tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-69851603812968403472024-03-15T20:10:21.616-05:00Kelly's blog on his interestsKellyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05422091619504878141noreply@blogger.comBlogger76125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6985160381296840347.post-17661707156388538452020-04-13T10:28:00.000-05:002020-04-13T10:28:12.059-05:00Self-Centered vs. Group-Centered vs. Society-Centered PeoplePeople often talk about those who are selfish and only care about themselves vs. those who care more about others than themselves. When dealing with the current COVID-19 crisis and the debate on when to "re-open" that is a bit too simplistic and there are actually three schools of thought.<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Of course there are the so-called "covidiots" who don't want their personal lives inconvenienced to help save others, vouch that their constitutional rights are being violated. etc.; these people are in the "self-centered" category that I referenced to in the title of this blog post.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
There are those whose primary focus is protecting and saving the lives of their family and friends and will take whatever measures needed to do so without considering the collateral consequences on either themselves or society at large. These are the "group-centered" people.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Finally, there are those who want to do whatever is best for society in general, regardless of what happens to either themselves or those who are close to them. These are the people with the "society-centered" view. A non-coronavirus-related example of this kind of person is one who is willing to fight in war for the country.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Back in March (at least on the U.S.'s timetable) those in both groups #2 and #3 supported lockdowns, etc. but for different reasons. You had those who were trying to protect their loved ones (#2) as well as those who were trying to "flatten the curve" to avoid overwhelming the health care system beyond capacity (#3).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Now that we're at or near the peak, and except for certain "hotspots" we haven't had more patients than the hospitals can handle, the concerns about having to decide who to treat and who to let die has largely been abated. That means while the focus of those in group #2 is still on not wanting to lose a family member or friend (and thus continuing the restrictions in place for months or even years until the pandemic ends or a vaccine becomes available), those in group #3 are now vouching to ease restrictions, let people get back to work to help re-start the economy, and minimize the economic and societal repercussions that a long-term lockdown would have (which ironically could result in more deaths than what we're trying to prevent).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In summary, back when new cases were rising exponentially, Groups #2 and #3 had the same desires. Now it's #1 and #3 who are together.</div>
Kellyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05422091619504878141noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6985160381296840347.post-35056366387941449662017-05-18T14:46:00.000-05:002017-05-18T14:46:26.731-05:00Why isn't Oliver as popular in the U.S. as other English-speaking countries?On the 2016 list of top names from the <a href="https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/babynames/index.html" target="_blank">SSA</a>, Oliver came in as the 12th most popular boy's name. While that's high, and the name has been on a sharp increase in recent years (as recently as 2008 it wasn't in the top 100), that's still lower than in many other Anglophone countries where it's at or almost at the very top of the list. What's the reason people in the States haven't been quite as keen on picking up this fashionable English classic? There may be several factors in play here, but one major one may not have to do with Anglo-Americans' tastes, but rather another culture that makes up a growing part of the U.S. population diluting the stats.<br />
<br />
That culture is the Hispanic/Latino population of the U.S. Some other name bloggers <a href="https://appellationmountain.net/sunday-summary-twelfth-of-2015/" target="_blank">have mentioned</a> how that population has influenced the American baby name stats, both with names popular in both cultures (e.g. Isabella and Sophia/Sofia) and with distinctly Spanish names (e.g. Joaquin) (all those examples are mentioned at the above link). On the other hand there are names which are common among English speakers but not among Spanish speakers; the name this post is about, Oliver, appears to be one of them.<br />
<br />
With the <a href="https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/babynames/state/" target="_blank">SSA state-by-state stats</a> just released on the day I'm writing this post, if you compare the stats of states with high Hispanic populations vs. those with low Hispanic populations this pattern emerges. Many of the less-than-average-Hispanic states do have Oliver in the top 10, with some at or almost at the top. On the other hand, Oliver does worse than average in states like California, Texas, and Florida (heavily Hispanic states).<br />
<br />
What does this mean if you're an American with a son (or are planning on having a son) named Oliver? In terms of the odds of him sharing a name with a classmate, it's probably more likely if most of his schoolmates speak English and less likely in a more diverse bunch (this contrasts to other "international" names, such as those mentioned in the second paragraph, which are popular in multiple cultures and are more likely to be heard where there are people from a wide variety of ethnicities). As for the practical effects, giving him a decidedly Anglo name like Oliver will likely be a plus when it comes down to potential "name discrimination" - but a greater risk of spelling/pronunciation issues when interacting with Hispanics, etc. than for example a more "Spanish-friendly" name.Kellyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05422091619504878141noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6985160381296840347.post-91887301782051950432015-08-21T11:11:00.000-05:002015-08-21T11:11:04.436-05:00Why I am opposed to birthright citizenshipDonald Trump's recent comments on how he would end the practice of giving anyone born on U.S. soil (unless doing duties for a foreign government) automatic citizenship has led me to voice my opinion on this issue. I am against birthright citizenship, but not because I am racist, xenophobic, or have anything against Mexicans or any other nationality. It is because, similar to how increases in health-care technology (and the costs associated with patients using such) has rendered the idealistic concept of "free-market healthcare" an anachronistic economic liability, advances in travel (and to a lesser extent changes in gender roles) has rendered the once-closely-linked concepts of "physical place of birth" and "nationality at birth" less directly correlated with each other.<br />
<br />
"Physical place of birth" is just that - the place where you were born at. If that was at or near the location of your parents' permanent residence than that also describes your "homeland" - where you likely grew up and your first memories were founded. Before easy long-distance travel via automobiles and airplanes was common, and when it was rare for a woman to be away from her homeland for career purposes, that correlation served true for almost all births.<br />
<br />
"Nationality at birth" describes what country or countries you have been considered a subject of since when you were born. It makes sense, and should be the case, for you to be considered a subject of the place where you were actually born in IF that's where your parents had a legal and permanent residence. However, if your parents had violated the country's immigration laws to get there, or if they were in the country just visiting or on some other temporary basis, then the parents' children should NOT automatically be entitled to be considered a subject of that country (but would usually be a subject of the home country or countries of the parents - in the rare cases where that isn't the case and the child would be otherwise stateless an exception can be made). For those cases where the child spends a significant part of their childhood in the U.S., I would have a provision if you lived a certain number of the first 18 years of your life in the country you'd be entitled to citizenship upon request once an adult - but nothing for the parents who were here illegally and/or temporarily.<br />
