Generation of people born between the mid 1990s and early 2010s
Generation Z, or Gen Z for short, is the demographic cohort succeeding the Millennials (or Gen Y). Demographers and researchers typically use the mid- to late-1990s as starting birth years, while consensus has not been reached on the ending birth years. Children of Generation X and sometimes Millennials, members of Generation Z have used digital technology since a young age and are comfortable with the Internet and social media, but are not necessarily digitally literate.
- 1 Terminology
- 2 Date and age range definition
- 3 Arts and culture
- 4 Demographics
- 5 Education
- 6 Employment prospects and economic trends
- 7 Health issues
- 8 Political views
- 9 Religious tendencies
- 10 Risky behaviors
- 11 Use of information and communications technologies (ICT)
- 12 Successors
- 13 See also
- 14 References
- 15 External links
- 16 Further reading
In 2012, USA Today sponsored an online contest for readers to choose the name of the next generation after the Millennials. The name Generation Z was suggested. Some other names that were proposed included: iGeneration, Gen Tech, Gen Wii, Net Gen, Digital Natives, Plurals, and Zoomers.
iGeneration (or iGen) is a name that several persons claim to have coined. Rapper MC Lars is credited with using the term as early as 2003. Demographer Cheryl Russell claims to have first used the term in 2009. Psychology professor and author Jean Twenge claims that the name iGen “just popped into her head” while she was driving near Silicon Valley, and that she had intended to use it as the title of her 2006 book Generation Me about the Millennial generation, until it was overridden by her publisher.
Post-Millennial is a name given by the United States Department of Health and Human Services and the Pew Research Center in statistics published in 2016 showing the relative sizes and dates of the generations. The same sources showed that, as of April 2016, the Millennial generation surpassed the population of Baby Boomers in the USA (77 million vs. 76 million in 2015 data); however, the Post-Millennials were ahead of the Millennials in another Health and Human Services survey (69 million vs. 66 million).
In a 2016 article in The Australian, Helen Rumbelow states that Generation Snowflake started as a term in the United States. According to Rumbelow, some parents cherished their offspring as ‘precious little snowflakes’, each alike but unique, or ‘everyone is special’.” Writing for The Spectator, Claire Fox argues recent parenting philosophy led to parenting methods which “denied resilience-building freedoms that past generations enjoyed”. The term “snowflake generation” was one of Collins Dictionary‘s 2016 words of the year. Collins defines the term as “the young adults of the 2010s, viewed as being less resilient and more prone to taking offence than previous generations.”
In Japan, the cohort is described as Neo-Digital Natives, a step beyond the previous cohort described as Digital Natives. Digital Natives primarily communicate by text or voice, while neo-digital natives use video, video-telephony, and movies. This emphasizes the shift from PC to mobile and text to video among the neo-digital population.
Date and age range definition
The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines Generation Z as generation of people born in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Oxford Living Dictionaries describes Generation Z as “the generation reaching adulthood in the second decade of the 21st century.”
The Pew Research Center defines Generation Z as people born from 1997 onward, choosing this date for “different formative experiences,” such as new technological developments and socioeconomic trends, including the widespread availability of wireless internet access and high-bandwidth cellular service, and key world events, including the September 11th terrorist attacks. Members of Gen Z were no older than four years of age at the time of the attacks, and consequently had little to no memory of the event. Pew indicated they would use 1997–2012 for future publications but would remain open to date re-calibration. According to this definition, the oldest member of Generation Z is 23 years old and the youngest is, or is turning, 8 years old in 2020.
Bloomberg News describes “Gen Z” as “the group of kids, teens and young adults roughly between the ages of 7 and 22” in 2019. In other words, for Bloomberg, Generation Z was born between 1997 and 2012. The American Psychological Association starts Generation Z at 1997. News outlets such as The Economist, the Harvard Business Review, and The Wall Street Journal describe Generation Z as people born since 1997.
Psychologist Jean Twenge describe Generation Z as those born in 1995 or later. Forbes stated that Generation Z is “composed of those born between 1995 and 2010.” In a 2018 report, Goldman Sachs describes “Gen-Z” as “today’s teenagers through 23-year olds.” Australia‘s McCrindle Research Centre defines Generation Z as those born between 1995–2009, starting with a recorded rise in birth rates, and fitting their newer definition of a generational span with a maximum of 15 years. The Irish Times defines Generation Z as “people born between 1995 and 2010.”
Statistics Canada defines Generation Z as starting from the birth year 1993. Statistics Canada does not recognize a traditional Millennials cohort and instead has Generation Z directly follow what it designates as Children of Baby Boomers. Randstad Canada describes Generation Z as those born between 1995–2014.
Authors William Strauss and Neil Howe define Generation Z as those born 2005 onwards. However, Howe described the dividing line between Millennials and Generation Z as “tentative”, saying “you can’t be sure where history will someday draw a cohort dividing line until a generation fully comes of age”.
Arts and culture
Both the September 11 terrorist attacks and the Great Recession have greatly influenced the attitudes of this generation in the United States. However, unlike the older Millennials, Generation Z typically have no memories of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Since the oldest members were not yet cognizant when the 9/11 attacks occurred (or had not yet been born at that time), there is no generational memory of a time the United States has not been at war with the loosely defined forces of global terrorism. Psychologist Anthony Turner suggests it is likely that both events have resulted in a feeling of unsettlement and insecurity among the people of Generation Z with the environment in which they were being raised. The economic recession of 2008 is particularly important to historical events that have shaped Generation Z, due to the ways in which their childhoods may have been affected by the recession’s financial stresses felt by their parents. A 2013 survey by Ameritrade found that 47% in the United States (considered here to be those between the ages of 14 and 23) were concerned about student debt, while 36% were worried about being able to afford a college education at all. This generation is faced with a growing income gap and a shrinking middle-class, which all have led to increasing stress levels in families. According to Public Relations Society of America, the Great Recession has taught Generation Z to be independent, and has led to an entrepreneurial desire, after seeing their parents and older siblings struggle in the workforce.
A 2014 study Generation Z Goes to College found that Generation Z students self-identify as being loyal, compassionate, thoughtful, open-minded, responsible, and determined. How they see their Generation Z peers is quite different from their own self-identity. They view their peers as competitive, spontaneous, adventuresome, and curious—all characteristics that they do not see readily in themselves. In addition, some authors consider that some of their competencies, such as reading competence, are being transformed due to their familiarity with digital devices, platforms and texts.
In 2016, the Varkey Foundation and Populus conducted an international study examining the attitudes of over 20,000 people aged 15 to 21 in twenty countries: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Israel, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, Nigeria, Russia, South Africa, South Korea, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States. They found that most important personal values to these people were helping their families and themselves get ahead in life (both 27%), followed by honesty (26%). Looking beyond their local communities came last at 6%. Familial values were especially strong in South America (34%) while individualism and the entrepreneurial spirit proved popular in Africa (37%). People who influenced youths the most were parents (89%), friends (79%), and teachers (70%). Celebrities (30%) and politicians (17%) came last. In general, young men were more likely to be influenced by athletes and politicians than young women, who preferred books and fictional characters. Celebrity culture was especially influential in China (60%) and Nigeria (71%) and particularly irrelevant in Argentina and Turkey (both 19%). For young people, the most important factors for their current or future careers were the possibility of honing their skills (24%), and income (23%) while the most unimportant factors were fame (3%) and whether or not the organization they worked for made a positive impact on the world (13%). The most important factors for young people when thinking about their futures were their families (47%) and their health (21%); the welfare of world at large (4%) and their local communities (1%) bottomed the list.
The Economist has described Generation Z as a more educated, well-behaved, stressed and depressed generation in comparison to previous ones. In September 2018, Jean Twenge saw smartphones and social media as raising an unhappy, compliant “iGen”, which she described as the generation born after 1995. Mental depression has been said to be more common among Generation Z than any previous generation, with increased technological and online dependence and decreased face to face interaction as a key cause. According to the aforementioned study by the Varkey Foundation, youths were overall happy with the states of affairs in their personal lives (59%). The most unhappy young people were from South Korea (29%) and Japan (28%) while the happiest hailed from Indonesia (90%) and Nigeria (78%) (see right). In order to determine the overall ‘happiness score’ for each country, researchers subtracted the percentage of people who said they were unhappy from that of those who said they were happy. The most important sources of happiness were being physically and mentally healthy (94%), having a good relationship with one’s family (92%), and one’s friends (91%). In general, respondents who were younger and male tended to be happier. Religious faith came in last at 44%. Nevertheless, it was a major source of happiness for youths from Indonesia (93%), Nigeria (86%), Turkey (71%), China and Brazil (both 70%). Top reasons for anxiety and stress were money (51%) and school (46%); social media and having access of basic resources (such as food and water) finished the list, both at 10%. Concerns over food and water were most serious in China (19%), India (16%), and Indonesia (16%); young Indians were also more likely than average to report stress due to social media (19%).
