Generational Divides

I was reading the newspaper this morning and saw a review for a book named
Old Age: A Beginner's Guide.  HMMM...so there is a book that I should read to know how "getting old" works.  All this time, I thought that I would just catch on to it.  Clearly, not.

Lately, there seems to be a lot of stereotyping and finger pointing at the various generational divides.  The current political campaign isn't helping to alleviate some of those stereotypes when various polls/pundits/people regularly use age related descriptors when describing how different age blocks feel about issues or how they will be voting. Amid all the imagined "whose going to vote for whom" there also is a steady stream of blame on which generation is running things into a ditch.

Because of varying sources and date discrepancies, there seems to be some over-lap.

I am pretty secure in saying that every generation has done some good things  and some  bad things. Even the "Greatest Generation" wasn't 100% great all the time.  Nor was the "Silent Generation" silent. (Well..to be fair, I wasn't born yet so I might be jumping to conclusions on how quiet it was between 1925 and 1945.)

I am part of the Baby Boomers generation.  While collectively, many of my generation like to think nostalgically of the Boomer years in the same vein as TV programs like Leave It To Beaver or  Happy Days, clearly not everything that happened during the 1950s and 1960s was "cool" and "groovy".

If you from the X and Y generations don't be too quick to be pointing your finger...you guys aren't off the hook either as far as some missteps. Sure...each generation has some bragging rights, but no generation hasn't had to walk the walk of shame, either. At this point maybe only the Z generation can be left somewhat blame free. As they are often called the Boomlets, they really are so young they haven't had enough time really to cause to much of a global ruckus, have they?  Seriously, a generation that have the names Tweens and Boomlets...how much damage could they have done ....so far?

Currently the real blame game seems to be evenly divided between the Millennials and the Boomers because they are the two biggest generational groups in the U.S.  The Millennials actually surpassed the Boomers in size last year with 83.1 million people compared to the Boomers at 75.4 according to the US Census Bureau.  AND as depressing as this is...the Boomer population will be down to 16.6 million by mid-century.  (Fun fact, huh, Boomers?)

Anyway...as I was saying...lately I have noticed a lot of articles, books, TV programs and even movies that seem intent on categorizing people into age groups but in "real" life there seems to be no real common denominator within any given age.  What 40, 50, 60 or 70 years of age looks like or acts like,  on one person doesn't seem to look like or act like 40, 50, 60, or 70 years of age on another person.

There seems to be a great divide on how people age. While I am not prepared to go so far as to say the "60 is the new 40", I am willing to say that it's getting more difficult to guess what a person's chronological age might be.  That is especially true,  if we were to buy into the generalizations given to different age groups.  Surely, not all Millennials feel entitled and need a trophy for just showing up NOR are all Boomers resistant to technology and incapable of mastering a smartphone.

As I have talked about here at TAOBC a number of times, a lot of how we think or feel about things is closely tied to our perspective at any given time or circumstance. People's perspectives about what constitutes "old" seems to be quite varied.

For example: a couple of years ago when our grandson was a kindergartner, we were talking to him about what he was going to do when he grew up.  He told us he was going to buy a big house.  When we asked if we could come and live with him, he calmly said no.  "NO? we say. You won't let your grandparents live in your big house?  He answered, "No because you'll be dead."

I, totally understand why he would think that.  I lived with my grandparents at that same age and I thought of them as old.  Now as an adult, I realize my grandmother was around 47 when I was a kindergartner. A couple of years ago when she passed away at 101, she not only could have lived with her granddaughter (me) she could of lived with her great-granddaughter (my daughter). Instead the last couple of years of her life she lived with my uncle who was at the time of her death in his late 60s. I am sure she thought of him as her baby.

While my grandson might think a 30 or 40 year old is OLD and someone in their 60's should probably be getting their affairs in order,  I would think that my grandmother would have thought someone that was 60 as being young.