<br />
I should also note that there are MANY countries in the world that once had birthright citizenship that do not anymore for the reasons I have described (<a href="http://www.irishcentral.com/opinion/others/ireland-voted-away-anchor-babies-in-2004-101068324-238041911.html">here is an article</a> about when the last holdout in the EU, Ireland, did away with it in 2004). Also, we may not have to amend the Constitution because so far the only definitive cases (e.g. Wong Kim Ark) have dealt with parents who had permanent residence (which I do agree that those children should be citizens) - an historic precedent is that <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Citizenship_Act">Native Americans were not automatically citizens until 1924</a>).Kellyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05422091619504878141noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6985160381296840347.post-5283408412845902712014-07-01T10:44:00.000-05:002014-07-01T10:44:55.587-05:00Generation X: The Most Francophobic Generation?In recent years, especially those surrounding the Iraq war around 2003 or so when they refused to help us in the crusade, Americans have become more anti-France after them being our friends for much of our nation's history. Likewise there has been a slight stigma toward those whose foreign language of choice is <a href="http://millennialkelly.blogspot.com/2014/05/generations-and-foreign-languages-part_29.html">French</a> or are interested in French culture, as <a href="http://theworldwidedeclineoffrench.blogspot.com/2010_08_01_archive.html">this blogger mentions</a>.<br />
<br />
I have found this francophobia largely comes from a particular generation of Americans, the one now at the middle of its life: Generation X. (Of course this and other points mentioned here are a generalization; no offense to any Xers who are francophiles instead.) Why is that? Well, a lot of things modern France is known for runs counter to the philosophy of an average Xer - such as being too "socialist" and an example of why "New Urbanism" (which many Millennials are embracing) is a much more environmentally friendly way of living as compared to the sprawl typical in America. By the way, except for possibly the "old-old" GIs, Xers are in general probably the least environmentally-friendly generation alive today (especially when it comes to regulations on business) - the last one to embrace the consumerism and car culture typical of Americans in the past saeculum (and actually turned back the progress Boomers made towards a "greener" lifestyle - one that Millennials are reviving).<br />
<br />
An outiler to this (ironic considering they're the ones typically blamed for the decline in the interest of the French language in America) are Latinos (which <a href="http://millennialkelly.blogspot.com/2014/05/generations-and-foreign-languages-part.html">as I've said</a> the first-generation ones in America are most concentrated among Xers). In fact, as some bilingual English-Spanish families such as one from <a href="http://spanglishbaby.com/">this site</a> have done with their children, when a third language is studied guess which one they're most likely to go for? You guessed it, French (which for those who already know English and Spanish is a relatively easy step, and those three languages together will allow you to get around a significant part of the world).<br />
<br />
So which language do I think is French's biggest "enemy" in the language-to-study-war? It's the language of an Asian country that is quickly becoming more like America in the way a lot of pro-suburbia, anti-environmental people like (and if that group wins then life on this planet may cease to exist in a few decades). The country is China, and the language is Mandarin Chinese. I had originally planned to do a blog post on that language, but since that fell by the wayside I'll touch on it here.<br />
<br />
Xers are probably the generation that has done the most promotion of the study of Mandarin, citing that there are more speakers of it than any other language in the world, that China is quickly becoming a superpower, and that the language may be the new "global" one in a few decades like English is now. The opposition (which I side with) cites that the importance of Chinese is overemphasized since its complexity compared to most "Western" languages means it's unlikely to attain importance at a global level, and unlike for example English, French, or Spanish which are spoken in multiple countries across multiple continents the only place Chinese is spoken as a "primary" language is in China (apart from "Chinatowns" around the world). (Not that I have anything against Chinese people or their culture, but like many Millennials Chinese political ideals run counter to what we want and that although studying Mandarin is a worthy venture it's not necessarily THE language you should study. Another reason not to go that route is that it takes on average <a href="http://web-technos.blogspot.com/2013/03/hardest-languages-to-learn.html">A LOT more study</a> to achieve a comparable fluency in Mandarin than it does with languages more closely related to English, unless you already know another Asian language.)Kellyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05422091619504878141noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6985160381296840347.post-76936216507643372952014-05-29T16:38:00.000-05:002014-05-29T16:38:30.595-05:00Generations and Foreign Languages, Part 2: French - (Not) a Dying LanguageA few months ago <a href="http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116443/new-york-citys-french-dual-language-programs-are-mostly-pointless">someone wrote</a> about how French is supposedly becoming a "mostly pointless" language, while someone else rebutted his argument <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/why-we-still-need-french-2014-2">with ways</a> that the language is still a useful one to know. There were plenty of comments to each article expressing both sides of the debate - and I agree with those that say that there's still plenty of ways that French can be useful (especially at the global level). There are also plenty of intangible ways that knowledge of French can be beneficial - such as being "the language of love and romance" and an important one in the arts (which are reasons some people enjoy learning it - and it's easier to learn a language that interests you).<br />
<br />
Because of the perception of French no longer being "important" and other languages being perceived more so (like the last and next ones I'm covering) its relative popularity (not necessarily absolute, since the number of students learning a foreign language in general has risen over the past few decades, likely tied to the general globalization phenomenon) in the U.S. as a foreign language has dropped in recent times. However I'm predicting that may somewhat reverse once the New Silents become of age to take high school and college foreign language courses for a couple of reasons (once again putting my non-linear generational-based hypotheses on the line):<br />
<br />
1. The francophobia from the post-9/11 and War on Terror era when France refused to join us will likely be less present (or virtually not present at all) in this generation that doesn't remember it. (For the same reason <a href="http://www.fourthturning.com/forum/showthread.php?10521-Is-a-police-state-stronger-during-a-4t-or-1t&p=482579#post482579">I'm</a> <a href="http://www.fourthturning.com/forum/showthread.php?11249-The-Overprotected-Kid&p=500399#post500399">predicting</a> they will rebel against many of the "Homeland Security" practices that have since been enacted - which is why "Homelanders" is a term I've decided not to use; but that's a topic for another time. Links are to posts on the Fourthturning.com message board.)<br />
<br />