A 2019 study conducted by the online rental platform Nestpick considered 110 cities worldwide with regards to factors they believed were important to Generation Z, such as social equality, multiculturalism, and digitization, and found that overall, London, Stockholm, Los Angeles, Toronto, and New York City topped the list. However, the rankings changed with respect to each of the categories considered. Oslo, Bergen (both in Norway), Stockholm, Gothenburg, and Malmö (all from Sweden) were champions of gender equality, yet Seoul, London, Boston, Stockholm, and Los Angeles best met the digital wants of Generation Z. However, given that members of Generation Z tend to be financially pragmatic, all the aforementioned cities shared a common disadvantage: high costs of living. Therefore, the Nestpick index for Generation Z could change in the upcoming years as these people grow older and have different priorities.
Urban researcher Richard Florida and his team found, using U.S. Census data between 2005 and 2017, an increase in employment across the board for members of the “creative class” – people in education, healthcare, law, the arts, technology, science, and business, not all of whom have a university degree – in virtually all U.S. metropolitan areas with a population of a million or more. Indeed, the total number of the creative class grew from 44 million in 2005 to over 56 million in 2017. Florida suggested that this could be a “tipping point” in which talents head to places with a high quality of life yet lower costs of living than well-established creative centers, such as New York City and Los Angeles, what he called the “superstar cities.”
According to Girls Gen Z Digital media company Sweety High’s 2018 Gen Z Music Consumption & Spending Report, Spotify ranked first for music listening among Gen Z, terrestrial radio ranked second, while YouTube was reported to be the preferred platform for music discovery. Using artificial intelligence, Joan Serra and his team at the Spanish National Research Council studied the massive Million Song Dataset and found that between 1955 and 2010, popular music has gotten louder, while the chords, melodies, and types of sounds used have become increasingly homogenized. While the music industry has long been accused of producing songs that are louder and blander, this is the first time the quality of songs is comprehensively studied and measured.
See also: Demographic trap
Statistical projections from the United Nations in 2019 suggest that, by 2020, the people of Niger would have a median age of 15.2, Mali 16.3, Chad 16.6, Somalia, Uganda, and Angola all 16.7, the Democratic Republic of the Congo 17.0, Burundi 17.3, Mozambique and Zambia both 17.6. (This means that more than half of their populations were born in the first two decades of the twenty-first century.) These are the world’s youngest countries by median age. While a booming population can induce substantial economic growth, if healthcare, education, and economic needs were not met, there would be chronic youth unemployment, low productivity, and social unrest. Investing in human capital is crucial.
As a result of cultural ideals, government policy, and modern medicine, there has been severe gender imbalances in China and India. According to the United Nations, in 2018, there were 112 Chinese males aged 15 to 29 for every hundred females in that age group. That number in India was 111. China had a total of 34 million excess males and India 37 million, more than the entire population of Malaysia. Together, China and India had a combined 50 million of excess males under the age of 20. Such a discrepancy fuels loneliness epidemics, human trafficking (from elsewhere in Asia, such as Cambodia and Vietnam), and prostitution, among other societal problems.
Like the European Union (and unlike the United States), Japan has a declining population. Coupled with an exceptionally long life expectancy (85 years for women and 78 for men, as of 2005) and one of the lowest fertility rates in the world, this means that by 2050, 30% of Japanese will be over the age of 60. While the government has been introducing various incentives for people to have more children, no return on investment could be expected till the 2030s, when the children born in the early 2000s enter the workforce. (Immigration is politically unpopular in this country.) According to official figures, the number of individuals below 15 years of age in Japan was 13.6% of the population in 2007 and was predicted to fall to 12.3% in 2015, or about half that of the elderly. 2007 was the twenty-sixth consecutive year in which the number of people under the age of 15 dropped in Japan. Japan’s birth rate fell from roughly replacement level, 2.1, in the early 1970s to 1.26 in 2005. Government officials estimated that population of Japan would decrease 30% by the 2050s, from 127 million to below 90 million.
Singapore’s birth rate has fallen below the replacement level of 2.1 since the 1980s before stabilizing during the 2000s and 2010s. (It reached 1.14 in 2018, making it the lowest since 2010 and one of the lowest in the world.) Government incentives such as the baby bonus have proven insufficient to raise the birth rate. Singapore’s experience mirrors those of Japan and South Korea.
From about 1750 to 1950, Western Europe transitioned from having both high birth and death rates to having low birth and death rates. By the late 1960s or 1970s, the average woman had fewer than two children, and, although demographers at first expected a “correction,” such a rebound never came. Despite a bump in the total fertility rates (TFR) of some European countries in the very late twentieth century (the 1980s and 1990s), especially France and Scandinavia, they never returned to replacement level; the bump was largely due to older women realizing their dreams of motherhood. At first, falling fertility is due to urbanization and decreased infant mortality rates, which diminished the benefits and increased the costs of raising children. In other words, it became more economically sensible to invest more in fewer children, as economist Gary Becker argued. (This is the first demographic transition.) Falling fertility then came from attitudinal shifts. By the 1960s, people began moving from traditional and communal values towards more expressive and individualistic outlooks due to access to and aspiration of higher education, and to the spread of lifestyle values once practiced only by a tiny minority of cultural elites. (This is the second demographic transition.) Although the momentous cultural changes of the 1960s had leveled off by the 1990s, the social and cultural environment of the very late twentieth-century was quite different from that of the 1950s. Such changes in values have had a major effect on fertility that cemented itself in subsequent demographic cohorts. Member states of the European Community saw a steady increase in not just divorce and out-of-wedlock births between 1960 and 1985 but also falling fertility rates. In 1981, a survey of countries across the industrialized world found that while more than half of people aged 65 and over thought that women needed children to be fulfilled, only 35% of those between the ages of 15 to 24 (younger Baby Boomers and older Generation X) agreed.
In the early 2000s, France and Scandinavia retained high fertility rates compared to other developed countries, especially Southern Europe and East Asia. At first sight, it appears that this might be due to their socially progressive values and policies, i.e. making it easier for women to pursue both their careers and reproductive dreams. However, closer scrutiny suggests the argument that “feminism is the new pro-natalism” is untenable, given that there are socially progressive countries with low fertility rates such as Austria and Canada on one hand, and more conservative and traditionalist countries with high fertility rates such as Ireland and the United States on the other.
At the start of the twenty-first century, Europe has a population aging at an unprecedented rate. It is estimated that by 2050, 40% of Europeans will be over the age of 60. This problem is especially acute in the East whereas in the West, it is alleviated by international immigration. In addition, an increasing number of children born in Europe has been to non-European parents. Because children of immigrants in Europe tend to be about as religious as they are, this could slow the decline of religion (or the growth of secularism) in the continent as the twenty-first century progresses. In the United Kingdom, the number of foreign-born residents stood at 6% of the population in 1991. Immigration subsequently surged and has not fallen since (as of 2018). Researches by the demographers and political scientists Eric Kaufmann, Roger Eatwell, and Matthew Goodwin suggest that such a fast ethno-demographic change is one of the key reasons by public backlash in the form of nationalist populist revolts against the political establishment across the rich liberal democracies, an example of which being the Brexit Referendum in 2016.
Italy is a country where the problem of an aging population is especially acute. The fertility rate dropped from about four in the 1960s down to 1.2 in the 2010s. This is not because young Italians do not want to procreate. Quite the contrary, having a lot of children is an Italian ideal. But its economy has been floundering since the Great Recession of 2007-8, with the youth unemployment rate at a staggering 35% in 2019. Many Italians have moved abroad – 150,000 did in 2018 – and many are young people pursuing educational and economic opportunities. With the plunge in the number of births each year, the Italian population is expected to decline in the next five years. Moreover, the Baby Boomers are retiring in large numbers, and their numbers eclipse those of the young people taking care of them. Only Japan has an age structure more tilted towards the elderly. One solution to this problem is incentivizing reproduction, as France has done, by investing in longer parental leaves, daycare, and tax exemptions for parents. As of 2019, France has approximately the same population as Italy but 65% more births. Another solution is immigration, which has been alleviating the decline, but it does not come without political backlash.
Greece also suffers from a serious demographic problem as many young people are leaving the country in search of better opportunities elsewhere. This brain drain and a rapidly aging population could spell disaster for the country.
Russia has a falling birth rate and a declining population despite having an improving economy after the collapse of the Soviet Union. According to the United Nations, Russia’s population could fall by as much as one third by 2050. Russian government statisticians estimated in 2005 that a boy born in their country that year has a slim chance of seeing his 60th birthday due to various lifestyle-related problems (such as alcoholism). A gap in life expectancy between the West and Russia started becoming noticeable in the 1960s. Russia’s population dropped 6% between the mid-1990s and early 2010s.