How people perceive age is really a mixed bag.  Because I teach computer classes to seniors, (I struggle with that word..but am hard pressed to find another word that is in any way better) I find myself fascinated at how people age. There are several 90+ year olds in the class that are amazingly youthful while I have met 60 year olds that appear elderly.  It's hard to separate how much of the perception of someone's chronological age is related to their physical appearance versus there mental and emotional "appearance".

Other than a few absolutes such as the AARP magazine magically showing up in your mailbox when you turn 50, there doesn't seem to be much else that is predictable as far as aging goes. 

Take for example, this month's issue of AARP features Janet Jackson on it's welcome to the Big 5-0 page at the same time she is telling ET that she is in her second trimester with her first baby.  Why wouldn't we be getting confused about what constitutes "old"?

As it is with most things, I am conflicted about where I am as far as aging goes.  I am now into my 60s but I haven't noticed any limitations to anything as it relates to my age.  Last year a 92 year old completed her 16th marathon.  I have never managed to complete a marathon.  It's not related to my age though.

I don't think age should ever be an excuse to not do something but concede that bodies age differently and health issues might impede  people from accomplishing things.  Such a slippery slope though.

I meet with a personal trainer every week and at the same time I am at the gym, an 87 year old is working out with another trainer.  Is he still fit because he is a lucky 87 year old or is he a healthy 87 year old because he is still working out? 

Another person, whom I consider a good friend is 91 and swims every morning.  She is very involved with a lot of activities and seems very youthful.  Is she just genetically programmed to look and feel far younger than 91, or is she youthful in spite of being 91 because she's so active?

OK, so I think I maybe should study up on how to age.  Perhaps, I do need that book. 

  

Molehills and Mountains

You have heard of that old adage "making mountains out of molehills", right? I have noticed quite of few stories in the media over that last few weeks that seem to be "fight worthy" causes for some people (mountains) while being less than significant to others (molehills). It is an interesting time in our culture when people can take a random "cause" and elevate it to national bylines at least for a week or so before someone elses  perceived "wrongs" make the national news. 

Within the last few months, for example,  Starbucks was served with not one but two new lawsuits. Before we discuss these most recent suits, you have to recognize that Starbucks has a history of being sued. Much like a lot of big corporations, Starbucks has pretty much had a never-ending parade of lawsuits levied against them. The most popular being that their hot drinks are HOT.

Well..supposedly their hot drinks are TOO hot.  Sadly, for some of the litigants the strength of those  particular suits are disappearing into wisps of smoke (or dissolving hot froth) because one of the more notable cases was dismissed last year which set a precedent for the 1200+ pending suits that they may be left fighting an uphill battle. 


Anyway....Starbucks, undoubtedly, had some pretty experienced lawyers on speed dial for that suit as well as the bevy of other lawsuits that included being sued for discriminating against the deaf, against dwarfism, for spiking drinks with heroin, for copyright and trademark infringement, sexual harassment, unpaid overtime, for one man's penis being crushed, and a laundry list of other slights that have made their way into the court system. 

Poor Jeff Rossen...paid to create drama where none exists.

I am sure you will be happy to know that these hard working lawyers over at Starbucks have some additional job security thanks to two newer lawsuits.  The first was filed in mid-March by two Californians that are asking for a class action suit to be brought before the court for "unspecified damages" with the demand for a jury trial for what they deem as millions of people being short changed by under-filled lattes.

While they might actually have a case due to all the people that are now dumping their 16 ounce Grandes into calibrated beakers to determine how many ounces of brew they are being screwed out of...there is a lot of debate about the science of whip and foam. Not to be the devil's advocate, but what if 2 ounces of milk that is whipped doesn't always measure exactly the same due to humidity or air pressure.  Is "whip" by it's very nature always the same volume? 

Then when you think it can't more unjust in the world of $6.00 coffees, a Chicago woman has brought a $5 MILLION dollar suit to Federal court saying that Starbucks is filling her iced drinks with too much ice.  According to Stacy Pincus, iced drinks cost more than heated drinks but you only get half the product because the other half is replaced by ice.  Starbucks is countering her claims with the comment, "Our customers understand and expect that ice is an essential component of any 'iced' beverage." (NOTE TO STACY: Heads up if you want to prove this in court...do it fast before the ice melts!)

