Discriminatory Practices

First Globals™ are the most likely of any generation to believe that employers who discriminate in employee hiring will be punished by the market, with 34.1% of First Globals strongly or somewhat agreeing with the above statement. The percentages of those agreeing with this statement declines as the age group increases, with only 23.7% of those over 65 strongly or somewhat agreeing that employers who discriminate in employee hiring will be punished by the market.

Why do you think young people have more confidence that the market will punish discriminatory employees? Do you agree with those who believe this is true? And if it is true, would it mean that affirmative action in hiring employees is unnecessary because the market would punish a discriminatory firm?

Show Me the Money

How do rich people become rich? First Globals are the most likely of any generation to believe that rich people were born wealthy. Nearly two thirds (63.3%) of First Globals strongly or somewhat agree that “in the USA, more often than not, rich people were born rich.” By contrast, only 34.9% of those over 65 feel the same way, with other generations falling in the middle.

Economic mobility – the ability to go from poor to rich within one’s lifetime – is often held up as one of the ideals of the U.S. as well as one of the things that (supposedly) makes us different from other countries. But it seems that First Globals are less likely to believe that economic mobility is the primary reason why rich people are rich. Why might that be? And how do you think most wealthy people come by their money?

Kicking the Bucket

Do you believe death is a grim experience? If you do, you’re not alone. First Globals are the most likely to believe that death is a grim experience, with 51.5% of First Globals strongly or somewhat agreeing with this statement. But surprisingly, only 34.9% of those over 65 strongly or somewhat agreed that death is a grim experience. Other generations fall in between First Globals and those over 65.

Given that people over 65 are likely to be closer to their own death than younger people, why are younger people more likely to say death is a grim experience? Do you think people become more accepting and less scared of death as they grow older?

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?

Moral clarity

First Globals™ are the generation least likely to agree that “more often than not, wars are a conflict between good and evil.” According to Zogby data, 31% of 18- to 29-year-olds agree with this statement, compared to 51% of those aged over 65, with other age groups’ opinions falling somewhere in between.

This suggests that First Globals™ might be less likely to perceive complex international conflicts in black and white terms. On the other hand, the prominence of youth activists as well as Zogby data on humanitarian interventions suggest that, when First Globals™ do perceive a conflict as a conflict between good and evil, they are more likely to demand military action to rectify it.

Does this propensity of First Globals™ to act for humanitarian reasons make them easier to be manipulated or are they protected from it by their tendency to see the world in shades of gray? What is your view?

A good reason

First Globals™ are much more likely than other age groups to say that “protection of human rights” gives America a right to intervene in other countries’ foreign affairs, with 48% of First Globals™ choosing that as a legitimate reason to intervene compared to only 23% of Americans over 65. They are also the generation least likely to say that “protection of America’s own interests” gives the U.S. a right to intervene in other countries’ affairs, with only 28% of them recognizing such right compared to 44% of Americans over 65.

If First Globals™ keep these views as they grow older, once agreed-upon principle of sovereignty appears to be destined for oblivion. In your view, is that going to make the world more or less peaceful?

Money first

First Globals™ are least likely generation to agree that “economic freedom is the foundation of all other freedoms” and most likely to agree that “cultural and social freedom is more important than economic freedom.” In a November 2008 Zogby survey, 34% of First Globals™ agreed with the former, and 52% agreed with the latter. The next youngest generation – those between ages of 30 and 40 – endorsed the former by 48% and the latter by 38%.

Do First Globals™ put more weight on social and cultural freedom because of their stronger connection to to global culture? Or are they relatively less interested in economic freedom because they earn less money? How important is economic freedom to you?

A matter of trust

First Globals™ are the least likely of any generation to agree that “In God We Trust” should be kept on display over the Speaker’s podium in the U.S. Capitol Building -- 41.3% of First Globals™ either disagreed or were not sure that this inscription should be kept over the podium, compared to 27.2% of those 30-49, 25.0% of those 50-64, and 18.8% of those over 65.

Why do you think First Globals™ are least likely to agree that the inscription should be kept? Do they place a greater value (or perhaps are more aware of) religious pluralism in America? What do you think about the inscription – are these just words that can (or should) be eliminated if circumstances warrant, or is there a historical significance to this phrase and this inscription that means it should be displayed regardless?