See also: Aging of Australia
Australia’s total fertility rate has fallen from above three in the post-war era, to about replacement level (2.1) in the 1970s to below that in the late 2010s. (It was 1.74 in 2017.) However, immigration has been offsetting the effects of a declining birthrate. In the 2010s, among the residents of Australia, 5% were born in the United Kingdom, 2.5% from China, 2.2% from India, and 1.1% from the Philippines. 84% of new arrivals in the fiscal year of 2016 were below 40 years of age, compared to 54% of those already in the country. Like other immigrant-friendly countries, such as Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States, Australia’s working-age population is expected to grow till about 2025. However, the ratio of people of working age to retirees (the dependency ratio) has gone from eight in the 1970s to about four in the 2010s. It could drop to two by the 2060s, depending in immigration levels. “The older the population is, the more people are on welfare benefits, we need more health care, and there’s a smaller base to pay the taxes,” Ian Harper of the Melbourne Business School told ABC News (Australia). While the government has scaled back plans to increase the retirement age, to cut pensions, and to raise taxes due to public opposition, demographic pressures continue to mount as the buffering effects of immigration are fading away. Australians coming of age in the early twenty-first century are more reluctant to have children compared to their predecessors due to economic reasons: higher student debt, expensive housing, and negative income growth.
See also: Aging in the American workforce
Data from Statistics Canada published in 2017 showed that Generation Z comprised 17.6% of the Canadian population.
At the urging of President Lyndon B. Johnson, Congress passed the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, which abolished national quotas for immigrants and replaced it with a system that admits a fixed number of persons per year based in qualities such as skills and the need for refuge. During in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, most immigrants to the United States had come from Europe, but by the late 1990s and early 2000s, Asia and Latin America became the top sources of immigrants to the nation.
A report by demographer William Frey of the Brookings Institution stated that in the United States, the Millennials are a bridge between the largely Caucasian pre-Millennials (Generation X and their predecessors) and the more diverse post-Millennials (Generation Z and their successors). Indeed, in spite of the diminished flow of immigrants to the United States following the Great Recession, Generation Z is the most ethnically diverse yet seen. 52% of this generation is white. 25% is Hispanic. 14% is black, and 4% is Asian. Approximately 4% is multiracial, and this number has risen rapidly between 2000 and 2010. More specifically, the number of Americans who identify as mixed white and black has grown by 134% and those of both white and Asian extraction by 87%. For comparison, 44% of Millennials, 40% of Generation X, and 28% of the Baby Boomers identify as non-white. Frey’s research also suggests that at the national level, Hispanics and Asians are the fastest growing racial minority groups in the United States while the number of Caucasians under the age of 18 has been declining since 2000. This demographic change could have social, cultural, and political implications for the decades ahead.
Members of Generation Z are slightly less likely to be foreign born than Millennials; the fact that more American Latinos are born in the U.S. rather than abroad plays a role in making the first wave of Generation Z appear better educated than their predecessors. However, researchers warn that this trend could be altered by changing immigration patterns and the younger members of Generation Z choosing alternate educational paths. As a demographic cohort, Generation Z is smaller than the Baby Boomers and their children, the Millennials. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, Generation Z makes up about one quarter of the U.S. population, as of 2015. Provisional data from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention reveal that U.S. fertility rates have fallen below the replacement level of 2.1 since 1971. (It was 1.765 in 2017.)
For information on public support for higher education (for domestic students) in various countries in 2019, see chart below.
In continental Europe
In Sweden, universities are tuition-free, as is the case in Norway, Denmark, Iceland, and Finland. However, Swedish students typically graduate with a lot of debt due to the high cost of living in their country, especially in the large cities such as Stockholm. The ratio of debt to expected income after graduation for Swedes was about 80% in 2013. In the U.S., despite incessant talk of student debt reaching epic proportions, that number stood at 60%. Moreover, about seven out of eight Swedes graduate with debt, compared to one half in the U.S. In the 2008-9 academic year, virtually all Swedish students take advantage of state-sponsored financial aid packages from a government agency known as the Centrala Studiestödsnämnden (CSN), which include low-interest loans with long repayment schedules (25 years or until the student turns 60). In Sweden, student aid is based on their own earnings whereas in some other countries, such as Germany or the United States, such aid is premised on parental income as parents are expected to help foot the bill for their children’s education. In the 2008-9 academic year, Australia, Austria, Japan, the Netherlands, and New Zealand saw an increase in both the average tuition fees of their public universities for full-time domestic students and the percentage of students taking advantage of state-sponsored student aid compared to 1995. In the United States, there was an increase in the former but not the latter.
In 2005, judges in Karlsruhe, Germany, struck down a ban on university fees as unconstitutional on the grounds that it violated the constitutional right of German states to regulate their own higher education systems. This ban was introduced in order to ensure equality of access to higher education regardless of socioeconomic class. Bavarian Science Minister Thomas Goppel told the Associated Press, “Fees will help to preserve the quality of universities.” Supporters of fees argued that they would help ease the financial burden on universities and would incentivize students to study more efficiently, despite not covering the full cost of higher education, an average of €8,500 as of 2005. Opponents believed fees would make it more difficult for people to study and graduate on time. Germany also suffered from a brain drain, as many bright researchers moved abroad while relatively few international students were interested in coming to Germany. This has led to the decline of German research institutions.
In France, while year-long mandatory military service for men was abolished in 1996 by President Jacques Chirac, who wanted to build a professional all-volunteer military, all citizens between 17 and 25 years of age must still participate in the Defense and Citizenship Day (JAPD), when they are introduced to the French Armed Forces, and take language tests. In 2019, President Emmanuel Macron introduced something similar to mandatory military service, but for teenagers, as promised during his presidential campaign. Known as the Service National Universel or SNU (fr:Service national universel), it is a compulsory civic service. While students will not have to shave their heads or handle military equipment, they will have to sleep in tents, get up early (at 6:30 am), participate in various physical activities, raise the tricolor, and sing the national anthem. They will have to wear a uniform, though it is more akin to the outfit of security guards rather than military personnel. This program takes a total of four weeks. In the first two, youths learn how to provide first aid, how navigating with a map, how to recognize fake news, emergency responses for various scenarios, and self-defense. In addition, they get health checks and get tested on their mastery of the French language, and they participate in debates on a variety of social issues, including environmentalism, state secularism, and gender equality. In the second fortnight, they volunteer with a charity for local government. The aim of this program is to promote national cohesion and patriotism, at a time of deep division on religious and political grounds, to get people out of their neighborhoods and regions, and mix people of different socioeconomic classes, something mandatory military service used to do. Supporters thought that teenagers rarely raise the national flag, spend too much time on their phones, and felt nostalgic for the era of compulsory military service, considered a rite of passage for young men and a tool of character-building. Critics argued that this program is inadequate, and would cost too much. The SNU is projected to affect some 800,000 French citizens each year when it becomes mandatory for all aged 16 to 21 by 2026, at a cost of some €1.6 billion. Another major concern is that it will overburden the French military, already stretched thin by counter-terrorism campaigns at home and abroad. A 2015 IFOP poll revealed that 80% of the French people supported some kind of mandatory service, military, or civilian. At the same time, returning to conscription was also popular; supporters included 90% of the UMP party, 89% of the National Front (now the National Rally), 71% of the Socialist Party, and 67% of people aged 18 to 24. This poll was conducted after the Charlie Hebdo terrorist attacks.
In English-speaking countries
In 2017, almost half of Britons have received higher education by the age of 30. This is despite the fact that £9,000 worth of student fees were introduced in 2012. U.K. universities first introduced fees in autumn 1998 to address financial troubles and the fact that universities elsewhere charged tuition. Prime Minister Tony Blair introduced the goal of having half of young Britons earning a university degree in 1999, though he missed the 2010 deadline. Demand for higher education in the United Kingdom remains strong, driven by the need for high-skilled workers from both the public and private sectors. There was, however, a widening gender gap. As of 2017, women were more likely to attend or have attended university than men, 55% to 43%, a 12% gap.
In 2013, less than a third of American public schools have access to broadband Internet service, according to the non-profit EducationSuperHighway. By 2019, however, that number reached 99%. This has increased the frequency of digital learning.
According to a Northeastern University Survey, 81% of Generation Z in the U.S. believes obtaining a college degree is necessary in achieving career goals. As Generation Z enters high school, and they start preparing for college, a primary concern is paying for a college education without acquiring debt. Students report working hard in high school in hopes of earning scholarships and the hope that parents will pay the college costs not covered by scholarships. Students also report interest in ROTC programs as a means of covering college costs. According to NeaToday, a publication by the National Education Association, two thirds of Gen Zers entering college are concerned about affording college. One third plan to rely on grants and scholarships and one quarter hope that their parents will cover the bulk of college costs. While the cost of attending college is incredibly high for most Gen Zers, according to NeaToday, 65% say the benefits of graduating college exceed the costs. As of 2019, the total college debt has exceeded $1.5 trillion, and two out of three college graduates are saddled with debt. The average borrower owes $37,000, up $10,000 from ten years before. A 2019 survey by TD Ameritrade found that over 30% of Generation Z (and 18% of Millennials) said they have considered taking a gap year between high school and college.
Generation Z is revolutionizing the educational system in many aspects. Thanks in part to a rise in the popularity of entrepreneurship and advancements in technology, high schools and colleges across the globe are including entrepreneurship in their curriculum.
STEM subjects are more popular among Generation-Z students than the humanities. Pictured: Fine Hall, Princeton University.