I guess we have to assume that some of those lawsuits and complaints are legitimate. Yes, just given the law of averages,  in some cases there were probably "wrongs" that were committed against employees and customers...., but  couldn't we, also, assume that some people are overly sensitive and making something "bigger" than it needs to be.

The Internet has a way of taking an innocuous events and turning them into a cause.  Remember the Red Cup promotion at Christmas? 
Yes, the infamous RED CUP CONTROVERSY aka Red Cupgate and #itsjustacup became big news on the Internet.

Because Starbucks failed to  put a "Christmasy"  motif on the seasonal cups, the Internet went wild with accusations that Starbucks was anti-Christmas.There was a video made my an Arizona preacher, Joshua Feuerstein, that went viral claiming that Starbucks hates Jesus.  (Seriously?)

Another example, of a recent flare up on social media is related to a NOVEL with the title Meternity.  Meghann Foye, the author of Meternity writes a fictional story about a woman named Liz that is mistakenly thought to be pregnant by her coworkers. Liz takes advantage of the situation, starts wearing a fake baby bump with the end game of being able to take some "me time" off for renewal and reflection.  Somewhere between the "it's only a fictional story" and the ensuing sh** storm that is playing out in the media, was the fact, that Meghann said in interviews that the idea for her book was based on the fact she feels it's unfair that non-mothers don't get some time off.

Poor obtuse, Meghann.   Clearly she has lost her mind to link the phrase "time off" and "maternity leave" in the same sentence, then actually say it out loud and not expect some controversy.    Even way back when...when I was a young mommy, maternity rights were a hard-fought battle and it's a very sensitive issue. (NOTE:  Meghann, you poor naive thing...don't go there. You have no idea how cranky an overwhelmed, sleep deprived, hormonal, new mommy can be. Don't say I didn't warn you.)

BUT...back let's circle back to the concept of people latching onto some individual's agenda and either making it into a  fight or trying to elbow their way onto the soap box. Whether it's under-filled lattes, unadorned red cups or an author's cluelessness about what a maternity leave is,  should we expect that every opinion  has the potential of going viral?   Is there any thought that could be thought in today's Internet driven world that doesn't have the possibility to be so incendiary that it could spark hot debates over all the morning news, the daytime talk shows and Internet comment sections?

I am fairly certain that not only will the irritated moms get past caring about what Meghann thinks and go about their busy lives but another NEW cause will take it's place. Yes, indeedy...the idea of Meternity leaves has already spurred a new cause. If moms get maternity leaves and non-moms want time off, then pet owners need equal treatment. Can we hear a "Woof Woof?"  That idea  prompted  Lindsay Putnam of the New York Post to write an article last week asking for implementation of Paw-ternity leaves in the U.S.

Paw-ternity leaves are actually a thing in Britain.  Five percent of the employers (so it's not a BIG thing..just a thing) offer paid time off for pet owners that need to take care of their pets. Of course, it could be pointed out that in Britain, women get paid maternity leave for sometimes up to a year, so it would appear that they are a quite a bit more generous with their "time off" policies than the U.S.

Perhaps, I should take some "me time", move to Britain and buy some cats....
OR, I could just stay here and think of a cause that would benefit me in some wonderful way and make it into the next big national debate. 

Buyer Beware

Drunk dialing has evolved.  Most of you of a certain age, might remember way back when...before the Internet became our BFFs... when it wasn't uncommon to hear about some moron in a flash of brilliance (drunk)  making an ill-advised phone call.  Sometimes this involved calling an ex and reinforcing with great clarity why your are now their ex. Other calls would be just be "prank calls"where the  caller would randomly call someone out of the white pages (remember those?)  with some "hilarious" joke. Of course, most of these calls were stupid and only the caller was amused. For the unfortunate people that had any type of odd name, I am sure they weren't laughing along with the

caller.   In our hometown there was some poor lady with the unfortunate name Ester Burnie. Now I realize that name should be a leap as far as being inundated with rogue  phone calls but, of course, we are talking about phone calls from inebriated people so we can't really get caught up on the idea of "rationality", can we? Maybe in a drunk, foggy mind, Burnie and bunny are easily confused.