Army strong

Of all age groups, First Globals™ are most likely to believe that “armies cause wars” (25%) over “armies prevent wars” (50%). For comparison, among those over 65, 11% believe armies cause wars and 74% believe armies prevent wars. First Globals™ are also the most undecided group, with 25% opting for a “not sure” option.

However, a plurality of people in every age-group believe that armies prevent wars instead of cause wars. The argument for prevention is that armies deter other armies. But some argue that, if there were no armies, there would be less to deter from. What is your view?

Can we talk?

First Globals™ are the least likely generation to believe the government should censor talk radio, though all generations overwhelmingly reject censhorship when this question is asked. When asked whether the government should or should not be allowed to censor what political opinions are heard on talk radio, 85.5% of First Globals™ answered the government should not be allowed to censor, compared to 82.3% of those 30-49, 83.7% of those 50-64, and 84.0% of those over 65.

Do you think First Globals™ are the most likely generation to reject censorship of any kind, or do you think their high tendency to reject censorship for this question is related to the question’s all-encompassing nature? What do you think the results would be if people were asked whether they approved of the government acting to eliminate hate speech or racist commentary on the radio?

Getting better all the time

When asked whether they and their family will be better or worse off in a year, First Globals™ are the most likely of any generation to believe they will be better off -- 38.6% of First Globals™ believe they will be better off in a year, compared to 26.0% of those 30-49, 19.6% of those 50-64, and 13.7% of those over 65.

What do you think accounts for First Globals™’ optimism? Are they more likely (for example) to be in good health and have less financial obligations and thus more likely to feel like they will be better off in a year? Are older generations more cynical and thus less likely to feel like they will be better off in a year? What do you think?

The Quest for Fairness

Among all age groups, First Globals™ are most likely to agree that “affirmative action levels the playing field,” as opposed to “affirmative action rewards some groups at the expense of others.” Overall, 34% of First Globals™ agree with the former (either strongly or somewhat), compared to 28% of those over 65.

However, a majority of all generations sees affirmative action as rewarding some groups at expense of others.

Is a relative preference for affirmative action among First Globals™ a sign of growing popularity of those measures -- or is the overall unpopularity a sign that affirmative action is fading? What is your view of affirmative action?

The Video Game Frontier

If one is to quickly reflect on the history of video games, an obvious trend can be summed up with two words: "no limits."

Years ago, older generations enjoyed their time with board games, card games, and of course the classic pinball machine. In the late 70s and early 80s, youth indulged in games like "Pong," "Donkey Kong," and Space invaders" when they were early adolescents (and perhaps many haven't stopped). But it was the First Globals who were introduced to the more graphically sophisticated games. Since the introduction of the original Nintendo, the games have become increasingly violent, almost to the point where even some of the most ardent video gamers express concern -- from "Mortal Combat's" blood battles in dungeons, in which the gamer is to execute his or her opponent in a gruesome fashion, to the ever increasingly psychopathic "Grand Theft Auto" series, in which the player has to fulfill mob missions including selling drugs, stealing cars, and making hits.

How far will game producers take it? Does this have any psychological and/or social impacts on individuals, especially those who are frequent gamers, or will the pendulum shift and adolescents (and adults too) will revisit either more simple or less violent games? Or will a new unknown style surface, and what might it look like?

Shop 'till you drop

When asked which department store they would select if they could only shop at one department store for the rest of their life, First Globals™ are the most likely of any generation to say Target and the least likely of any generation to say Wal-Mart. More than a third (35.6%) of First Globals™ selected Target as the one store they would shop at for the rest of their life, compared to 25.6% of those 30-49, 15.5% of those 50-64, and 8.9% of those over 65. With Wal-Mart, the reverse pattern is found: 21.2% of First Globals™ selected Wal-Mart, compared to 26.1% of those 30-49, 27% of those 50-64, and 29.3% of those over 65.

Target and Wal-Mart carry similar merchandise and both tout their low prices, so what do you think accounts for the discrepancy? Has Target successfully marketed itself to better appeal to younger shoppers? How? Or do you think there is a difference in the quality or kinds of things for sale at Target and Wal-Mart? And where would you shop if you could only shop at one store for the rest of your life?