Members of Generation Z are anxious to pick majors that teach them marketable skills. According to the World Economic Forum (WEF), some 88% consider job preparation to be the point of college. 39% are aiming for a career in medicine or healthcare, 20% in the natural sciences, 18% in biology or biotechnology, and 17% in business. A 2018 Gallup poll on over 32,000 university students randomly selected from 43 schools from across the United States found that just over half (53%) of them thought their chosen major would lead to gainful employment. STEM students expressed the highest confidence (62%) while those in the liberal arts were the least confident (40%). Just over one in three thought they would learn the skills and knowledge needed to become successful in the workplace. Because jobs (that matched what one studied) were so difficult to find in the few years following the Great Recession, the value of getting a liberal arts degree and studying the humanities at university came into question, their ability to develop a well-rounded and broad-minded individual notwithstanding. Moreover, institutions of higher education came under heightened skepticism in the 2010s due to high costs and disappointing results. People became increasingly concerned about debts and deficits. No longer were promises of educating “citizens of the world” or estimates of economic impact coming from abstruse calculations sufficient. Colleges and universities found it necessary to prove their worth by clarifying how much money from which industry and company funded research, and how much it would cost to attend. While the number of students majoring in the humanities have fallen significantly, those in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, or STEM, have risen sharply.
Data from the Institute of International Education showed that compared to the 2013-14 academic year, the number of foreign students enrolling in American colleges and universities peaked in 2015-6, with about 300,000 students, before falling slightly in subsequent years. Compared to the 2017-18 academic year, 2018-19 saw a drop of 1% in the number of foreign students. This is a concern for institutions that have become reliant on international enrollment for revenue, as they typically charge foreign students more than their domestic counterparts. As of 2019, these were the first downturn in a decade. However, the number of foreign graduates staying for work or further training has increased. In 2019, there were 220,000 who were authorized to stay for temporary work, a 10% rise compared to fall 2017. Top sources of students studying abroad in the United States were China, South Korea, India, and Saudi Arabia (in that order). While the number of Chinese students on American soil has fallen noticeably—due to a variety of factors, such as reported difficulty of obtaining a U.S. visa amid the ongoing Sino-American trade war, more competition from Canada and Australia, and growing anti-Chinese sentiments due to concerns over intellectual property theft—, students coming from elsewhere in Asia (though not South Korea and Japan), Latin America, and Africa have gone up. In particular, the number of Nigerian students climbed 6% while those from Brazil and Bangladesh rose 10%. The most popular majors have shifted, with business, an academic subject extremely popular among Chinese students, falling by 7% in the 2018-19 academic year. Meanwhile, mathematics and computer science jumped 9%, replacing business as the second most popular majors after engineering.
In 2019, there were over 4,000 colleges and universities in the U.S. However, Harvard business professor Clayton Christensen, known for creating the theory of “disruptive innovation” and applying it to a variety of industries, including education, predicted that half of all American colleges will go bankrupt within the next ten to fifteen years because of innovations in online learning. On the other hand, economist Michael Horn, also at Harvard, predicted in 2019 that 25% will close within the next 20 years. Rising administrative costs, sluggish middle-class wages, falling birth rates in the aftermath of the Great Recession, and new forms of learning undermine the financial viability of many schools. “It’s going to be brutal across American higher education,” Horn told CBS News. Historically, this is not unprecedented; the 1970s and the 1980s saw drops in college enrollment, too. But increased enrollment by women halted the decline. Today, higher enrollment by first-generation students and Hispanics could do the same.
Historically, university students were more likely to be male than female. The difference was especially great during the second half of the twentieth century, when enrollment rose dramatically compared to the 1940s. This trend continues into the very early twenty-first century. By the late 2010s, however, the situation has reversed. Women are now more likely to enroll in university than men. As a matter of fact, by the late 2010s, more than half of university students were women. In 2018, upwards of one third of each sex is a university student.
Employment prospects and economic trends
In 2018, as the number of robots at work continued to increase, the global unemployment rate fell to 5.2%, the lowest in 38 years. Current trends suggest that developments in artificial intelligence and robotics will not result in mass unemployment but can actually create high-skilled jobs. However, in order to take advantage of this situation, one needs a culture and an education system that promote lifelong learning. Honing skills that machines have not yet mastered, such as teamwork and effective communication, will be crucial.
Parents of Generation Z might have the image of their child’s first business being a lemonade stand or car wash. While these are great first businesses, Generation Z now has access to social media platforms, website builders, 3D printers, and drop shipping platforms which provides them with additional opportunities to start a business at a young age. The internet has provided a store front for Generation Z to sell their ideas to people around the world without ever leaving their house.
As technological progress continues, something that is made evident by the emergence of or breakthroughs in artificial intelligence, robotics, three-dimensional printing, nanotechnology, quantum computing, autonomous vehicles, among other fields, culminating in what economist Klaus Schwab calls the ‘Fourth Industrial Revolution‘, the demand for innovative, well-educated, and highly skilled workers continues to rise, as do their incomes. Demand for low-pay and low-skilled workers, on the other hand, will continue to fall.
By analyzing data from the United Nations and the Global Talent Competitive Index, KDM Engineering found that as of 2019, the top five countries for international high-skilled workers are Switzerland, Singapore, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Sweden. Factors taken into account included the ability to attract high-skilled foreign workers, business-friendliness, regulatory environment, the quality of education, and the standard of living. Switzerland is best at retaining talents due to its excellent quality of life. Singapore is home to a world-class environment for entrepreneurs. And the United States offers the most opportunity for growth due to the sheer size of its economy and the quality of higher education and training. As of 2019, these are also some of the world’s most competitive economies, according to the World Economic Forum (WEF). In order to determine a country or territory’s economic competitiveness, the WEF considers factors such as the trustworthiness of public institutions, the quality of infrastructure, macro-economic stability, the quality of healthcare, business dynamism, labor market efficiency, and innovation capacity.
Statistics from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) reveal that between 2014 and 2019, Japan’s unemployment rate went from about 4% to 2.4% and China’s from almost 4.5% to 3.8%. These are some of the lowest rates among the top economies.
When he came to power in 1949, Mao Zedong vowed to abolish capitalism and social classes. ‘Old money’ ceased to exist in China as a result of a centrally planned economy. But that changed in the 1980s when Deng Xiaoping introduced economic reforms; the middle and upper classes have blossoming ever since. In fact, he considered getting rich to be “glorious.” Chinese cities have morphed into major shopping centers. The number of billionaires (in U.S. dollars) in China is growing faster than anywhere else in the world, so much so that butler academies, whose students will serve the ‘new rich’, and finishing schools, whose students were born to rich parents, have been established. However, according to the World Bank, 27% of Chinese still live below the poverty line. The Chinese Central Government promised to end poverty by 2020. President Xi Jinping‘s anti-corruption campaign also cracks down on what he considered ‘ostentatious displays of wealth’. Moreover, members of China’s upper class must align themselves closely with the Communist Party. A number of young Chinese entrepreneurs have taken advantage of the Internet to become social media influencers to sell their products.
Technology companies and startups are booming in China and Southeast Asia. Whereas in the past, Chinese firms copied the business strategies and models from their U.S. counterparts, now, they are developing their own approaches, and Southeast Asian companies are learning from their success and experience, a practice known as “Copy from China.” E-commerce has been flourishing. In Singapore, for example, not only is it now possible to place orders online, one may also purchase groceries in person, pay by mobile phone, and have them packed by machines; there are no cashiers. Whereas Westerners were first introduced to the Internet via their personal computers, people in China and Southeast Asia first got online with their mobile phones. Consequently, the e-commerce industry’s heavy usage of mobile phone applications has paid off handsomely. In particular, Chinese entrepreneurs invest in what are known as “super-apps,” those that enable users to access all kinds of services within them, not just messaging, but also bike rentals and digital wallets. In Indonesia, relying on credit-card payments is difficult because the market penetration of this technology remains rather low (as of 2019). Nevertheless, e-commerce and ride-hailing are growing there, too. But it is Singapore that is the startup hub of the region, thanks to its excellent infrastructure, government support, and abundant capital. Furthermore, Singaporean technology firms are “uniquely positioned” to learn from both the U.S. and China.
China’s Generation Z has been taking advantage of the variety of lending options available to them, albeit at the cost of exceedingly high and possibly illegal interest rates. Although authorities have been cracking down on questionable money lenders, there is still a plethora of ways to borrow money. According to Bloomberg, China’s household debt-to-GDP ratio jumped from 27% in 2010 to 57% in 2019. For comparison, household debt was 126% of GDP in Australia, 99% in South Korea, and 75% in the United States, according to Bank of America. However, Fitch Ratings estimated that the rate of growth was twice that of nominal GDP. According to the People’s Bank of China, the nation’s debt-to-disposable income ratio was 99.9% in 2019, up from 93.4% the previous year.
In Europe, although the unemployment rates of France and Italy remained relatively high, they were markedly lower than previously. Meanwhile, the German unemployment rate dipped below even that of the United States, a level not seen since its unification almost three decades prior. Eurostat reported in 2019 that overall unemployment rate across the European Union dropped to its lowest level since January 2000, at 6.2% in August, meaning about 15.4 million people were out of a job. The Czech Republic (3%), Germany (3.1%) and Malta (3.3%) enjoyed the lowest levels of unemployment. Member states with the highest unemployment rates were Italy (9.5%), Spain (13.8%), and Greece (17%). Countries with higher unemployment rates compared to 2018 were Denmark (from 4.9% to 5%), Lithuania (6.1% to 6.6%), and Sweden (6.3% to 7.1%).