Anyway... recently..I happened upon a couple of articles and a "news" clip about the "sip and click" phenomenon.  What?  You haven't heard of this?   According to a number of surveys, studies and other statistics that probably are the exact opposite of "accurate",  sales climb over 48 percent after 2 AM on Friday nights on Internet shopping sites. (that particular number comes from Lyst, a fashion e-commerce site.)

Seriously?  There are people shopping at 2AM on the Internet and we are being told it is a sizable  number of people at that!  It's very hard for me to relate to "shopping" being fun even if one was hammered.

I have mentioned on many occasions that I HATE to shop.  I routinely shop for food because people have to eat to live.  Every other type of shopping takes effort on my part. I would say that maybe being drunk would help as far as making shopping more tolerable but then, as I have also, mentioned in the past, I have alcohol intolerance.  I can't drink. 

Given the fact I don't drink and hate to shop, I guess it could be said that I am breaking the rules about "writing what I know", but I do "sort-of", "kind-of" follow marketing trends.  I find it rather interesting there is a whole segment of marketing that depends on people getting drunk. I am sure there are a number of ways that marketing firms could take advantage of the idea of "selling by inebriation".

This trend is popular enough that it has acquired it's own acronyms. Just among the articles I read,  it has at least three acronyms and a catch phrase. Sip and Click is also called SUI (shopping under the influence) or BUI (Buying under the influence). There was, also, another coming from a study that  British marketing firm, Conchango conducted.  They did a study on drunk purchasing and coined the acronym BLOTO (Buying Loads of Tat online). Sadly, BLOTO doesn't translate all that well in America as we don't use the word "tat".  Here we might want to call it BSWDN (buying sh** we don't need) but I recognize that as acronyms go that one doesn't have much appeal.  Accurate..sure but catchy..no.


In a book To Buy Or Not to Buy: Why We Overshop And How to Stop written by April Lane Benson, counselor to the shopping-addicted said,  “From the comfort of your own home, you can jump online and spend a small fortune on alcohol-induced purchases, many of which you neither need nor can afford."

Besides asking the obvious question of why April made the title of her book so ridiculously long, I would be curious as to what qualifies one as a "counselor for the shopping addicted". Is there a need for an entire professional category of therapists to treat the shopping addicted?  I guess we can assume there is as "hoarding" is now a recognized as a mental disorder and is a protected disability under the ADA. (Americans With Disabilities Act)  I do find a certain irony if someone tried to collect disability payments for that, they could use it to fund their disability. 

The idea of companies needing, wanting and hoping for people to drink and shop struck me as interesting from a marketing perspective.  If you have a product to sell, perhaps you need to sell the idea of enticing people to have a few  cocktails first.

For those of you that want to participate in SUI,  but don't want to actually wake up with a hangover tomorrow there is an Internet site just for you.  There is a site called Drunk Mall.  Now to be fair, Drunk Mall isn't really an e-commerce site as much as a site that will get you connected to the types of things that you would buy when you are drunk.  A drunken middleman of sorts. In the event you are looking for a Trump Voodoo doll, for example, you might want to click on the Drunk Mall site before they are sold out.  If you are rooting for Trump, pretend the doll isn't selling well.

While reading the articles (and there are a LOT of articles on this subject), it was rather fun reading about the array of things that people have bought under the influence.  The studies, for the most part, say women are buying high-end clothing, jewelry and shoes and men are buying sport related items, collectibles, and CDs.


BUT..there are a number of lists of "things I bought while drunk" that reinforce the idea that "when you are drunk you are one quick leap away from a bad idea."

You want one, right????