of the most popular is the Starbucks app that allows customers to essentially do the same thing as Pay With Square, but only at Starbucks. This new trend in mobile phone payment caused Fortune writer Miguel Helft to presume that cash will soon become obsolete.
This is an interesting idea really; it is possible that in the future, paper money will not exist? All of our money will be simply be bytes of data on a computer that can be sent from one person to another. This obviously has its limitations. For one, a lot of stores have to offer the mobile payment option before people start using it and currently, the majority of stores are not offering. Second, not having cash means that everyone needs to have a smartphone to make these payments which at the moment is unrealistic. Currently, around 50 percent of people own smartphones. This is a high number but it would need to be higher for mobile payments to become the norm. Also, phones are unreliable sometimes. If my iPhone was also my only wallet I would have to put a really protective case on it, and then I still wouldn't feel safe.
My point is that cash will never disappear entirely, but it is possible that cash will become much less common. In the future, if you need to lend a guy 5 bucks, all you would need to do would be to press a few buttons on your phone, as easy as sending a text message. Stores and restaurants could charge you by name, matching your picture with the people who are currently in the store by GPS and you would need only to sign off on the purchase, no ugly cash transfer or credit card payments (though this may make that part at the end of the date with the argument about who pays for dinner a little awkward).
The implications of this society are interesting. We already use fiat money. Cash is made up. The Fed controls how much is in circulation, the people decide that they will accept cash as payment but really, cash is just made up. To go from made up dollars to made up bytes of data shouldn't be too hard. But I think people might be a little nervous about making the switch.
The perks of paying for things through a smartphone are obvious: for the customer, discounts and coupons could be used much more easily, for the store, all purchases can be tracked easily and advertisements and discounts could be better targeted, and for everyone, payment would be much faster. If the perks can outweigh people's fears, then I am confident that many people will make the switch from cash to phones.
This has interesting implications though. When I think about a world without cash, I have to ask "what about the kids?" Imagine our kids (generation Z) growing up and never seeing paper money in their lives. What will they think money is? Sure it could be a more friendly society, you can walk into the ice cream shop and just say "put it on my tab." But it will also be a confusing society. Growing up without being able to see money makes money seem not real. Its hard to trust a banking system made up of bleeps of data. We have grown far from the days where money was backed by commodity, but even today some people want to go back to the gold standard. If people struggle with seeing the value in money now, how will they fare when there is no physical bills?
Truly it doesn't matter though. If "5 dollars" taken out of an account of money still equals one burrito, I will be happy to make a big switch to mobile payment. In the end its as easy as that. People will make the switch because of the perks I said and then their friends will make the switch because other people are. I don't think cash is going to die anytime soon, but it has a bleak future.
Monday, October 29, 2012
Personality in Politics
What brings the kids to the polls?
The 2004 election brought the most age 18-34 year old prospective voters (41-46 %) to the polls since 1992 (38-53%). And then in the 2008 election, even more 18-34 year-olds came out to vote (41-48%). So my question is, what was so special about these years?
was it the Economy? Kids see their parents or their friends lose their jobs so they start paying attention to the candidates? The Economy was at an all time low in 1992 so I would say this is a possibility except that in 1996 and 2004 the unemployment rate was almost the exact same, but the percentage of 18-20 year-olds voting went from 31% to 41%. I think a better idea would be to look at the candidates themselves.
1992 was Clinton versus the incumbent George H. W. Bush. 2004 was John Kerry versus the incumbent George W. Bush. 2008 was John McCain versus Barrack Obama. What do all of these three elections have in common? At least one candidate with a personality.
When Bill Clinton was campaigning he appeared on a variety of shows for younger audiences including a live appearance on MTV and famously playing the Saxophone on the Arsenio Hall Show. Also Clinton had admitted to smoking Marijuana (but not inhaling). Some older voters may have been turned off by Clinton's over the top personality but it apparently went over well with young voters.