2. In terms of generational archetypes I think that Adaptives/Artists and Idealists/Prophets are more attracted to the things the French language is known for (in the last sentence of the first paragraph) than Reactives/Nomads and Civics/Heroes (the latter two being more drawn to practical/tangible aspects). Since "practicality" is more important during a Crisis era than other turnings, that will also lessen the relevance of that factor for those that won't be finished with school until the new saeculum begins.<br />
<br />
The next installment will focus on a language that has quickly grown in popularity in recent years - (Mandarin) Chinese.Kellyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05422091619504878141noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6985160381296840347.post-38866909359313360412014-05-23T19:39:00.001-05:002014-05-23T19:39:46.343-05:00Generations and Foreign Languages, Part 1: Spanish - The (Once) Top Language for Americans to LearnThis is the first in a three-part series discussing the past, present, and predicted future popularity of various foreign languages among Americans.<br />
<br />
If you're an American Xer or Millennial, chances are during your schooling you were told that among the choices for a foreign language to learn that Spanish was your best bet with the predicted rise of the Hispanic population. Sure enough, we're now to the point that you now see many bilingual items in English and Spanish, bilingual service workers have been in greater demand, and in <a href="http://www.pewhispanic.org/2013/08/29/mapping-the-latino-population-by-state-county-and-city/">some regions</a> Hispanics are now the largest minority group. But does that mean that the Spanish language will continue to be in even greater demand in the coming years and decades? Not necessarily, for several reasons.<br />
<br />
The first is that, in part thanks to us moving into a Fourth Turning with the economic collapse circa 2008, the number of new and existing illegal aliens (read: mainly Hispanics) <a href="http://www.pewhispanic.org/2012/12/06/unauthorized-immigrants-11-1-million-in-2011/">declined at the time of the collapse and has remained fairly steady since</a>. This of course means the linear predictions made a decade or two ago that we would continue to have more and more new illegals settle in our country have, for the most part, not come true (since the peak around 2007 or so). Fourth Turnings in America's past have represented a leveling-off or decline in immigration, and it appears that this time around will be no different.<br />
<br />
Now you may be thinking about the existing Hispanics living here and their higher-than-average birthrate contributing to the future demand of more hispanophones. Although the parents may not be fluent in English (which is where that language demand mainly comes from), their children who go through the American school system do get exposed to English (and in fact typically make that their primary language). Therefore we have a cohort most concentrated among Xers where most of the demand for bilinguals is found; since this group has largely been fixed and will grow older over the coming turnings we can see there will probably be minimal <i>new</i> demand for Spanish-speakers among non-Hispanic Americans (of course in certain services, like health care that will increasingly cater to those aging Latinos, there may still be a rise in demand). Although the number of people of Hispanic descent may continue to (and will probably) rise, the number of people that speak Spanish but not English probably won't.<br />
<br />
Finally since learning Spanish has been so encouraged over the past generation or two we are becoming more saturated with suitable bilinguals - meaning that the supply/demand equilibrium has become more balanced. In fact, since the children of the immigrants I mentioned in the above paragraph will naturally know both languages, that may further tilt the balance towards there being an excess of available hispanophones available.<br />
<br />
I'm not saying that Spanish would ever be a poor choice to learn as a foreign language for Americans; after all it's still, and most likely will remain, the most spoken language in the Western Hemisphere. My point is that for various (and often overlooked by linear thinkers) reasons the hype that it is *the* language you *should* learn has largely gone out the window with the Third Turning. If you live or plan to live in the "Latino Belt" roughly consisting of the Southwestern States and Florida (or other locality where Spanish is used virtually as much or more than English), or plan on being in an occupation where you'll frequently be interacting with the (aging) non-anglophone Hispanics, it may still be true that your best bet is to learn Spanish; otherwise if another language interests you more or has the potential to be more useful for you I say go with it instead.<br />
<br />
In the next installment I'll be discussing Spanish's biggest "competitor" in foreign language choice - the sister Romance Language of French.Kellyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05422091619504878141noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6985160381296840347.post-62405863561704897912013-05-02T15:04:00.000-05:002013-05-02T15:07:04.685-05:00What's In a Name: The Obamacare "Mandate" and "Penalty"No, this isn't on my usual subject of baby names. Rather, it's about the so-called mandate and penalty in the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act">PPACA</a> (aka Obamacare). The authors of the law knew that part of making the law work was to get more healthy people (who "voluntarily" chose not to have health insurance) to pay into the system (especially since banning denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions means you could always get coverage later). Some early drafts of health-care reform law proposals did have an actual mandate with criminal penalties for noncompliance. That proved to be politically risky (and as I'll explain would probably make the difference in the Supreme Court outcome), so they inserted a "mandate" with a "penalty" that is nothing more than an additional amount owed to the IRS on your income tax (and on top of that the IRS cannot use many of its tactics like liens or garnishments to collect the amount; about all they can do is withhold a tax refund or possibly try to sue you). Since that basically amounts to an additional income tax (and would've been unequivocally constitutional if instead they raised everyone's taxes by the penalty amount with a credit of the same sum if you have health insurance), that's what saved it in the Supreme Court (remember that in the decision they said that Congress does <u>not</u> have the power to require people to buy insurance, rather they can only tax you). If the mandate did come with criminal penalties for not complying, that would've most likely been ruled unconstitutional. For those who are upset that this means that Congress has new powers, it's no different than all the many other tax deductions and credits for doing certain actions (like carrying a home mortgage or having children); the only difference is it's written in a way to be "negative reinforcement" for not doing such an action rather than "positive reinforcement" for doing so (which ultimately makes no difference in the amount you pay; you pay the same greater amount for not having health insurance than if you do). It was made into a "penalty" rather than a "credit" simply because it would likely lure more people into buying health insurance by making it sound "wrong" not to purchase it, but on a <i>de facto</i> basis both ways would have the same monetary costs (the opposite of for example laws that on a <i>de jure</i> basis are neutral on the face but in reality burden and discriminate against certain groups more than others).Kellyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05422091619504878141noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6985160381296840347.post-82974935164333506352013-04-02T11:43:00.002-05:002013-04-02T11:43:42.506-05:00BabyCenter's Name StatisticsGenerally I take name popularity lists compiled by non-government sources (e.g. babynames.com) based on what their members like and/or choose for their children with a grain of salt. However, there is one that I have noticed appears to indicate some clues to upcoming trends: <a href="http://babycenter.com/baby-names">The BabyCenter list</a>, based on what their members have named