Society & Culture Generation Alpha

[hamohawk1]

Don't know if anyone saw the article in the HS or general discussion regarding this generation being 'smarter, richer and healthier than any of their ancestors'

Their life is prescribed to involve:
- Living at home until their late 20's
- Living until their 90's
- Modern Technology instilled within their body
- A lifetime of renting rather than ownership of a house

The two main issues i have come across in this issue is education and relationships. For my mind the article (and study) fails to take into account the people that have no en devour to do a higher form of tertiary education. I could not fathom studying for such a prolonged time upfront before gathering 'life experience'. Such an emphasis is placed these days on education and while no one wants their kids to be drop kicks a lot more can be learnt by travelling, living with others than can be attained in a class room.

Relationships is the second one. The KPMG study said that marriage would be mostly irrelevant and two people would enter into sectional agreements (10 year or so) and then have review at the end of those periods. While another forum could be made on the relevancy of marriage i would much rather be in the current system than a consistent review.

Is one of the major issues with society as a whole maintaining relationships (friends, family, partners etc.)?

 

[Caesar]

From a legal perspective, a fixed-term contract makes a lot more sense than marriage in its current form (which has more to do with cultural norms than logic).

I have thought for a while that the government should replace marriage with civil unions that run for 10 years with an option to renew. People can still have weddings and stuff and get married 'forever' in a social sense, but the actual legal arrangement would be more like a reviewable partnership structure.

 

[Tulip]

Sounds very sci-fi to me.

Marriage shouldn't be about a legal review, will be just another step towards the degeneration of commitment, responsibility and social communication in our race.

I seriously see this as a crucial time for humanity. We can really go one way or the other right now. We're plodding along on the verge of the second (or third, even) industrial revolution in 200 years - and if we submit to technology and laziness we're in real trouble. I'd rather be 30 than 18 right now.

 

[checkraiseulite]

Relationships is the second one. The KPMG study said that marriage would be mostly irrelevant and two people would enter into sectional agreements (10 year or so) and then have review at the end of those periods. While another forum could be made on the relevancy of marriage i would much rather be in the current system than a consistent review.

I think this question can be answered by considering the necessity of marriage.

Previously women needed to get married for social and financial reasons. For the very same reasons they often needed to stay married even if they didn't necessarily want to.

Society (and the law) has changed a lot and now women are on essentially the same footing as men they don't need to get or stay married.

 

[hamohawk1]

Sounds very sci-fi to me.

Marriage shouldn't be about a legal review, will be just another step towards the degeneration of commitment, responsibility and social communication in our race.

I seriously see this as a crucial time for humanity. We can really go one way or the other right now. We're plodding along on the verge of the second (or third, even) industrial revolution in 200 years - and if we submit to technology and laziness we're in real trouble. I'd rather be 30 than 18 right now.

i find it interesting about being 30 or 18. one has the world at its feel whereas the other should have some sort of planting in life. although being 18 now surrounded by constant social media and not a definite direction after studies or other training. what does the next 10 years hold for an 18 year old? opportunity or conformity?

 

[Tulip]

i find it interesting about being 30 or 18. one has the world at its feel whereas the other should have some sort of planting in life. although being 18 now surrounded by constant social media and not a definite direction after studies or other training. what does the next 10 years hold for an 18 year old? opportunity or conformity?

I am 18, and I have no idea.

 

[Run n Spread]

From a legal perspective, a fixed-term contract makes a lot more sense than marriage in its current form (which has more to do with cultural norms than logic).

I have thought for a while that the government should replace marriage with civil unions that run for 10 years with an option to renew. People can still have weddings and stuff and get married 'forever' in a social sense, but the actual legal arrangement would be more like a reviewable partnership structure.

What happens thou with children involved? That after all is the predominant reason marriage became popular. To provide a stable environment to raise children. The major family court battles still involve custody, maintenance and living arrangements.

In most cases with couples divorcing without children it tends to be a 50-50 split. Sure it may cost a pack but it generally involves less legal and social complications. (Also applies for defacto 2 years + which has the same status).

A 10 year clause would presumably have exit clauses worked out such as division of assets etc. In which case why not just amend the law to acknowledge pre-nup agreements?

Given all the issues that still would need to be worked through as circumstance change, assets accumulate or are lost how is this different to no fault divorce laws?

 

[Silent Alarm]

Generation 'Me' / Generation 'Not My Fault' is a far more apt title: and I'm a part of it.

 

[rayven]

They said my generation was screwed. Now that I think gen A has some serious shit in front of it, I can see that they were right about my generation. My generation is now in control and are not doing anything about what gen A will have to inherit. So I guess those that said my gen are stuffed are responsible for it. For not doing anything about it but whinging.