In 2004, kids came to the polls to vote not for the personality, but to vote against him. George W. Bush was seen as illegitimate after the 2000 election, and for a variety of reasons (including a strong accent, and his response to the 9-11 attacks) people saw him as a poor leader. On shows like SNL that are popular among younger audiences, he was the butt of every joke. It was easy to cast the vote against Bush, so young people did so in swarms.
2008 there was a personality on both sides. John McCain was an older man which could already alienate young voters, but his bigger problem was that he chose Sarah Palin as his running mate. Palin is a very intelligent women who has experience running a state, but many young audiences were distracted by her strong Alaskan accent. I remember how fast Sarah Palin jokes began to circulate during that election.
But I doubt that young voters would make the decision to vote just because they think the other candidate talks funny. More likely the increase in young voters was a result of people voting for Obama. Although White voter participation actually went down from 2004 to 2008, Black voter participation rate went up 4 percent overall. When a young charismatic African America runs for President, young voter participation increases.
So what holds back young voters from going to polls on the years when there isn't a big personality? Why don't kids exercise their voting power as often? I think it's simply too hard for that 10 percent of the population to decide who to vote for when there isn't a big personality.
Kids are often (unfortunately), uninterested in Politics; they don't see how elections are applicable to them. And candidates don't always make clear to young voters why it is important that they vote. In 1992, 2004, and 2008 it was not only made clear why kids should vote, but it was made clear why they should vote. Kids watching MTV saw their candidate and they said well shoot, if everyone else is voting, I should too.
It is looking like Obama currently has the young voters on his side. In a survey done by YouGov of 2,000 20-29 year-old Americans, 80 percent said they thought that Obama would win. But the question of whether Obama will be able to bring the same amount of young voters out on November 6 is a different Question.
Kids don't always take the time to decide who will be the better President so if voting isn't an easy decision, they will decide not to vote. Personally, I don't think this is such a bad thing. Everyone should exercise their voting power but if they don't care about the outcome, or if they don't understand what the candidates are really about, I would rather they stay home instead of going out and voting for the guy who smoked pot.
The 2004 election brought the most age 18-34 year old prospective voters (41-46 %) to the polls since 1992 (38-53%). And then in the 2008 election, even more 18-34 year-olds came out to vote (41-48%). So my question is, what was so special about these years?
was it the Economy? Kids see their parents or their friends lose their jobs so they start paying attention to the candidates? The Economy was at an all time low in 1992 so I would say this is a possibility except that in 1996 and 2004 the unemployment rate was almost the exact same, but the percentage of 18-20 year-olds voting went from 31% to 41%. I think a better idea would be to look at the candidates themselves.
1992 was Clinton versus the incumbent George H. W. Bush. 2004 was John Kerry versus the incumbent George W. Bush. 2008 was John McCain versus Barrack Obama. What do all of these three elections have in common? At least one candidate with a personality.
When Bill Clinton was campaigning he appeared on a variety of shows for younger audiences including a live appearance on MTV and famously playing the Saxophone on the Arsenio Hall Show. Also Clinton had admitted to smoking Marijuana (but not inhaling). Some older voters may have been turned off by Clinton's over the top personality but it apparently went over well with young voters.
In 2004, kids came to the polls to vote not for the personality, but to vote against him. George W. Bush was seen as illegitimate after the 2000 election, and for a variety of reasons (including a strong accent, and his response to the 9-11 attacks) people saw him as a poor leader. On shows like SNL that are popular among younger audiences, he was the butt of every joke. It was easy to cast the vote against Bush, so young people did so in swarms.
2008 there was a personality on both sides. John McCain was an older man which could already alienate young voters, but his bigger problem was that he chose Sarah Palin as his running mate. Palin is a very intelligent women who has experience running a state, but many young audiences were distracted by her strong Alaskan accent. I remember how fast Sarah Palin jokes began to circulate during that election.
But I doubt that young voters would make the decision to vote just because they think the other candidate talks funny. More likely the increase in young voters was a result of people voting for Obama. Although White voter participation actually went down from 2004 to 2008, Black voter participation rate went up 4 percent overall. When a young charismatic African America runs for President, young voter participation increases.