their babies. Except for the very low-ranking names, they have enough members to level out the "noise" that occurs when the data sample is small. In addition, their graphs tend to more or less follow the trends in the population at large; since their data is up-to-the-present (unlike the SSA whose data does not come out until May of the year following the one in question) the BabyCenter stats often give a clue as to where names will be heading over the next year or two. In addition, comparing a name's rank between the BC and SSA lists gives a clue on the cultural groups most using the respective name: In-style names tend to rank higher on the BC list, while names more commonly used in immigrant families tend to rank lower.Kellyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05422091619504878141noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6985160381296840347.post-18039378364833197472013-03-18T18:26:00.000-05:002013-10-24T20:28:22.949-05:00The Gender Factor in Name IndividualityIn my <a href="http://millennialkelly.blogspot.com/2013/03/how-individualism-in-naming-has.html">last blog post</a> I discussed both the short- and long-term factors in how the name pool has diversified and far fewer babies are being given one of the standard classics. There is also the gender factor, and most of you probably know how it has gone for much of recent history: Boys are more likely to be given a "common" name than girls, and the names themselves at the top of the list change at a slower pace on the blue side as compared to the pinks. However, as recently as <a href="http://www.galbithink.org/names/us200.htm">the decades immediately preceding the advent of the coverage of the SSA list</a>, that factor was almost nonexistent.<br />
<br />
In the late 19th century, we start to see the naming practices by gender diverge: The pace in fashion changes pick up and fewer girls being given the standard classics, with a lesser effect on the boy's side. We probably owe this to the wave of feminism that brought them the vote and other similar rights, with many seeing the old names as being stodgy to the old way of feminine thinking. With the exception of a period around the Depression when there was a <a href="http://babynamewizard.com/archives/2009/4/recession-era-baby-naming-part-2">brief distaste</a> for some of the boy's classics, this pattern of a pronounced greater individualism with girl's names continued throughout the 20th century (we also see far fewer female "juniors" compared to before while the practice continued with males during this period). This diversion peaked around the period of the 1950s-70s, when you sometimes saw almost twice as many boys being given the top names as girls (this may also why you're more likely to have a "<a href="http://millennialkelly.blogspot.com/2010/10/generation-gap-and-parenting-depends-on.html">generation gap</a>" with your parents over what to name a boy than a girl, while in the past the opposite was more likely).<br />
<br />
The next wave of feminism in the '70s had somewhat of the opposite effect (reducing the magnitude but not reversing the pattern of the "gender gap") resulting in a regression of the long-term "name deflation" with an increase in the number of girls bestowed a top name (hence why so many feel Jennifer and Jessica are "burned out" while Lisa from just a decade or two before did not have the same effect). This is probably due to parents realizing that like with their son's names their daughter's names would likely need to withstand the test of how it would be perceived on a resume. The Great Name Deflation which began in the '90s had its effect first with girls, partially reversing the aforementioned effect for a brief period (that's when we saw the "gender crossover" with names picking up steam and more "modern" names at the top of the girl's list).<br />
<br />
However, over the past 10-15 years we have really begun to see a pickup in the diversification of what we name our sons. Although there is still some sexism, the acceptance towards more unusual and/or unisex names for boys has softened. We are also seeing the pace in fashion changes picking up with boys, with many of the old standard classics falling and more trendy names reaching the top of the charts (in fact there are now more "non-traditional" names on the boy's Top 10 than the girls!). Another reversal of the conventional wisdom is that the top names now often rack in as much if not more usage on the girl's side (e.g. in 2011 and 2012 there were more girls named Sophia than boys named Jacob, and the same thing for the two years before that substituting Isabella for Sophia); for most of the past century it was the other way around (e.g. you probably grew up knowing more Michaels than Jennifers, although for a brief period early in the baby-boom years Linda topped Robert in usage). Is this a sign of <i>true</i> gender equality in the near future?Kellyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05422091619504878141noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6985160381296840347.post-20533573109231835972013-03-18T16:22:00.000-05:002013-03-18T16:25:27.743-05:00How Individualism in Naming Has Increased Over TimeAnyone who has taken a good look at the <a href="http://socialsecurity.gov/OACT/babynames/">SSA's name popularity list</a> knows how in recent years the share of babies given one of the top-ranking names has decreased quite a bit. What is not obvious from those stats, but becomes apparent to anyone studying name trends over longer periods of time, is that drop is an extension to the long-term trend since medieval times (when over half of the population of each gender got one of a few names). In fact, <a href="http://galbithink.org/names/us200.htm">as recently as the mid-19th century</a>, the most popular name for each gender (typically John and Mary) was given to more than 10% of babies. Since then, a variety of new name practices became more common (using surnames as first names, virtue names, nature names, alternate spellings, etc.) resulted in the "core classics" gradually becoming less and less used as a whole (while some name enthusiasts may not like those trends, such practices do result in fewer "burned out" names).<br />
<br />
In the SSA-list era, this long-term trend has largely continued, although there was a slight regression during part of the first half of the 20th century. Even so, we went from 6-8% of babies in the 1880s given the top name (with the runners-up not far behind) to just over 5% during the early baby-boom era (when the top names shifted to Robert and Linda, which more frequent changes to the names themselves at the top of the list is the subject of a future blog post). By the 1970s we were down to 3-4% when Michael and Jennifer ruled the roost. However, that drop pales into comparison to what started happening around 1990 or so (I don't know if they had any influence or if it is just coincidence, but that was right after <i>Beyond Jennifer and Jason</i>, the first name book written by <a href="http://nameberry.com/">Pamela Redmond Satran and Linda Rosenkrantz</a>, came out). Over the last 20 years or so the number of babies given a top name has dropped dramatically, to the point that the current top names (Jacob and Sophia) are given to barely more than 1% of babies (that's less than a third from the generation before, about a fifth from the generation before that, and less than a tenth from 150-200 years ago). That's why in the name community, we often say that unusual names are less likely to cause teasing and/or social outcasting than when you or your parents were growing up; on the other hand, those who like one of the top-ranking names but worry about popularity can rest knowing that those names are less common than what the similar-ranking names were when you were a kid. In the most recent SSA lists, it looks like this massive drop has begun to level off though (making circa 1990-2010 the "name deflation" era).<br />
<br />