According to the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop), the European Union in the late 2010s suffers from shortages of STEM specialists (including ICT professionals), medical doctors, nurses, midwives and schoolteachers. However, the picture varies depending on the country. In Italy, environmentally friendly architecture is in high demand. Estonia and France are running short of legal professionals. Ireland, Luxembourg, Hungary, and the United Kingdom need more financial experts. All member states except Finland need more ICT specialists, and all but Belgium, Greece, Spain, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Portugal and the United Kingdom need more teachers. The supply of STEM graduates has been insufficient because the dropout rate is high and because of an ongoing brain drain from some countries. Some countries need more teachers because many are retiring and need to be replaced. At the same time, Europe’s aging population necessitates the expansion of the healthcare sector. Disincentives for (potential) workers in jobs in high demand include low social prestige, low salaries, and stressful work environments. Indeed, many have left the public sector for industry while some STEM graduates have taken non-STEM jobs.
Even though pundits predicted that the uncertainty due to the Brexit referendum would cause the British economy to falter or even fall into a recession, the unemployment rate has dipped below 4% while real wages have risen slightly in the late 2010s, two percent as of 2019. In particular, medical doctors and dentists saw their earnings bumped above the inflation rate in July 2019. Despite the fact that the government promised to an increase in public spending (£13 billion, or 0.6% of GDP) in September 2019, public deficit continues to decline, as it has since 2010. Nevertheless, uncertainty surrounding Britain’s international trade policy suppressed the chances of an export boom despite the depreciation of the pound sterling. According to the employment website Glassdoor, the highest paying entry level jobs in the United Kingdom in 2019 are investment banking analyst, software engineer, business analyst, data scientist, financial analyst, software developer, civil engineer, audit assistant, design engineer, mechanical engineer. Their median base salaries range from about £28,000 to £51,000 a year. In general, people with STEM degrees have the best chances of being recruited into a high-paying job. According to the Office for National Statistics, the median income of the United Kingdom in 2018 was £29,588.
In the United Kingdom, the number of teenagers who owned businesses jumped from 491 in 2009 to 4,152 in 2019. These people make heavy use of social media platforms to establish their careers.
Between 2014 and 2019, Canada’s overall unemployment rate fell from about 7% to below 6%, according to the IMF. In 2017, the magazine Canadian Business analyzed publicly available data from Statistics Canada and Employment and Social Development Canada to determine the top occupations on the basis of growth and salaries. They included construction managers, mining and quarry managers, pilots and flying instructors, software engineers, police officers, firefighters, urban planners, petroleum, chemical, agricultural, biomedical, aerospace, and railroad engineers, business services managers, deck officers, corporate sales managers, pharmacists, elevator mechanics, lawyers, economic development directors, real-estate and financial managers, telecommunications managers, utilities managers, pipe-fitting managers, forestry managers, nurse practitioners, and public administration managers. However, in the late 2010s, Canada’s oil and gas industry has been in decline due to a lack of political support and unfavorable policies from Ottawa. The number of oil rigs in Western Canada, where most of the country’s deposits are located, dropped from 900 in 2014 to 550 in 2019. Many Canadian companies have moved their crew and equipment to the United States, especially to Texas.
Americans aged 15 to 21 expect to be financially independent in their early twenties while their parents generally expect them to become so by their mid-twenties. While the Millennials tend to prefer flexibility, Generation Z is more interested in certainty and stability. Whereas 23% of Millennials would leave a job if they thought they were not appreciated, only 15% of Generation Z would do the same, according to a Deloitte survey. According to the World Economic Forum (WEF), 77% of Generation Z expects to work harder than previous generations. As a result, barely one in two recruits from Generation Z are willing to negotiate a higher salary, even though, as of 2019, the U.S. labor market is very tight, meaning the balance of power is currently in favor of job seekers, collectively. Indeed, Employers are open to negotiations for higher salaries and better benefits in order to attract talents. While there is agreement across generations that it is very important for employees to learn new skills, Millennials and Generation Z are overwhelmingly more likely than Baby Boomers to think that it is the job of employees to train themselves. Baby Boomers tend to think it is the employer’s responsibility. Moreover, Millennials and Generation Z (74%) tend to have more colleagues working remotely for a significant portion of their time compared to the Baby Boomers (58%). An overwhelming majority, 80%, prefers to work for a medium-sized or large company. A Morgan Stanley report, called the Blue Paper, projected that the Millennials and Generation Z have been responsible in a surge in labor participation in the U.S., and that while the U.S. labor force expands, that of other G10 countries will contract. This development alleviates concerns over America’s aging population which jeopardizes the solvency of various welfare programs. As of 2019, Millennials and Generation Z account for 38% of the U.S. workforce; that number will rise to 58% in the incoming decade.
According to the United States Department of Labor, the unemployment rate in September 2019 was 3.5%, a number not seen since December 1969. At the same time, labor participation remained steady and most job growth tended to be full-time positions. The number of people who ended up with part-time positions despite looking for full-time jobs dropped to 4.32 million, below the average of the previous three decades. Economists generally consider a population with an unemployment rate lower than 4% to be fully employed. In fact, even people with disabilities or prison records are getting hired. On average, they grew by 2.7% in 2016, 3.3% in 2018, and 3.3% in 2019. However, the Pew Research Center found that the average wage in the U.S. in 2018 remained more or less the same as it was in 1978, when the seasons and inflation are taken into consideration. Real wages grew only for the top 90th percentile of earners and to a lesser extent the 75th percentile (in 2018 dollars). Nevertheless, these developments ease fears of an upcoming recession. Moreover, economists believe that job growth could slow to an average of just 100,000 per month and still be sufficient to keep up with population growth and keep economic recovery going. As long as firms keep hiring and wages keep growing, consumer spending should prevent another recession. Appearing before Congress in November 2019, Chairman of the Federal Reserve Jerome Powell said that while the U.S. economy had taken a long time to recover from the Great Recession, it now enjoyed a strong labor market, low inflation, and moderate growth, and that his agency expected continued economic growth. At the same time, U.S. household debt fell from 90% of GDP in 2010 to 75% in 2019, according to Bank of America.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the occupations with the highest median annual pay in the United States in 2018 included medical doctors (especially psychiatrists, anesthesiologists, obstetricians and gynecologists, surgeons, and orthodontists), chief executives, dentists, information system managers, chief architects and engineers, pilots and flight engineers, petroleum engineers, and marketing managers. Their median annual pay ranged from about $134,000 (marketing managers) to over $208,000 (aforementioned medical specialties). Meanwhile, the occupations with the fastest projected growth rate between 2018 and 2028 are solar cell and wind turbine technicians, healthcare and medical aides, cyber security experts, statisticians, speech-language pathologists, genetic counselors, mathematicians, operations research analysts, software engineers, forest fire inspectors and prevention specialists, post-secondary health instructors, and phlebotomists. Their projected growth rates are between 23% (medical assistants) and 63% (solar cell installers); their annual median pays range between roughly $24,000 (personal care aides) to over $108,000 (physician assistants). Occupations with the highest projected numbers of jobs added between 2018 and 2028 are healthcare and personal aides, nurses, restaurant workers (including cooks and waiters), software developers, janitors and cleaners, medical assistants, construction workers, freight laborers, marketing researchers and analysts, management analysts, landscapers and groundskeepers, financial managers, tractor and truck drivers, and medical secretaries. The total numbers of jobs added ranges from 881,000 (personal care aides) to 96,400 (medical secretaries). Annual median pays range from over $24,000 (fast-food workers) to about $128,000 (financial managers).
According to the Department of Education, people with technical or vocational trainings are slightly more likely to be employed than those with a bachelor’s degree and significantly more likely to be employed in their fields of specialty. The United States currently suffers from a shortage of skilled tradespeople. If nothing is done, this problem will get worse as older workers retire and the market tightens due to falling unemployment rates. Economists argue that raising wages could incentivize more young people to pursue these careers. Many manufacturers are partnering with community colleges to create apprenticeship and training programs. However, they still have an image problem as people perceive manufacturing jobs as unstable, given the mass layoffs during the Great Recession of 2007-8. After the Great Recession, the number of U.S. manufacturing jobs reached a minimum of 11.5 million in February 2010. It rose to 12.8 million in September 2019. It was 14 million in March 2007. As of 2019, manufacturing industries made up 12% of the U.S. economy, which is increasingly reliant on service industries, as is the case for other advanced economies around the world. Nevertheless, twenty-first-century manufacturing is increasingly sophisticated, using advanced robotics, 3D printing, cloud computing, among other modern technologies, and technologically savvy employees are precisely who employers need. Four-year university degrees are unnecessary; technical or vocational training, or perhaps apprenticeships would do.