So what holds back young voters from going to polls on the years when there isn't a big personality? Why don't kids exercise their voting power as often? I think it's simply too hard for that 10 percent of the population to decide who to vote for when there isn't a big personality.
Kids are often (unfortunately), uninterested in Politics; they don't see how elections are applicable to them. And candidates don't always make clear to young voters why it is important that they vote. In 1992, 2004, and 2008 it was not only made clear why kids should vote, but it was made clear why they should vote. Kids watching MTV saw their candidate and they said well shoot, if everyone else is voting, I should too.
It is looking like Obama currently has the young voters on his side. In a survey done by YouGov of 2,000 20-29 year-old Americans, 80 percent said they thought that Obama would win. But the question of whether Obama will be able to bring the same amount of young voters out on November 6 is a different Question.
Kids don't always take the time to decide who will be the better President so if voting isn't an easy decision, they will decide not to vote. Personally, I don't think this is such a bad thing. Everyone should exercise their voting power but if they don't care about the outcome, or if they don't understand what the candidates are really about, I would rather they stay home instead of going out and voting for the guy who smoked pot.
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
Why Generation Y?
What do I call my generation?
In the wide history of the world, it has not been hugely
important to name generations because people born as far as a century apart
could still lead a similar life. In the
last 150 years however, life has been changing very fast and the world that I
am growing up in, the world that I am accustomed to, is far different from that
of my grandparents, or parents.
The reason why Generations matter so much, is that the time
which someone is born, decides the world in which they grow up in. And the
world that we grow up in, decides the people we become. This is best explained by Malcolm Gladwell in
his book Outliers.
Gladwell points out that from the 75 richest people in
History, 14 are Americans born between 1831 and 1840. This list includes the likes of John
Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, J.P. Morgan; all people who are known to be
extremely successful. I’m sure they were
all hard-workers and extremely intelligent people, yet the characteristic that
they all have in common is their birth date.
The industrial revolution took place in the 1860’s and these
14 people were at the precise right age when it happened: they were old enough
that they had the intelligence to take advantage of the growing economy, and
they were young enough that they were willing to take risks and be entrepreneurial.
I am sure there are men as smart as J.P. Morgan in every
Generation, but Morgan was born at the right time and likely had some lucky
circumstances that led him to be successful.
I take the stance of Nurture when I say that these people would not have
been nearly as successful if not for their circumstances.
So what circumstances shape us? This question is really hard to answer
because my generation has not really grown up yet. We have not reached our potential and we won’t
for a few years. To see the effects of
a generation’s circumstances, it is easier for us to look to the past.
My Grandparents were born around the 1920’s-1940’s. They happened to be too young to fight in WW2
and too old to fight in Vietnam.
Throughout their lives though, whether WWII, the Cold War, Vietnam or
Korea, they lived in a time of War.
My parents actually come from two different generations. They are only separate by 5 years but my Dad
is really a Baby Boomer and my Mom is more of Generation X.
The Baby Boomers grew up in the Bipolar world. They saw the communists as evil and they
often lived in fear of a Russian takeover.
This environment created two great things: nationalism (as
a result of having one common enemy), and great science fiction novels and
movies.
Generation X is really just the name of the generation that
came after the Baby Boomers. Generation X did not grow up with the hardships of
war. They saw economic strife but they
also saw great success stories. My Mom (and
Dad) saw the cold war come to an end. They saw Ronald Reagan lower inflation,
raise employment and lower taxes to record lows. Generation X saw the great economic expansion
of the 1990s under Clinton. They were
also the ones who lived through the personal Computer Revolution.
Generation X saw a life of optimism and went on to believe
that it is possible to end wars and create peace and solve problems.
My Dad sort of falls into this category but he grew up
during the hard parts of the Cold War as well.
He still has that telltale love for science fiction and anti-communist
mentality to him.
But we are a different generation. People have called us different things: 90’s
kids, Generation Y, the Millennials, Generation Me. We have been called Selfish, Lazy, and Ignorant
of the world around us. But kids are
called these things all the time.