In my next blog post I'll be talking about how this name individuality vs. conformity has varied by gender.Kellyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05422091619504878141noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6985160381296840347.post-36596732995879114562012-12-30T16:54:00.000-06:002013-02-16T07:09:14.727-06:00Boy's Names Inspired By Their Feminine FormsAt <a href="http://nameberry.com/">Nameberry</a>, Pamela Redmond Satran has commented on a sign that there is more upcoming "gender equality" in naming: a popular girl's name inspiring the use of its masculine form(s), such as the example she gave of Emma for girls lending the way to Emmett for boys. She also commented on how she thought a generation or two ago that a boy's name being similar to a girl's name would be a minus for its usage on the boy's side. Actually, as I will demonstrate in this blog, that has not always been true. Indeed, many of the classic "unisex nicknames" get started first by the feminine form(s) being popular, and then following along or trailing are the masculine form(s).<br />
<br />
The first one I'll take a look at is one that is still fairly popular and fashionable: <a href="http://babynamewizard.com/voyager#prefix=sam&ms=false&exact=false">Sam</a> (<a href="http://babynamewizard.com/voyager#prefix=samantha&ms=true&sw=f&exact=true">Samantha</a>, <a href="http://babynamewizard.com/voyager#prefix=samuel&ms=false&exact=true">Samuel</a>). Samantha's entrance into the mainstream name pool <a href="http://babynamewizard.com/archives/2010/7/samantha-the-ultimate-new-classic">can be pinpointed</a> to the TV series <i><a href="http://imdb.com/title/tt0057733/">Bewitched</a></i>, which premiered in 1964. Over the next quarter-century the name climbed the charts, and ended up being the fourth most popular name for girls in the 1990s. Although now given to less than a third of the number of babies as at its peak and slowly falling in popularity, Samantha still ranked at #17 in 2011 (which not qualifying as a true classic can certainly qualify as a "modern classic"). The masculine for, Samuel, does qualify as a true classic though (never being out of the Top 100 and a popularity spread ratio of less than 1-4 from its least to most popular years). Samuel's re-ascent in popularity happened almost right along with Samantha's (although less steeply), which goes to show that parents debating on Samuel for a boy did not let the prospect of also knowing girl Sams deter them. In fact, Samuel's peak was after Samantha's and while the feminine form is dropping the masculine form has remained fairly steady.<br />
<br />
The next one is a name prefix that many parents-to-be grew up with a lot of: <a href="http://babynamewizard.com/voyager#prefix=chris&ms=false&exact=false">Chris</a> (<a href="http://babynamewizard.com/voyager#prefix=christine&ms=true&sw=f&exact=true">Christine</a>/<a href="http://babynamewizard.com/voyager#prefix=christina&ms=true&sw=f&exact=true">Christina</a>/etc., <a href="http://babynamewizard.com/voyager#prefix=christopher&ms=true&sw=m&exact=true">Christopher</a>/<a href="http://babynamewizard.com/voyager#prefix=christian&ms=true&sw=m&exact=true">Christian</a>/etc.). Christine was the leader of the pack, peaking in the 1960s. Christina and Christopher were the 70s/80s hits (thus being another case where the feminine forms led before the masculine ones). The Chris- names are largely in fashion limbo for girls (with all forms now well out of the Top 100), but Christopher for boys dropped more slowly (still ranked at #21 last year) and the other common masculine form, Christian, saw its heyday during the 90s and 2000's decade (starting to fall but came in at #30 in 2011). Although probably not the best example of feminine-to-masculine inspiration, it's still another example that boys and girls have not minded sharing nicknames even in the past.<br />
<br />
The last one I'm examining is <a href="http://babynamewizard.com/voyager#prefix=pat&ms=false&exact=false">Pat</a> (<a href="http://babynamewizard.com/voyager#prefix=patricia&ms=true&sw=f&exact=true">Patricia</a>, <a href="http://babynamewizard.com/voyager#prefix=patrick&ms=true&sw=m&exact=true">Patrick</a>). <a href="http://millennialkelly.blogspot.com/2012/06/patricia-nickname-rich-name-of-week.html">Patricia</a> saw a huge rise from being semi-obscure at the start of the SSA list to one of the most popular names at the time of the post-war baby boom, and afterwards slowly but surely fell to become uncommon again among modern baby girls. It took a bit longer for the masculine form, Patrick, to see its peak (which was nowhere near the feminine form's) in the 1960s and remained fairly steady through the 1980s. This makes Patricia-Patrick a good example of feminine-to-masculine inspiration (and a case where the females that a typical boy Pat shared a nickname with were not his female classmates but his friend's mothers, teachers, aunts, etc., also considering that a Generation X/Y Patricia would be more likely to use one of the "back-end" Tricia-type nicknames than one of the Pat-type ones). (This might be good news for unisex names like Kelly, Robin, and Shannon now that they sound dated for girls and thus a modern boy with a name like one of those would have a low chance of sharing it with a female classmate, although he may well share it with an adult woman that he knows.)<br />
<br />
(I apologize to Pam if she doesn't like that I used a tool from a competing name site to show the stats, but since that tool makes it easy to make the cross-gender comparisons on a single graph like I did I thought it was the best equipped for this job. I use ideas from both parties' name sites to build upon my ideas.)<br />
<br />
Addendum: Although this one isn't nickname-based like the others, I thought of another (currently in-style) name in which the masculine form is climbing in the shadow of the feminine one (<a href="http://babynamewizard.com/voyager#prefix=olivia&ms=true&sw=f&exact=true">Olivia</a>, <a href="http://babynamewizard.com/voyager#prefix=oliver&ms=true&sw=m&exact=true">Oliver</a>). Olivia's been near the top of the charts for several years now, while (in the U.S.) Oliver is just starting to catch up (although at a pretty fast rate).Kellyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05422091619504878141noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6985160381296840347.post-38408892371918947612012-09-27T07:37:00.003-05:002012-09-27T07:37:40.723-05:00Margaret: Nickname-Rich Name of the Week (September 27)For the final name in this series we're covering another more-or-less classic: Margaret. In recent decades she's <a href="http://babynamewizard.com/voyager#prefix=margaret&ms=true&sw=f&exact=true">been in</a> fashion limbo though, but some hipster namers are reconsidering her. Here's some of the many nicknames (some of which relate to Margaret's international forms): Mag(gie), Marge, Margo(t), Meg, Rita, and Daisy (derived from the French form Marguerite, which is my favorite version). This is also another name where sometimes the initial consonant changed, which gives us nicknames like Peggy and the like. What are your favorites (both among the aforementioned nicknames and any others you can think of)? As for Margaret herself, do you think it's time to revive her or should we wait a little longer?Kellyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05422091619504878141noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6985160381296840347.post-12558814585047079412012-09-20T10:00:00.001-05:002012-09-20T10:01:23.643-05:00Henry: Nickname-Rich Name of the Week (September 20)For the second "added" name here's another name found throughout history that's seen a <a href="http://babynamewizard.com/voyager#prefix=henry&ms=true&sw=m&exact=false">recent revival</a>: Henry. Although he's very nice on his own, it has spun off nicknames like Hank (currently in limbo) and Harry (now the #1 boy's name in England/Wales but handicapped on this side of the pond probably due to sounding like "hairy" in an American accent). Any others I didn't think of, and what do you think of Henry and his nicknames?Kellyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05422091619504878141noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6985160381296840347.post-43191393027054886042012-09-13T07:45:00.001-05:002012-09-13T07:45:54.027-05:00Melissa: Nickname-Rich Name of the Week (September 13)Note: Today's post was originally going to be another name and the last one, but since my original plan for this series I've come up with two more names to cover. The other name (a boy's name) that was added will be next week, and the end of the series will be two weeks from today.<br />
<br />
