My Econ Textbook

First Globals are the least inclined of all age groups to agree with the view that minimum wage laws raise unemployment (25.8% agreed compared to 44.6% of Americans 65 years or older).

This law is supposed to be a basic economic fact. When government sets the conditions of employment, it restricts possibilities for mutual agreements between employers and employees, which results in lower number of agreements – that is, employment contracts, coming to fruition. Liberal voters are much more likely to deny this effect than conservative voters. Do Liberals and Conservative disagree on values or just facts?

John Zogby Speaks on First Globals

State of Independents

American First Globals are more likely than other generations to profess their allegiance to third party candidates in national races. When surveyed in October 2008, 15.7% of First Globals claimed they would vote for independent/third party candidates Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney, Bob Barr, or “other” in the 2008 presidential election. Only 5.4% of the other combined generations said they would vote for any of these candidates. Likewise, 6.6% of First Globals claimed to have voted for Nader or other third party candidates in the 2004 presidential election, compared to only 3.3% of other combined generations. However, even as they seem more likely to vote for third party candidates, First Globals are only slightly more likely than the rest of the population to be registered as independents or members of a third party , with 22% of First Globals registered as third party/independents compared to 21% of the rest of the population.

Some say that multi-party political systems (such as those found in much of Europe) better represent the variety of opinions and preferences held by the public. Others say that having multiple parties fragments the political scene and sometimes results in minor parties obtaining disproportionate influence within multi-party coalitions. What do you think? And is it significant that American First Globals are apparently more likely to vote for third party or independent candidates even as they register as independents or third party members in approximately the same numbers?

A Whole New World

When asked whether negative views of Americans held elsewhere in the world affect their overseas travel plans, First (American) Globals are the most likely of any (American) generation to say that their travel plans are unaffected. 75.1% of First Globals claim that the negative perceptions held by others “doesn’t make a difference” in their international travel plans, while 61.9% of the remaining generations express the same sentiment. Conversely, older people are more likely to respond that negative views of Americans make it less likely they will travel internationally, with 33.3% of older generations and 20.6% of First Globals expressing this view.

Why would young Americans be least likely to change their travel plans as a result of negative views of Americans held abroad? Are young Americans more likely to believe that they can change the perceptions of those abroad, or perhaps less likely to care that other people hold negative views of Americans?

Big Brother is Watching

When asked whether the government should regulate the content of the Internet the same way the government regulates the content of television and radio, First Globals overwhelmingly answer no. A generational divide regarding attitudes towards Internet censorship is apparent, with those over 65 the most likely of any age group to agree that government should regulate content (32.5%), those 18-29 the least likely of any age group to agree (14.7%), and other age groups falling in the middle

As First Globals grow older and have children, will they become more worried about the content of the Internet and more likely to support regulation -- or has the Internet become so indispensible for First Globals’ businesses and lifestyles that they would continue to resist Internet regulation? This particular survey question asked about “the Internet” as a whole. Might First Globals (and others) be more likely to support government regulation of specific aspects or sites on the Internet?

Looking for love online?

First Globals’ love of technology does not extend to using technology as a matchmaker. Though some might say that online dating and social networking sites make it easier to connect to potential romantic partners with similar interests and values, First Globals are still fairly traditional about the best way to meet a significant other -- 62.6% of First Globals say the best way is through mutual friends, while only 5.6% say the best way is through online dating and social networking sites. These are almost the same percentages as all other age groups.


Why do so many people believe traditional methods of meeting new partners are better than connecting online? Why do online dating sites seem to be the choice of last resort for many who are looking for love?

Do it, it’s good for you!

First Globals are the age group most likely to agree with the statement that “the federal government should be more involved in making sure that people lead healthy lifestyles.” In our survey of all age groups, 40% of First Globals agreed with this statement, compared to 25% in other age groups. However, a plurality of First Globals (47%) disagreed.

Some say that people should not be forced to be “healthy” and that there is no single “healthy” way of living. Besides, one might be willing to sacrifice some of his health for pleasures that come with engaging in some "unhealthy" behaviors. Others believe that science has discovered basic principles of healthy life and that it is people’s ignorance that makes them hurt their own bodies. What do you think?

American Exceptionalism

First Globals are the age group least likely to approve of the U.S. taking action on its own. For example, they are more likely to believe that UN Security Council approval is needed to wage war against another country. More than a third (38%) of First Globals would seek UN approval , compared to about a quarter of all other age groups. In roughly the same numbers, First Globals would seek the approval of NATO countries before taking military action against another country.

However, while multilateralism is more prevalent among First Globals than other age groups, unilateralism is still the most popular option. A plurality of First Globals would not seek UN Security Council (44%) or approval of NATO members (43%) for military action against another country.


People usually give two types of justification for unilateralism. One is the idea that U.S. can do it alone because it, like any other country, has a right to act in its own best interest. The other is the belief that the history of freedom and democracy in the U.S. makes it morally superior to other counties, and therefore gives it a moral right to do it alone – a right that other countries do not have.

Is War Inevitable?

Of all age groups, First Globals are the most likely to agree that “waging wars is a part of human nature” (63.3%) – a position most strongly held by likely voters describing themselves as Conservative/ Very Conservative and Libertarian.

Taken as a group, Democrats tend to be closely divided between those who agree and those who disagree with that view, 41% to 48% respectively, whereas the vast majority of Republicans (75% to 18%) and a majority of independents (56% to 30%) agree that waging war is a part of human nature.

If waging wars is natural, does that mean wars cannot be prevented? And if they can’t, do “preventive attacks” make sense?

Parents vs. Public Education

First Globals are by far most likely to believe that “one of the purposes of public education is to expose children to the points of view different from those of their families.” In our 2008 study, 69% of First Globals agreed with this statement, compared to 49% of those between ages 30 and 49, and 37% of those older than 65.

It boils down to the question of whether primary responsibility for the well-being of the children lies with their parents or the state. Should parents be forced to pay for having their children learn about points of view they might find objectionable, or is it the responsibility of the state through public education to expand a child’s world-view?

Disease: Preventable or Predetermined?

Seventy-two percent of First Globals agree that “most diseases can be avoided by choosing a healthy lifestyle.” First Globals are somewhat more extreme than other generations in their thinking on this subject– among those age 30-49, 63% agreed, and among those 50-64, 58% agreed.

Some say that this view blames the victim, because it implies that people are to blame for their own diseases. Other say that this view helps people understand the consequences of their life choices. But if one believes the latter, should they also oppose universal health care? Should tax-payers be responsible for funding health care costs for those who choose to make "unhealthy" lifestyle choices or should health care be provided for everyone even if they choose to participate in less-than-healthy activities?