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?