She's probably very familiar to today's parents, being <a href="http://www.babynamewizard.com/voyager#prefix=melissa&ms=true&sw=f&exact=false">very popular during the 1970s and 1980s</a>, and was (and still is) one of my favorites for a girl. The name is Melissa; although now a bit dated it would still fit in with today's other frilly girl's name picks. If the frills are a drawback, some shortened forms are Mel (if you want the tomboy-nickname effect), <a href="http://www.babynamewizard.com/voyager#prefix=mia&ms=true&sw=f&exact=true">Mia</a> (a more current nickname if you want to offset the "mom name" feel of Melissa), and Missy (which is even more dated than the parent name). What do you think of Melissa and those and other possible nicknames? Do you find Melissa too dated, or is it still good for a contemporary girl?Kellyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05422091619504878141noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6985160381296840347.post-11477287361247566142012-09-11T10:44:00.000-05:002012-09-11T10:44:24.507-05:00Initial Letters and Name FashionsThere is a <a href="http://babynamewizard.com/forum/guess-the-year">game</a> on <a href="http://babynamewizard.com/">The Baby Name Wizard's</a> <a href="http://babynamewizard.com/forum">forums</a> going on where a list of names featuring the most popular one from each of the letters of the alphabet is given, and you guess which birthyear it's from based on the <a href="http://socialsecurity.gov/OACT/babynames">SSA list</a>. I decided to compose a list myself from the year I was born; on the girl's list many of them are what you'd expect, such as the perennial favorite <a href="http://millennialkelly.blogspot.com/2012/05/elizabeth-nickname-rich-name-of-week.html">Elizabeth</a> and names that were in style at the time such as Heather and Nicole. On the other hand there are some surprises, such as the O and P tops: Olivia (ahead of its prime) and <a href="http://millennialkelly.blogspot.com/2012/06/patricia-nickname-rich-name-of-week.html">Patricia</a> (behind its prime). The names like the latter two got my attention and led me to do some <a href="http://babynamewizard.com/voyager#">NameVoyager</a> experiments to observe the general trends of each of the initial letters from the alphabet. As with individual names, many of the letters exhibit style peaks and troughs.<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<a href="http://babynamewizard.com/voyager#prefix=a&ms=false&exact=false">A</a> - Shows an "antique revival" pattern - popular in the early years of the SSA list, had its low point around the mid-20th century, and has come back stronger than ever before in recorded history.</div>
<div>
<a href="http://babynamewizard.com/voyager#prefix=b&ms=false&exact=false">B</a> - No strong trends, although Barbara and Betty spiked the letter around the 1930s.</div>
<div>
<a href="http://babynamewizard.com/voyager#prefix=c&ms=false&exact=false">C</a> - Once again no strong generational trends.</div>
<div>
<a href="http://babynamewizard.com/voyager#prefix=d&ms=false&exact=false">D</a> - The opposite of "A": A mid-century favorite letter, less popular before and after that time.</div>
<div>
<a href="http://babynamewizard.com/voyager#prefix=e&ms=false&exact=false">E</a> - Similar trajectory to "A" but more popular at its original peak as opposed to its second one.</div>
<div>
<a href="http://babynamewizard.com/voyager#prefix=f&ms=false&exact=false">F</a> - A letter that was more common at the commencement of the SSA-list era but hasn't come back into vogue.</div>
<div>
<a href="http://babynamewizard.com/voyager#prefix=g&ms=false&exact=false">G</a> - More common among Boomers and earlier generations than after; had its low around the time most of today's new parents were born, and is showing signs of coming back.</div>
<div>
<a href="http://babynamewizard.com/voyager#prefix=h&ms=false&exact=false">H</a> - Another "older" letter, with its low point in the 1960s and a lesser return since.</div>
<div>
<a href="http://babynamewizard.com/voyager#prefix=i&ms=false&exact=false">I</a> - Notice how the vowels are showing the classic "100-year revival" pattern, similar to how "A" and "E" have followed.</div>
<div>
<a href="http://babynamewizard.com/voyager#prefix=j&ms=false&exact=false">J</a> - Despite the plethora of Jasons, Jennifers, and Jessicas among today's parents, this letter has been pretty perennial but is now showing signs of falling.</div>
<div>
<a href="http://babynamewizard.com/voyager#prefix=k&ms=false&exact=false">K</a> - A "modern" letter, much more popular from the second half of the 20th century forward than before (although starting to decline).</div>
<div>
<a href="http://babynamewizard.com/voyager#prefix=l&ms=false&exact=false">L</a> - Gradually declined through the 1990s, but is now returning fairly strongly.</div>
<div>
<a href="http://babynamewizard.com/voyager#prefix=m&ms=false&exact=false">M</a> - Another perennial letter, although a little less common now than in the past.</div>
<div>
<a href="http://babynamewizard.com/voyager#prefix=n&ms=false&exact=false">N</a> - Fairly perennial, but more common in recent years (<a href="http://millennialkelly.blogspot.com/2012/08/is-nancy-new-emma.html">Nancy</a> did most of the mid-century propping for the letter).</div>
<div>
<a href="http://babynamewizard.com/voyager#prefix=o&ms=false&exact=false">O</a> - Same pattern as the other vowels (hence Olivia sneaking in a generation earlier as I described when not many "O" names were popular).</div>
<div>
<a href="http://babynamewizard.com/voyager#prefix=p&ms=false&exact=false">P</a> - Like "D" a letter that peaked mid-century (once again allowing Patricia to show up a generation later when the letter was going out of style).</div>
<div>
<a href="http://babynamewizard.com/voyager#prefix=q&ms=false&exact=false">Q</a> - You'll start to notice that many of the "high <a href="http://hasbro.com/scrabble/en_US/">Scrabble</a> value" letters were pretty uncommon until recently, and have spiked in the past decade or two.</div>
<div>
<a href="http://babynamewizard.com/voyager#prefix=r&ms=false&exact=false">R</a> - Another "mid-century consonant" now in more of a fashion limbo than at its height.</div>
<div>
<a href="http://babynamewizard.com/voyager#prefix=s&ms=false&exact=false">S</a> - More common among today's living adults than in earlier or later years, but only modestly lower now.</div>
<div>
<a href="http://babynamewizard.com/voyager#prefix=t&ms=false&exact=false">T</a> - A Gen-X favorite letter, at its highest in the 1960s and '70s.</div>
<div>
<a href="http://babynamewizard.com/voyager#prefix=u&ms=false&exact=false">U</a> - Follows the same "vowel pattern" as the more common vowels, apart from the "Unknown" placeholder.</div>
<div>
<a href="http://babynamewizard.com/voyager#prefix=v&ms=false&exact=false">V</a> - Most common in the early years of the 20th century, but on name forums is showing growing approval (and thus a potential for coming back in style in a few years).</div>
<div>
<a href="http://babynamewizard.com/voyager#prefix=w&ms=false&exact=false">W</a> - Like "F" a letter more common with the early years of the stats than later, although William itself did most of that contribution.</div>
<div>
<a href="http://babynamewizard.com/voyager#prefix=x&ms=false&exact=false">X</a> - Same path I cued you in on with Q's entry.</div>
<div>
<a href="http://babynamewizard.com/voyager#prefix=y&ms=false&exact=false">Y</a> - Uncommon at the start of the chart, but among the living generations has had its ups and downs (with a limited set of names though).</div>
<div>
<a href="http://babynamewizard.com/voyager#prefix=z&ms=false&exact=false">Z</a> - Similar to "Q" and "X" but did show some use earlier on the charts.</div>
Kellyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05422091619504878141noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6985160381296840347.post-65109364792967386092012-09-06T09:38:00.003-05:002012-09-06T09:38:38.773-05:00Nicholas: Nickname-Rich Name of the Week (September 6)For the last boy's name (there will be one more girl's name next week) in this series I'm covering one that had his U.S. peak in the 1990s, but is classic enough to work on a boy or man of any age: Nicholas. Many Nicholases shorten their name to Nick, but I've also heard of Cole as a possible nickname. Any other ideas you can think of? Is Nicholas himself starting to get a bit dated, or is it still a strong choice for a boy?
Kellyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05422091619504878141noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6985160381296840347.post-69787820934715785152012-09-03T10:14:00.001-05:002012-09-03T10:15:12.844-05:00Charlotte: An example of an early comeback name?In the name-enthusiast community, it's often been said that for a name to come back in style it has to wait until the prior cohort group it was popular with has died out. On the other hand, there are <a href="http://millennialkelly.blogspot.com/2012/08/is-nancy-new-emma.html">some</a> <a href="http://millennialkelly.blogspot.com/2012/03/is-amy-new-audrey.html">counter-examples</a> of that. Another one that is certainly experiencing an earlier-than-expected comeback is <a href="http://www.babynamewizard.com/voyager#prefix=charlotte&ms=true&sw=f&exact=false">Charlotte</a>. As you can see, its prior peak was in the 1940s which originally put the name in the same time period as for example <a href="http://www.babynamewizard.com/voyager#prefix=barbara&ms=true&sw=f&exact=false">Barbara</a> or <a href="http://millennialkelly.blogspot.com/2012/06/patricia-nickname-rich-name-of-week.html">Patricia</a>, both of which have yet to show any sign of returning. As recently as the 1990s Charlotte was clearly locked in fashion limbo along with those other at-the-time middle-aged names, but then in recent years the name has really spiked back up, and there's a good chance when the 2012 stats come out next May we'll see Charlotte at the highest the name's ever been on record. So what's behind the revival? I'm not sure, but it may have to do with the fashionable (<a href="http://millennialkelly.blogspot.com/2012/08/charles-nickname-rich-name-of-week.html">for both genders</a>) nickname Charlie. What do you think?Kellyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05422091619504878141noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6985160381296840347.post-43222828113605860552012-08-30T08:16:00.001-05:002012-08-30T08:16:53.459-05:00Isabella: Nickname-Rich Name of the Week (August 30)Here's another name that is much more likely (at least in English-speaking countries) to be seen on a child than an adult, yet has plenty of history: Isabella (and other related forms such as Isabel, Isabelle, etc.). Like Sebastian some may find it a bit long for everyday use, but many families manage Isabella in full without problems. If you do find the name to be a bit too much, there's Izzy and Belle/Bella among others (feel free to mention any others that you like). So, what's your general opinion on Isabella (too popular or still nice despite being one of the most common girl's names of the present era)? Although these names are related to Elizabeth, they're different enough in my opinion in terms of their nicknames to get another entry in this series.Kellyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05422091619504878141noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6985160381296840347.post-33508338451069174982012-08-23T08:29:00.003-05:002012-08-23T08:29:39.732-05:00Charles: Nickname-Rich Name of the Week (August 23)This week's name is another English classic that's been on the downhill slope for a few decades, but is now leveling off and may soon be due for a comeback: Charles. The most fashionable nickname (for both boys and girls!) at the moment is Charlie. In the past we've also seen Chuck as well as a few others. Feel free to share any more unusual nickname ideas or your thoughts on Charles.
Kellyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05422091619504878141noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6985160381296840347.post-51657164531690271042012-08-22T15:06:00.001-05:002012-08-22T15:06:11.570-05:00Analogy for those who don't "fit" their generationThere is a <a href="http://www.fourthturning.com/forum/showthread.php?10434-Born-in-1987-but-I-just-can-t-identify-with-Millennials">discussion</a> going on at <a href="http://www.fourthturning.com/forum">The Fourth Turning forums</a> about a Millennial who doesn't seem to "fit" into the generation. Of course not everyone follows along with their archetype, but a good way to think of each generation is a block of cohorts in which one of the S&H archetypes (Prophet, Nomad, Hero, or Artist) largely follows at least a plurality of its members. Sometimes (as with for example the 1961 or 1981 cohorts) it's almost evenly divided between two archetypes and generations, while others (such as the 1971 or 1991 cohorts) one archetype has a significant majority and the cohort clearly belongs to a particular generation.<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
A good analogy to what I described is how certain states lean liberal, while others lean conservative, while still others are almost evenly divided on the political spectrum. Of course in any place you go in the U.S. you'll find some liberals (even in the heart of a bible-belt small town) and you'll find some conservatives (even in the middle of San Francisco). However, in those places one ideology clearly has support from the majority of the people. Even in the "swing" areas where many people are on the fence with regards to political issues, in winner-take-all political races (such as electors for President or Senators) whichever side has the majority of support will influence how these states are seen politically, and on a national level whichever side has the most cumulative support will affect how the federal government will vote.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
What happens if your personal ideology doesn't follow the majority in your area? Well, you'd fall under the political equivalent of what is referred to in the <a href="http://www.lifecourse.com/assets/files/lca_insight_all.pdf">S&H</a> books as being a "suppressed" member. If you're not in politics, you have some options like to move somewhere else that is more like your beliefs, to accept that you're eccentric for your area and live as such, or find some way to compromise between your individual and the masses. If you're in politics and want to win elections, the latter is probably how you'll have to go if you want to have any influence in your locale. A perfect example is <a href="http://www.mittromney.com/">Mitt Romney</a>, who was a Republican governor in one of the most Democrat-leaning states (Massachusetts) in the country. Many are accusing him of his "flip-flops" when in reality during his term a governor he had to act a bit more liberal than his heart; otherwise he wouldn't get anywhere in liberal MA. For example, many claim he invented the basis for Obamacare by enacting a similar law there; in reality he <a href="http://mittromneycentral.com/resources/romneycare/#2">vetoed</a> several sections of the "Romneycare" bill that all got overridden. Learning to compromise with the masses is what you have to do when you're the executive over a legislature with a veto-proof majority against you. Now that Romney is running for a nationwide office - the Presidency - he can act a bit closer to his actual beliefs because the United States as a whole is more conservative than the single state of Massachusetts, and positions like being pro-life and anti-health-care-reform appeal to a good part of the general USA.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In the case of a generational maverick, you can't "move" to another generation like you can geographically; thus your options are limited to the other two in this case. As with being a "suppressed" individual politically, how much of an outsider you feel or are perceived to be depends on the scale of the particular social interaction. A Prophet-identifying Millennial, for example, probably felt like somewhat of an outsider throughout the schooling years (when most of the socialization is with others close to you in age) but when he/she started working it probably now matters less (since in the workplace you interact with those in other generations too and have someone you can look up to).</div>
Kellyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05422091619504878141noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6985160381296840347.post-28220556306396806032012-08-20T09:39:00.000-05:002012-08-20T09:42:22.127-05:00Saecular Seasons and Generations' Career/Economic ProspectsFor those who follow <a href="http://fourthturning.com/">generational</a> <a href="http://www.lifecourse.com/">theory</a>, it's been <a href="http://blog.lifecourse.com/2012/06/once-again-economy-hammers-gen-xers-and-favors-the-silent-2/">said</a> that (among today's living generations) that Silents have had the best when it comes to careers and economics, while Xers have had it worse (and to some extent Millennials, but I'm predicting their future will improve as I'll discuss). Some attribute it to the low birthrate during the Silents' birthyears (and not offset by immigration like it was for Xers); while that may be one of the forces another one I've observed is the different saecular seasons that each archetype of generations enters the workforce, has its career peak, and retires in. A summary of this is:<br />
