What’s In An Age?
On generation-generalization and the real ways we’re different from our parents
I’m not the first person to gripe about hot-and-cold generational conjectures, nor will I be the last. But they drive me nuts.
Most of Gen Z isn’t looking for a purpose-driven pair of shoes. Not all Boomers vote Republican. There’s only one thing that distinguishes these generations in a meaningful way: economics.
Academics like Scott Galloway have written extensively on this: Sure, the average American today is richer than John D. Rockefeller. But today, the top .1% of Americans capture more wealth than the bottom 80%. The notion of upward mobility is crumbling.
I could digress to agree with his points about the importance of empathy and income redistribution for a responsible capitalist structure, but I’ll get to the point:
Any true generational difference can be traced back to economic potential.
Millennials are the first generation to be collectively worse-off than their parents. Things like housing and higher education have become more expensive, while household income has stagnated. Many Millennials graduated in the 2008 recession, stalling their careers. They’re a generation defined by thwarted success.
They went off to college in a world where a degree opened countless doors. But they graduated in a world where it didn’t. They didn’t “kill” things like golf, homeownership, and bookstores — they were forced to put them off until later in life. Millennials were promised an American Dream. But most have had to work a lot longer to get it.
If Millennials are the first generation to be worse off than their parents, Gen Z is the first to expect that fate. There’s a difference. The middle-schoolers of 2008 heard about the plight of their babysitters and cousins. Student loans loomed over their college decisions.
It’s no surprise then, that this group is characterized as pragmatic and motivated. They’re angry with the world they were given — driving them to political extremes in both directions.
Today’s young adults grew up with a sense that the systems around them weren’t designed for their success. And while that may have been true for decades, they’re the first to have the evidence right at their fingertips.
If Millennials feel thwarted by missed opportunity, Gen Z scoffs at the idea that it ever existed.
But what about all the other stuff? You know — TikTok dances and avocado toast? These are much smaller trends: signals of the interplay between real generational shifts and universal life stages.
Gen Z isn’t more adventurous with style because they’re Gen Z — it’s because they’re young adults. Every generation (even Boomers!) enjoyed a wave of experimentation and self-expression early in adulthood.
Gen X-ers aren’t more likely to plan before a shopping trip because they’re Gen X — it’s because they’re more settled in their life and shifting their financial priorities. Like every generation before and after them, their psyche has as much in common with other 40-somethings throughout history as with others born in 1969.
That’s why we can’t imagine Gen Z as one kind of person. Instead, we must think of them as a broad, heterogeneous group, loosely connected by the uncertain future they face — and think critically about how that actually informs the marketing problem we’re trying to solve.
When we conflate true generational difference with the time-tested stages of adulthood, we get the warped, often-contradictory personas that drive those headlines and so much misinformed marketing.
So, what’s in an age?
Not much more than a click-bait headline.