Unlike the other major economies, unemployment actually increased in Brazil, from about 6.7% in 2014 to about 11.4% in 2018. Although its economy remains growing, it is still recovering from a recession in 2015 and 2016. Wages have remained stagnant and the labor market has been weak. Unemployment rose to 12.7% in March 2019, or about 13.4 million people. Underemployment also increased in the first quarter of 2019.
A 2015 study found that the frequency of nearsightedness has doubled in the United Kingdom within the last 50 years. Ophthalmologist Steve Schallhorn, chairman of the Optical Express International Medical Advisory Board, noted that research have pointed to a link between the regular use of handheld electronic devices and eyestrain. The American Optometric Association sounded the alarm on a similar vein. According to a spokeswoman, digital eyestrain, or computer vision syndrome, is “rampant, especially as we move toward smaller devices and the prominence of devices increase in our everyday lives.” Symptoms include dry and irritated eyes, fatigue, eye strain, blurry vision, difficulty focusing, headaches. However, the syndrome does not cause vision loss or any other permanent damage. In order to alleviate or prevent eyestrain, the Vision Council recommends that people limit screen time, take frequent breaks, adjust screen brightness, change the background from bright colors to gray, increase text sizes, and blinking more often. Parents should not only limit their children’s screen time but should also lead by example.
While food allergies have been observed by doctors since ancient times and virtually all foods can be allergens, research by the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota found they are becoming increasingly common since the early 2000s. Today, one in twelve American children has a food allergy, with peanut allergy being the most prevalent type. Reasons for this remain poorly understood. Nut allergies in general have quadrupled and shellfish allergies have increased 40% between 2004 and 2019. In all, about 36% of American children have some kind of allergy. By comparison, this number among the Amish in Indiana is 7%. Allergies have also risen ominously in other Western countries. In the United Kingdom, for example, the number of children hospitalized for allergic reactions increased by a factor of five between 1990 and the late 2010s, as did the number of British children allergic to peanuts. In general, the better developed the country, the higher the rates of allergies. Reasons for this remain poorly understood. One possible explanation, supported by the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, is that parents keep their children “too clean for their own good.” They recommend exposing newborn babies to a variety of potentially allergenic foods, such as peanut butter, before they reach the age of six months. According to this “hygiene hypothesis,” such exposures give the infant’s immune system some exercise, making it less likely to overreact. Evidence for this includes the fact that children living on a farm are consistently less likely to be allergic than their counterparts who are raised in the city, and that children born in a developed country to parents who immigrated from developing nations are more likely to be allergic than their parents are.
A research article published in 2019 in the Lancet journal reported that the number of South Africans aged 15 to 19 being treated for HIV increased by a factor of ten between 2019 and 2010. This is partly due to improved detection and treatment programs. However, less than 50% of the people diagnosed with HIV went onto receive antiviral medication due to social stigma, concerns about clinical confidentiality, and domestic responsibilities. While the annual number of deaths worldwide due to HIV/AIDS has declined from its peak in the early 2000s, experts warned that this venereal disease could rebound if the world’s booming adolescent population is left unprotected.
Data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics reveal that 46% of Australians aged 18 to 24, about a million people, were overweight in 2017 and 2018. That number was 39% in 2014 and 2015. Obese individuals face higher risks of type II diabetes, heart disease, osteoarthritis and stroke. The Australian Medical Associated and Obesity Coalition have urged the federal government to levy a tax on sugary drinks, to require health ratings, and to regulate the advertisement of fast foods. In all, the number of Australian adults who are overweight or obese rose from 63% in 2014-15 to 67% in 2017-18.
In 2016, the Varkey Foundation and Populus conducted an international study examining the attitudes of 20,000 people aged 15 to 21 in twenty countries: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Israel, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, Nigeria, Russia, South Africa, South Korea, Turkey, the U.K, and the U.S.A. They found that young people’s support for free speech dwindled if it was deemed offensive to a religion (56%) or a minority group (49%). The question of whether or not they favored legal migration received mixed responses, with 27% saying ‘yes’ in France, 31% in the U.K., 37% in Germany, and 38% in Italy and the U.S. Overall, 31% believed their governments should make it easier for immigrants to work and live legally in their countries while 23% said it should be more difficult, a margin of 8%. (See chart above.) While 72% of Brazilian youths thought their government was doing too little to address the international refugee crisis, only 16% of young Turks did; in the U.K. that number was 48%. Overall, their top concerns for the future included extremism and terrorism (83%), war (81%), the widening gap between the rich and the poor (69%), the lack of access to education (69%), climate change (63%), and the risk of a global pandemic (62%).
The same international survey also asked about people’s viewpoints on moral questions regarding sex and gender. Overall 89% supported sexual equality, with support being the highest in Canada and China (both 94%), and the lowest in Japan (74%) and Nigeria (68%). 74% favored recognizing transgender rights, but with large national differences, from an overwhelming majority of 83% in Canada to a bare majority of 57% in Nigeria. 63% approved of same-sex marriage. There were again huge variations among countries. 81% of young Germans and 80% of young Canadians agreed that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry, compared to only 33% of young Turks and 16% of young Nigerians who did. A 2018 poll conducted by Harris on behalf of the LGBT advocacy group GLAAD found that despite being frequently described as the most tolerant segment of society, Americans aged 18 to 34—most Millennials and the oldest members of Generation Z—have become less accepting LGBT individuals compared to previous years. In 2016, 63% of Americans in that age group said they felt comfortable interacting with members of the LGBT community; that number dropped to 53% in 2017 and then to 45% in 2018. On top of that, more people reported discomfort learning that a family member was LGBT (from 29% in 2017 to 36% in 2018), having a child learning LGBT history (30% to 39%), or having an LGBT doctor (27% to 34%). Harris found that young women were driving this development; their overall comfort levels dived from 64% in 2017 to 52% in 2018. In general, the fall of comfort levels was the steepest among people aged 18 to 34 between 2016 and 2018. (Seniors aged 72 or above became more accepting of LGBT doctors and having their (grand) children taking LGBT history lessons during the same period, albeit with a bump in discomfort levels in 2017.) Results from this Harris poll were released on the 50th anniversary of the riots that broke out in Stonewall Inn, New York City, in June 1969, thought to be the start of the LGBT rights movement. At that time, homosexuality was considered a mental illness or a crime in many U.S. states.
The aforementioned international survey by the Varkey Foundation showed that 66% of people aged 15 to 21 favored legal abortion. But there was significant variation among the countries surveyed. Support for this procedure was strongest in France (84%), the United Kingdom (80%), and Canada (79%), but lowest in Argentina (50%), Brazil (45%), and Nigeria (24%). (See chart above.) (As of 2016, it remained illegal in Nigeria.) Gallup polls conducted in 2019 in the U.S. revealed that 62% of people aged 18 to 29—older members of Generation Z and younger Millennials—support giving women access to abortion while 33% opposed. In general, the older someone was, the less likely that they supported abortion. 56% of people aged 65 or over did not approve of abortion compared to 37% who did. (See chart to the right.) Gallup found in 2018 that nationwide, Americans were split on the issue of abortion, with equal numbers of people considering themselves “pro-life” or “pro-choice”, 48%.
Goldman Sachs analysts Robert Boroujerdi and Christopher Wolf described Generation Z as “more conservative, more money-oriented, more entrepreneurial and pragmatic about money compared with Millennials.” According to the Hispanic Heritage Foundation, about eight out of ten members of Generation Z in the U.S. identify as “fiscal conservatives.” In 2018, the International Federation of Accountants released a report on a survey of 3,388 individuals aged 18 to 23 hailing from G20 countries, with a sample size of 150 to 300 per country. They found that members of Generation Z prefer a nationalist to a globalist approach to public policy by a clear margin, 51% to 32%. Nationalism was strongest in China (by a 44% margin), India (30%), South Africa (37%), and Russia (32%), while support for globalism was strongest in France (20% margin) and Germany (3%). In general, for members of Generation Z, the top three priorities for public policy are the stability of the national economy, the quality of education, and the availability of jobs; the bottom issues, on the other hand, were addressing income and wealth inequality, making regulations smarter and more effective, and improving the effectiveness of international taxation. Moreover, healthcare is a top priority for Generation Z in Canada, France, Germany, and the United States. Addressing climate change is very important for Generation Z in India, and South Korea, and tackling wealth and income inequality is of vital importance to the same in Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey.
2018 surveys of teenagers 13 to 17 and adults aged 18 or over conducted by the Pew Research Center found that Generation Z had broadly similar views to the Millennials on various political and social issues. More specifically, 54% of Generation Z believed that climate change is real and is due to human activities while only 10% reject the scientific consensus on climate change. (See chart.) 70% wanted the government to play a more active role in solving their problems. 67% were indifferent towards pre-nuptial cohabitation. 49% considered single motherhood to be neither a positive or a negative for society. 62% saw increased ethnic or racial diversity as good for society. As did 48% for same-sex marriage, and 53% for interracial marriage. In most cases, Generation Z and the Millennials tended hold quite different views from the Silent Generation, with the Baby Boomers and Generation X in between. In the case of financial responsibility in a two-parent household, though, majorities from across the generations answered that it should be shared, with 58% for the Silent Generation, 73% for the Baby Boomers, 78% for Generation X, and 79% for both the Millennials and Generation Z. Across all the generations surveyed, at least 84% thought that both parents ought to be responsible for rearing children. About 13% of Generation Z thought that mothers should be the primary caretaker of children, with similar percentages for the other demographic cohorts. Very few thought that fathers should be the ones mainly responsible for taking care of children.
