First Globals™ are the age-group most likely to agree that “overall, the standard of living is better today than it was 30 years ago.” Overall, 76% of First Globals™ agree with this description, compared to 59% of Nikes, 61% of Woodstocks and 68% of Privates. Thus, a generation most likely to agree with First Globals™ on whether things are better now is the generation most removed from them in terms of age.
What do you believe accounts for this view of First Globals™ ? Do they under-estimated the standards of living from the age when they were not even born? Or are those older than them looking at their younger pasts through rosy-colored glasses? Do you believe that the overall standard of living is better today than it was 30 years ago?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Honestly, I think that the quality of living is probably pretty comparable. The big difference is the internet, and because this plays such a big part in the lives of First Globals, maybe that's what they're thinking about.
Also, First Globals weren't alive 30 years ago, so all they know of the standard of living is what they learned in school or from their parents. FG's look at all of the increases in technology and can't imagine living without it!
whether you are FG or not, better technology is a good example of why it is so much better nowadays.
I am not so sure we can measure the standard of living against that of 30 years ago. Yes, technology has made our lives easier and possibly prolonged our lives, but 30 years ago, we did not have all these modern advances that we do now, and we survived just fine. I think we might have been at an advantage 30 years ago because we had do learn to do things ourselves. We didn't have machines and gadgets to help us. I think people who were raised 30 years ago are at an advantage because they learned to do things for themselves. I am not so sure we do that anymore, as it is much easier for a machine or gadget to do things for us.
Post a Comment