Our true Definition is yet to come but for the remainder of
this blog, I will consider us to be Generation Y. Why Generation Y? It is an unbiased
description. Generation X got its name
because they were the Generation unknown. They weren't Baby Boomers anymore but
people didn't know what to call them.
Y comes after X so we are simply
the next Generation.
Thursday, October 4, 2012
Our Future
I'm a kid.
I'm 17 years old. I don't know where I am going to go to college next year. I can almost grow a goatee. Almost.
I lived through the first years of my life confident in (or possibly just ignorant of) the state of my future. Possibly as a result of growing up in the North Shore suburbs of Chicago, I have never been very worried. In light of recent events however (economic crisis, partisan gridlock, environmental deterioration), I am starting to question how secure my future is.
The Native Americans attempt to live in a way that ensures sustainability of the world for seven generations. Back when Native Americans held the power, though, America was a completely different place. In their world, the future was rather controllable; if a tribesman didn't go against his clan, learned how to hunt or gather, and didn't take too much from the land, he could be pretty sure that his children and his children's children would be able to live the same life as he did.
Today however, we are in the midst of the information revolution, and technology is growing at a faster rate than ever. As technology moves faster than we can keep up with, it feels that we, as individuals, have less control over our future. In the digital age, we can no longer just pick berries and pass on the same life to our kids.
And yet throughout the U.S.'s history, technology has been growing at extreme rates. And in spite of this, America has held the ideal that every generation will be better off than the next (at least in the sense that our kids will be better off than ourselves).
In this country, kids grow up learning and believing the American Dream: that we can work hard, make it big and create a better life for our kids. The truth of this ideal (which our country was built on and thrives upon), is now up for question.
My generation grows up in a time where we have only a blurry view of the future. Will human-driven automobiles be obsolete? Will kids still attend a physical university? Could there be another full scale war? Will America still be a superpower?
These are the questions that my generation's decisions will answer and yet, as significant as these questions are to me, I feel a little out of the loop. This blog is an attempt to discover the world my generation will create. To do this I will look both to the past...
How have societies traditionally treated their children and how does that affect the adults they become?
....and to the present state of kids in our society:
What are the kid's doing today and what world will we expect for us tomorrow?
We are not the generation of our parents. We are different. What will things be like when we're in charge?
I'm 17 years old. I don't know where I am going to go to college next year. I can almost grow a goatee. Almost.
I lived through the first years of my life confident in (or possibly just ignorant of) the state of my future. Possibly as a result of growing up in the North Shore suburbs of Chicago, I have never been very worried. In light of recent events however (economic crisis, partisan gridlock, environmental deterioration), I am starting to question how secure my future is.
The Native Americans attempt to live in a way that ensures sustainability of the world for seven generations. Back when Native Americans held the power, though, America was a completely different place. In their world, the future was rather controllable; if a tribesman didn't go against his clan, learned how to hunt or gather, and didn't take too much from the land, he could be pretty sure that his children and his children's children would be able to live the same life as he did.
Today however, we are in the midst of the information revolution, and technology is growing at a faster rate than ever. As technology moves faster than we can keep up with, it feels that we, as individuals, have less control over our future. In the digital age, we can no longer just pick berries and pass on the same life to our kids.
And yet throughout the U.S.'s history, technology has been growing at extreme rates. And in spite of this, America has held the ideal that every generation will be better off than the next (at least in the sense that our kids will be better off than ourselves).
In this country, kids grow up learning and believing the American Dream: that we can work hard, make it big and create a better life for our kids. The truth of this ideal (which our country was built on and thrives upon), is now up for question.
My generation grows up in a time where we have only a blurry view of the future. Will human-driven automobiles be obsolete? Will kids still attend a physical university? Could there be another full scale war? Will America still be a superpower?
These are the questions that my generation's decisions will answer and yet, as significant as these questions are to me, I feel a little out of the loop. This blog is an attempt to discover the world my generation will create. To do this I will look both to the past...
How have societies traditionally treated their children and how does that affect the adults they become?
....and to the present state of kids in our society:
What are the kid's doing today and what world will we expect for us tomorrow?
We are not the generation of our parents. We are different. What will things be like when we're in charge?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)