<br />
Prophet archetype (e.g. Boomers) - enters workforce during an Awakening (summer), has its career peak during an Unraveling (autumn), and retires during a Crisis (winter).<br />
Nomad archetype (e.g. Xers, and previously Losts) - enters workforce during an Unraveling (autumn), has its career peak during a Crisis (winter), and retires during a High (spring).<br />
Hero archetype (e.g. Millennials, and previously GIs) - enters workforce during a Crisis (winter), has its career peak during a High (spring), and retires during an Awakening (summer).<br />
Artist archetype (e.g. Silents, and in the future Homelanders) - enters workforce during a High (spring), has its career peak during an Awakening (summer), and retires during an Unraveling (autumn).<br />
<br />
As you may have guessed, the most optimal saecular constellation for lifetime career success is like the one that the Silents experienced - starting your career during the growth season and retiring when society is starting to decay (but before the trials of winter start). That's why unlike for today's younger generations it was not uncommon for Silents to have worked for one company from start to finish of their careers, and throughout life they've been more affluent compared to other generations.<br />
<br />
The generations that follow, like the Boomers, have a bit rougher time in the job marketplace. They come of age when society has already grown, and must take into account the likely rough times in their late career years. Because of that, and the individualistic nature of these types of generations, they tend to show themselves off by demonstrating career dedication hoping they won't be one of the unlucky ones later on. That's why Boomers got their "workaholic" reputation that many younger folks now abhor, and also why they became quite obsessed with retirement savings (not knowing what the future would hold).<br />
<br />
By the time generations like the Xers come along, society is in its decaying season and a time of peril is likely to hit right in the peak of their working years. What that leads is to them seeking more financial and career risks, taking advantage of the short periods of success and hoping out during the bad times (hence many entrepreneurial-minded people in those generations, unlike those a bit older who still go with the system and try to hope it works out). Although they'll see the improving conditions of saecular spring, it will once again be a short-term window for these generations (so they'll continue the binge-job work ethic).<br />
<br />
Finally, generations like the Millennials now coming of age start their working years right during society's worse time. Since these generations have a rough time even getting their foot in the door, their collectivist mindset results in their entitlement-thinking (since the only way they may have to start is by force upon the marketplace). Unlike those a bit older, they do have the light on the other end of the tunnel and have a shot at good success later on; however their collective fighting mindset continues (which resulted in the GIs heavy unionization for example, which Silents and Boomers later broke up).Kellyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05422091619504878141noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6985160381296840347.post-5592479906795198262012-08-16T08:14:00.001-05:002012-08-16T08:14:58.310-05:00Dorothy: Nickname-Rich Name of the Week (August 16)Quite popular during the first half of the 20th Century, she now has "old lady name" status, though she did re-appear in the U.S. SSA Top 1,000 after being out for several years: <a href="http://www.babynamewizard.com/voyager#prefix=dorothy&ms=true&sw=f&exact=false">Dorothy</a>. Since at her height the name was given to more than 3% of girls it's logical that numerous nicknames formed. Among those off the top of my head are Dot(tie), Dolly, and Dora. There are probably others I haven't thought off, which you can fill me in on if you like, as well as your opinions of Dorothy herself (which is probably my favorite way to use it) and the aforementioned nicknames.
Kellyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05422091619504878141noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6985160381296840347.post-57096875043213400512012-08-09T08:37:00.000-05:002012-08-09T08:37:00.783-05:00Sullivan: Nickname-Rich Name of the Week (August 9)Although most of the names I'm covering in this series are more classic, since Sullivan is one of the surname-as-first-name names that I like for a boy (and is rising on the charts) I thought I'd mention it. Some may shorten it to Sully or Van, but I like it well enough on its own. What do you think of Sullivan in general (too "surnamey" or usable as a first name)? Any other possibilities for nicknames?Kellyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05422091619504878141noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6985160381296840347.post-17075079511824521632012-08-04T13:29:00.000-05:002012-08-04T13:43:35.404-05:00Is Nancy the new Emma?As most name enthusiasts know, <a href="http://www.babynamewizard.com/voyager#prefix=emma&ms=true&sw=f&exact=true">Emma</a> is currently (and has for at least the past decade) been one of the hottest names for girls in the US, hovering near the top in that time-frame. The name is also a perfect example of an "antique revival"; it was very popular in the late 19th century, fell off for much of the 20th, and is now back in full force. What some American NEs may not immediately be aware of is the name was revived on the other side of the pond a generation earlier - while the 1970s marked Emma's low point on the US charts that decade marked the revival of the name in England; thus the name is also an example of a British-to-American transition in name fashion (an example of a revival that went the other way between today's parents' and children's generations is <a href="http://www.babynamewizard.com/voyager#prefix=amy&ms=true&sw=f&exact=true">Amy</a>, which was the #2 name in the States during the '70s and is now in "mom name" territory there but higher on the UK charts).<br />
<br />
Now I'm going to discuss a name that I'm predicting may follow a trajectory similar to Emma's but about 50 years or so later: <a href="http://www.babynamewizard.com/voyager#prefix=nancy&ms=true&sw=f&exact=true">Nancy</a>. In the US Nancy is currently a typical "grandma name" for today's children and falls into the fashion nadir of being a name from their parents' generation for many contemporary namers. On the other hand the most enterprising of name enthusiasts (me included) are seeing Nancy's retro charm and have put it on the list for consideration (right now from when I've seen this name being discussed it tends to be one of those that is either really liked or really disliked). Contemporary children may start to like it even more thanks to the <a href="http://www.fancynancyworld.com/">Fancy Nancy</a> series. The UK is a different story for Nancy though, as there are signs of it climbing back up the charts over there (maybe the fashion of nicknames as official names is also helping, as some consider Nancy a nickname). Since the name is already in style again on the other side of the Atlantic, as with Emma a few decades earlier that likely means a brightening future for Nancy over here as well (and although unfashionable for many parents if you bestow it on a girl in the present times it will likely lead to having a fashionable name for babies when she's a mom, rather than feeling dated like a name from the preceding generation would).<br />
<br />
What do you think? Thumbs up or down for Nancy?Kellyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05422091619504878141noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6985160381296840347.post-19148013485184240442012-08-02T08:07:00.000-05:002012-08-02T08:07:23.752-05:00Veronica: Nickname-Rich Name of the Week (August 2)She's recognizable but has never been overly popular in the U.S., but has plenty of history and is semi-common among Catholics: Veronica. Being a bit long though some may want to shorten it: I like Vera and Vero as nickname ideas, while although not my style I know of some Veronicas who go by Ronnie. Nica or something similar might also be an idea, although if you like Veronica on its own I think it's perfectly doable. What do you think of Veronica and her nicknames?Kellyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05422091619504878141noreply@blogger.com0