In a study conducted in 2015 the Center for Generational Kinetics found that American Generation Zers, defined here as those born 1996 and onwards, are less optimistic about the state of the US economy than their generation predecessors, Millennials.
Despite reports of a surge in turnouts among young voters in the 2015 and 2017 United Kingdom general elections, statistical scrutiny by the British Elections Study revealed that the margin of error was too large to determine whether or not there was a significant increase or decrease in the number of young participants. In both cases, turnouts among those aged 18 to 24 was between 40% and 50%. Winning the support of young people does not necessarily translate to increasing young voters’ turnouts, and positive reactions on social media may not lead to success at the ballot box. Initial reports of a youth surge came from constituency-level survey data, which has a strong chance of over-representing voters rather than the Kingdom as a whole. In addition, higher turnouts generally came from constituencies where there were already large proportions of young people, both toddlers and young adults, and such surges did not necessarily come from young voters. In 2017, there was indeed an increase in overall voter turnout, but only by 2.5%. Similarly, in the United States, despite the hype surrounding the political engagement and record turnout among young voters, their voting power has actually declined. In round terms, the share of voters between the ages of 18 and 24 will fall from 13% in 2000 to 12% in 2020 while that of voters aged 65 and over will rise from 18% to 23% during the same period, according to Richard Fry of the Pew Research Center. A consistent trend in the U.K. and many other countries is that older people are more likely to vote than their younger countrymen, and they tend to vote for more right-leaning (or conservative) candidates. According to Sean Simpsons of Ipsos, people are more likely to vote when they have more at stake, such as children to raise, homes to maintain, and income taxes to pay.
A 2017 survey produced by MTV and the Public Religion Research Institute found that 72% of Americans aged 15 to 24 held unfavorable views of President Donald Trump. In a 2016 poll of Gen Z-aged students by the Hispanic Heritage Foundation, 32% of participants supported Donald Trump, while 22% supported Hillary Clinton with 31% declining to choose. By contrast, in a 2016 mock election of upper elementary, middle, and high school students conducted by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, Hillary Clinton beat Donald Trump among the students, with Clinton receiving 46% of the vote, Donald Trump receiving 41%, and other candidates receiving 12%.
The March for Our Lives was a 2018 demonstration demanding stricter gun-control legislation following the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting. An opinion piece titled “Dear National Rifle Association: We Won’t Let You Win, From, Teenagers” published in March 2018 in The New York Times describes Generation Z as the generation after Millennials who will “not forget the elected officials who turned their backs on their duty to protect children.” However, according a field survey by The Washington Post interviewing every fifth person at the protest, only ten percent of the participants were 18 years of age or younger. Meanwhile, the adult participants of the protest had an average age of just under 49. Polls conducted by Gallup and the Pew Research Center found that support for stricter gun laws among people aged 18 to 29 and 18 to 36, respectively, is statistically no different from that of the general population. According to Gallup, 57% of Americans are in favor of stronger gun control legislation. In a 2017 poll, Pew found that among the age group 18 to 29, 27% personally owned a gun and 16% lived with a gun owner, for a total of 43% living in a household with at least one gun. Nationwide, a similar percentage of American adults lived in a household with a gun. (See chart.)
A 2016 survey by Varkey Foundation and Populus conducted on 20,000 people aged 15 to 21 from twenty countries from all inhabited continents revealed that religious faith was influential to 42% of the respondents and inconsequential to 39%. There was, however, a clear difference along the age subgroups, with people 15-16 slightly more likely to value religion as important than those aged 19-21 (47% vs. 43%). Nevertheless, for 53%, religion influenced the values they hold. In order to further determine the role of religion in young people’s lives, the pollsters asked them (1) whether or not it was important to them personally, (2) to their parents, (3) whether their parents’ religion determined whom they would marry, and (4) if religion helps them decide whether to be friends with someone. Overall, religion was important to 11% of respondents. But there was a large gap among countries with Nigeria at one end (32%) and Germany and Japan on the other (3%). (See above.)
The 2016 British Social Attitudes Survey found that 71% of people between the ages of 18 and 24 had no religion, compared to 62% the year before. A 2018 ComRes survey found that slightly more than one in two of those aged 18 to 24 reported a positive experience with Christians and Christianity. Two-thirds of the same age group have never attended church; among the remaining third, 20% went a few times a year, and 2% multiple times per week. 12% of respondents aged 18 to 24 agreed with the claim that Christians were a bad influence on society, compared to just over half who disagreed. For comparison, 14% of those aged 25 to 34 agreed. In all, 51% of Britons disagreed with the same while 10% agreed. Results from the 2018 the ComRes survey were released a day after the Church of England announced it was going to establish more than a hundred churches, mainly in urban areas, to attract new followers.
A 2016 U.S. study found that church attendance during young adulthood was 41% among Generation Z, compared to 18% for Millennials, 21% of Generation X, and 26% of the Baby Boomers when they were at the same age. A 2016 survey by Barna and Impact 360 Institute on about 1,500 Americans aged 13 and up suggests that the percentage of atheists and agnostics was 21% among Generation Z, compared to 15% for Millennials, 13% for Generation X, and 9% for Baby Boomers. 59% of Generation Z were Christians (including Catholics), compared to 65% for the Millennials, 65% for Generation X, and 75% for the Baby Boomers. Researchers also asked over 600 non-Christian teenagers and almost 500 adults what their biggest barriers to faith were. They found that for Generation Z, these were what they perceived as internal contradictions of the religion and its believers, yet only six percent reported an unpleasant personal experience with a Christian or at church. Indeed, perception of this establishment tended to be overwhelmingly positive. 82% believed the church was relevant and helped them live a meaningful life. 77% thought they could be themselves at church, and 63% deemed the church to be tolerant of different beliefs. Only 27% considered the church to be unsafe for expressing doubts. 24% argued that religion and religious thought were shallow, and 17% thought it was too exclusive. 46% of adolescents require factual evidence before believing in something, on par with Millennials. 41% of teens believed that science and the Bible are fundamentally at odds with one another, with 27% taking the side of science and 17% picking religion. For comparison, 45% of Millennials, 34% of Generation X, and 29% of the Baby Boomers believed such a conflict exists. 31% of Generation Z believed that science and religion refer to different aspects of reality, on par with Millennials and Generation X (both 30%), and above the Baby Boomers (25%). 28% of Generation Z thought that science and religion are complementary, compared to 25% of Millennials, 36% of Generation X, and 45% for Baby Boomers.
Globally, religion is in decline in North America and Western Europe, but is growing in the rest of the world. Although the number of atheists, agnostics, and people not affiliated with organized religion continues to grow in Europe and the United States, their percentage of the world population is falling because of their comparatively low fertility rate (1.7). In general, the growth or decline of a given religion is due more to age and fertility rather than conversion. Besides the level of education and income, how religious a woman is determines how many children she will bear in her lifetime. For example, in the cities of the Middle East, women who supported Sharia law had a 50% fertility advantage over those who opposed it the most at the turn of the century. According to the World Religious Database, the proportion of the human population identifying with a religion increased from 81% in 1970 to 85% in 2000 and is predicted to rise to 87% in 2025. In addition, the Catholic Church has gained 12% additional followers between 2000 and 2010, mainly from Asia and Africa. In 2018, Muslims had a median age of 23, Hindus 26, Christians 30, Buddhists and the religiously unaffiliated 34, and Jews 36. For comparison, the median age of the global population was 28 in 2018. Overall, Christians have a fertility rate of 2.6, and Muslims 2.9. Islam is the world’s fastest growing religion. Meanwhile, the expansion of secularism will slow in Europe as the twenty-first century progresses.
But religion can grow even in otherwise secular societies. For example, in Israel, the ultra-Orthodox Jews comprised just a five percent of the nation’s primary schoolchildren in 1960, but by the start of the twenty-first century, one third of Jewish first graders in Israel came from this religious sect. Ultra-Orthodox Jewish women in Israel had on average 7.5 children compared to their more mainstream counterparts with just over two in the early 2000s. In Europe, immigration from the Middle East and Africa is an engine of religious growth. Children of immigrants tend to be about as religious as their parents and consider their religion to be a marker of their ethnic identity, thereby insulating themselves from the secularizing forces of the host society. The other engine is comparatively high fertility and religious endogamy. In France, a white Catholic woman had half a child more than her secular counterparts in the early 2000s; in Spain, that number was 0.77. In the Netherlands, the youngest villages belong to Orthodox Calvinists, who comprised 7% of the Dutch population by the early 2000s. In Austria, the number of people below the age of 15 who were Muslims rose past the 10%-mark in the first decade of the twenty-first century. In the United Kingdom, over 90% of Muslims married other Muslims by the turn of the millennium, and it is well-known that children born into an interfaith marriage tend to be less religious than their parents. Interfaith marriage is in fact a vehicle of secularization. Ultra-Orthodox Jews comprised just 12% of the British Jewish population but three quarters of Jewish births at the start of the twenty-first century. (This group is projected to make up the majority of Anglo-American Jews by 2050.) In the United States, Catholicism will become the largest religion by 2040 despite considerable losses to secularization and conversion to Protestantism thanks in no small part to the fact that Latino Catholics had a fertility rate of 2.83 compared to the national average of 2.03 in 2003. Such religious demographic changes will bring about social and political ramifications later in the century.
