Poor Criminals

Of all age groups, First Globals™ are most likely to agree that poverty causes crime -- 79.1 % of First Globals™ strongly or somewhat agree that poverty causes crime, the highest percentage of any age group. Those over 65 were the least likely to believe that poverty causes crime, with only 64.7% of this age group agreeing.

The relationship between poverty and crime is constantly debated and is unlikely to be definitively settled any time soon. What do you think are the main causes of crime? And why do you think First Globals™ are more likely to agree that poverty causes crime?

It’s getting better all the time

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?

A Subtle View

First Globals™ are the group most likely to agree that “when considering most conflict situations, I can usually see how both sides can be right.” Only 15% of First Globals™ disagreed with this statements, compared to 27% Nikes, 27% Woodstocks and 25% Privates.

Do you believe that First Globals™ are in fact more likely to appreciate differing point of view? If you do, what is it this generation that would make them capable of it?

United Nations

When presented with two statements about the function of the United Nations, “the United Nations has been reduced in its influence and is less relevant today in global matters,” and “the United Nations is needed now more than ever to represent a global perspective on issues that arise,” First Globals™ are the most likely of any generation to agree with the second statement and the least likely of any generation to agree with the first statement. Among First Globals™, 57.4% agree that “the United Nations is needed now more than ever,” compared to 33% of the combined remaining generations. And 34.1% of First Globals™ agree that the “United Nations has been reduced in influence and is less relevant,” compared to about 55% of remaining generations.

Do you think as First Globals™ grow older and move into the workforce (including the government), their belief that the UN is needed will remain? Do you think we will see the United Nations play a more active role in managing global conflicts and dealing with global issues in the future? Do you agree with the First Globals™ and others who say that the United Nations is needed now more than ever?

Cry baby cry

Have we (the people of the developed world) turned into a bunch of whiners? Gregg Easterbrook, the author of "The Progress Paradox", suggests we have.

From "choice anxiety," in which life is made more difficult because of too many options and opportunities, to the vast amount of technologies which were created to save time -- when added all together, do they actually makes us feel life is more complicated? Think of cars, computers, homes with gadgets, appliances, heating and cooling systems, and many other products. Is the glass of life in the modern world half empty or half full?

The Zogby blog would like to know, will First Globals™ continue this trend or seek a more simplified lifestyle? And regarding the present, are you overwhelmed with all that you have, or do you feel like you just can't get enough?

College Abroad

A recent article in the New York Times discusses the phenomenon of American college students attending college abroad. While the percentage of students who choose to study abroad for a semester or a year has been increasing for several years, the article notes that American students choosing to spend their entire college career abroad is a relatively new phenomenon. Reasons listed for studying abroad include things such as international experience, prestige, less selectivity than some U.S. colleges and universities, and a “cost well below the tuition at a top private university in the United States” (though the article also notes that many foreign universities consider American students “cash cows,” who pay less than their in-country students).

We’ve frequently written on this blog about First Globals’™ “globalness” -- our data show, for example, that First Globals™ are the most likely generation to have a valid passport, the most likely to plan to travel overseas in the next five years, the most likely to have friends and family living overseas, and the most likely to have previously travelled abroad on service or educational visits. Do you think that First Globals™’ willingness to attend college or university in another country is just another manifestation of this same globalness, or is it somehow different (maybe a response to high college costs here in the U.S.)? How much did location and price matter when you were choosing to go (or not go) to college? Would you do anything differently if you could make this decision again?

Brother, Can You Spare a Dime?

First Globals™ are the most optimistic of all generations regarding the economic future of the U.S. When asked which scenario is more likely, the country having continuous good times during the next five years or the country having periods of widespread unemployment or depression, 26.9% of First Globals™ believed “good times” was the most likely scenario. In contrast, only 17.6% of those 30-49, 13.4% of those 50-64, and 11.9% of those over 65 felt the same way. However, First Globals™ (along with other generations) were still more likely to believe that unemployment and depression were more likely than good times, with 34.9% of First Globals™ saying that “bad times” were the most likely situation for the next five years.

Do you think it is significant that First Globals™ are more optimistic than other generations, even if more of them are pessimistic than optimistic? Are First Globals™ naïve in their optimism, or do they see themselves as helping propel the country forward? Do you think it is more likely that we see continuous good times or unemployment and depression in the next five years?