I look at the health of those around me, school reunions and stuff.Their debt levels, stress levels, what they're doing to give their kids ago.

 

[The Speaker]

I'm a bit sceptical of labelling an entire generation with certain qualities. Such as 'generation'.

 

[PP34]

I'm a bit sceptical of labelling an entire generation with certain qualities. Such as 'generation'.

Exactly. You've got idiots, nerds, jocks etc in every generation.

The Post WWII generation and maybe the Cold War generation are the only exceptions. *









*the Cold War one I'm not so sure about.

 

[Poseidon]

I'm a bit sceptical of labelling an entire generation with certain qualities. Such as 'generation'.

Surely I have an identical life to all those 22 year olds living in Uganda or Pakistan.

 

[Colin D'Cops]

Media beat-up as usual. How about they get a proper job.

No doubt there are problems with this generation. Don't think any generation is 'perfect' however.

 

[Caesar]

What happens thou with children involved? That after all is the predominant reason marriage became popular. To provide a stable environment to raise children. The major family court battles still involve custody, maintenance and living arrangements.

Currently only about half of all divorces involve children, but all divorces have to go through the courts - even if the parties completely agree on property divisions etc. It's a massive waste of resources.

You'd still have Family Court to deal with disputed custody cases, but the change would mean that they could spend more time focusing on them.

In most cases with couples divorcing without children it tends to be a 50-50 split. Sure it may cost a pack but it generally involves less legal and social complications. (Also applies for defacto 2 years + which has the same status).

It costs a pack, you need lawyers, the courts need to get involved, there's paperwork, documents need to be served, separation periods entered into - it's a horrible experience, even if it's amicable.

A 10 year clause would presumably have exit clauses worked out such as division of assets etc. In which case why not just amend the law to acknowledge pre-nup agreements?

Given all the issues that still would need to be worked through as circumstance change, assets accumulate or are lost how is this different to no fault divorce laws?

Prenups are already binding and enforceable in Australia, if they conform to the FLA. They are also very expensive, very complicated and highly stigmatised, which is why nobody uses them despite the fact they are eminently sensible. And why should they be necessary anyway? Why should you have a second contract to modify the terms of the first contract, when you could just have one properly structured contract in the first place?

As a legal contract, marriage is rubbish. It worked fine several hundred years ago when wives were the property of their husbands, but as a partnership agreement in a modern legal system it is vastly inadequate. Sentiment attached to the idea of 'marriage' holds it back from being an effective legal instrument.

 

[The Speaker]

From a legal perspective, a fixed-term contract makes a lot more sense than marriage in its current form (which has more to do with cultural norms than logic).

Yes, love is a highly logical area and should be approached as such.

 

[Caesar]

Yes, love is a highly logical area and should be approached as such.

See this is the problem. People conflate love and law when it comes to marriage. I'm not saying love should be treated logically. I'm saying the attendant legal arrangements should be treated separately, and THEY should be treated logically.

If two friends want to start a business together, they don't sign a 'friendship agreement'. It's a partnership agreement which is seen as totally separate from the friendship as a social concept. So when we get a partnership agreement drawn up that specifies what happens if we go our separate ways, nobody gets offended that this says something about the friendship. It's just a legal requirement that is related to the business side of things. We don't have that accepted distinction when it comes to marriage, because it wasn't necessary when my wife was just something else that I owned.

The only reason people object to prenups and stuff is because they are an unusual 'extra'. If it was unusual for two friends to have a partnership agreement drawn up when doing business together, my friend would be offended if I asked him for one. Because the fact that I am asking for one when it isn't normal or legally required would imply that I trust him less.

If you normalise and separate the sensible, businesslike treatment of the legal side of things (and the best way to do that is to stop calling the contract itself 'marriage') then everyone will be better off.

People can still have a wedding and pledge themselves to each other forever. That part doesn't have to change.

 

[checkraiseulite]

Prenups are already binding and enforceable in Australia, if they conform to the FLA. They are also very expensive, very complicated and highly stigmatised, which is why nobody uses them despite the fact they are eminently sensible. And why should they be necessary anyway? Why should you have a second contract to modify the terms of the first contract, when you could just have one properly structured contract in the first place?

http://www.smh.com.au/national/pole-dancer-case-threatens-prenups-20130223-2eyie.html

 

[DivideandMultiply]

Generation 'Me' / Generation 'Not My Fault' is a far more apt title: and I'm a part of it.

You mean that you actually believe in the complete contrivance that is the Baby Boomer/Gen X/Y whatever labels.

With its arbitrary dates and inability to rationalise cultural differences, socioeconomic circumstances, as well as make accurate future predictions?

This war of the generations shit is non scientific gibberish, of the same ilk as astrology.

 

[Gough]

Society is now split into those who remember life before the internet and those who don't.