Generation Z is generally more risk-averse in certain activities than earlier generations. In 2013, 66% of American teenagers (older members of Generation Z) had tried alcohol, down from 82% in 1991 (older Millennials and younger Generation X). Also, in 2013, 8% of teenagers never or rarely wear a seat belt when riding in a car with someone else, as opposed to 26% in 1991. Research from the Annie E. Casey Foundation conducted in 2016 found Generation Z youth had lower teen pregnancy rates, less substance abuse, and higher on-time high school graduation rates compared with Millennials. The researchers compared teens from 2008 and 2014 and found a 40% drop in teen pregnancy, a 38% drop in drug and alcohol abuse, and a 28% drop in the percentage of teens who did not graduate on time from high school.
Use of information and communications technologies (ICT)
Use of ICT in general
Generation Z is the first cohort to have Internet technology readily available at a young age. With the web revolution that occurred throughout the 1990s, they have been exposed to an unprecedented amount of technology in their upbringing, with the use of mobile devices growing exponentially over time. Anthony Turner characterizes Generation Z as having a ‘digital bond to the Internet’, and argues that it may help youth to escape from emotional and mental struggles they face offline.
According to U.S. consultants Sparks and Honey in 2014, 41% of Generation Z spend more than three hours per day using computers for purposes other than schoolwork, compared with 22% in 2004. In 2015, an estimated 150,000 apps, 10% of those in Apple’s App Store, were educational and aimed at children up to college level, though opinions are mixed as to whether the net result will be deeper involvement in learning and more individualized instruction, or impairment through greater technology dependence and a lack of self-regulation that may hinder child development. Parents of Gen Z’ers fear the overuse of the Internet, and dislike the ease of access to inappropriate information and images, as well as social networking sites where children can gain access to people worldwide. Children reversely feel annoyed with their parents and complain about parents being overly controlling when it comes to their Internet usage.
In a TEDxHouston talk, Jason Dorsey of the Center for Generational Kinetics stressed the notable differences in the way that Millennials and Generation Z consume technology, with 18% of Generation Z feeling that it is okay for a 13-year-old to have a smartphone, compared with just 4% for the previous generation. An online newspaper about texting, SMS and MMS writes that teens own cellphones without necessarily needing them; that receiving a phone is considered a rite of passage in some countries, allowing the owner to be further connected with their peers, and it is now a social norm to have one at an early age. An article from the Pew Research Center stated that “nearly three-quarters of teens have or have access to a smartphone and 30% have a basic phone, while just 12% of teens 13 to 15 say they have no cell phone of any type”. These numbers are only on the rise and the fact that the majority own a cell phone has become one of this generations defining characteristics. Consequently, “24% of teens go online ‘almost constantly’.”
Despite being labeled as ‘digital natives’, the 2018 International Computer and Information Literacy Study (ICILS), conducted on 42,000 eighth-graders (or equivalents) from 14 countries and education systems, found that only two percent of these people were sufficiently proficient with information devices to justify that description, and only 19% could work independently with computers to gather information and to manage their work. ICILS assesses students on two main categories: Computer and Information Literacy (CIL), and Computational Thinking (CT). For CIL, there are four levels, one to four, with Level 4 being the highest. Although at least 80% students from most countries tested reached Level 1, only two percent on average reached Level 4. Countries or education systems whose students scored near or above the international average of 496 in CIL were, in increasing order, France, North Rhine-Westphalia, Portugal, Germany, the United States, Finland, South Korea, Moscow, and Denmark. CT is divided into four levels, the Upper, Middle, and Lower Regions. International averages for the proportions of students reaching each of these were 18%, 50%, and 32%, respectively. Countries or education systems whose students scored near or above the international average of 500 were, in increasing order, the United States, France, Finland, Denmark, and South Korea. In general, female eighth-graders outperformed their male counterparts in CIL by an international average of 18 points but were narrowly outclassed by their male counterparts in CT. (Narrow gaps made estimates of averages have higher coefficients of variation.) In the United States, where the computer-based tests were administered by the National Center for Education Statistics, 72% of eighth-graders said they searched for information on the Internet at least once a week or every school day, and 65% reported they were autodidactic information finders on the Internet.
Social media networks
The use of social media has become integrated into the daily lives of most Gen Z’ers with access to mobile technology, who use it primarily to keep in contact with friends and family. As a result, mobile technology has caused online relationship development to become a new generational norm. Gen Z uses social media and other sites to strengthen bonds with friends and to develop new ones. They interact with people who they otherwise would not have met in the real world, becoming a tool for identity creation. The negative side to mobile devices for Generation Z, according to Twenge, is they are less “face to face”, and thus feel more lonely and left out.
Focus group testing found that while teens may be annoyed by many aspects of Facebook, they continue to use it because participation is important in terms of socializing with friends and peers. Twitter and Instagram are seen to be gaining popularity among members of Generation Z, with 24% (and growing) of teens with access to the Internet having Twitter accounts. This is, in part, due to parents not typically using these social networking sites. Snapchat is also seen to have gained attraction in Generation Z because videos, pictures, and messages send much faster on it than in regular messaging. Speed and reliability are important factors in members of Generation Z choice of social networking platform. This need for quick communication is presented in popular Generation Z apps like Vine and the prevalent use of emojis.
A study by Gabrielle Borca, et al found that teenagers in 2012 were more likely to share different types of information than teenagers in 2006. However, they will take steps to protect information that they do not want being shared, and are more likely to “follow” others on social media than “share”. A survey of U.S. teenagers from advertising agency J. Walter Thomson likewise found that the majority of teenagers are concerned about how their posting will be perceived by people or their friends. 72% of respondents said they were using social media on a daily basis, and 82% said they thought carefully about what they post on social media. Moreover, 43% said they had regrets about previous posts.
Research conducted in 2017 reports that the social media usage patterns of this generation may be associated with loneliness, anxiety, and fragility, and that girls may be more affected than boys by social media. According to 2018 CDC reports, girls are disproportionately affected by the negative aspects of social media than boys. Researchers at the University of Essex analyzed data from 10,000 families, from 2010-2015, assessing their mental health utilizing two perspectives: Happiness and Well-being throughout social, familial, and educational perspectives. Within each family, they examined children who had grown from 10–15 during these years. At age 10, 10% of female subjects reported social media use, while this was only true for 7% of the male subjects. By age 15, this variation jumped to 53% for girls, and 41% for boys. This percentage influx may explain why more girls reported experiencing cyberbullying, decreased self-esteem, and emotional instability more than their male counterparts.
Other researchers hypothesize that girls are more affected by social media usage because of how they use it. In a study conducted by the Pew Research Center in 2015, researchers discovered that while 78% girls reported to making a friend through social media, only 52% of boys could say the same. However, boys are not explicitly less affected by this statistic. They also found that 57% of boys claimed to make friends through video gaming, while this was only true for 13% of girls. Another Pew Research Center survey conducted in April 2015, reported that women are more likely to use Pinterest, Facebook, and Instagram than men. In counterpoint, men were more likely to utilize online forums, e-chat groups, and Reddit than women.
Cyberbullying is more common now than among Millennials, the previous generation. It’s more common among girls, 22% compared to 10% for boys. This results in young girls feeling more vulnerable to being excluded and undermined.
According to the Pew Research Center, although only a negligible number of people dated online in 2005, that rose to 11% in 2013 and then 15% in 2015. This increase was driven mainly by people aged 18 to 24, whose usage almost tripled, and those aged 55 to 64, whose doubled. Attitudes towards online dating has improved, though only 5% of online daters said they were married to or in a committed relationship with someone they met online.
Matt Carmichael, former director of data strategy at Advertising Age, noted in 2015 that many groups were “competing to come up with the clever name” for the generation following Generation Z. Mark McCrindle has suggested ‘Generation Alpha’, noting that scientific disciplines often move to the Greek alphabet after exhausting the Roman alphabet, and ‘Generation Glass’, for the digital glass screens that have become the primary medium of content sharing. McCrindle has predicted that this next generation will be “the most formally educated generation ever, the most technology-supplied generation ever, and globally the wealthiest generation ever.” McCrindle defined the term ‘Generation Alpha’ to be people born between 2011 and 2025.
- Boomerang Generation
- Generation gap
- Post-90s and Little Emperor Syndrome (China)
- Strawberry Generation (Taiwan)
- 9X Generation (Vietnam)
- List of generations
- The Downside of Diversity. Michael Jonas. The New York Times. August 5, 2007.
- The Next America: Modern Family. Pew Research Center. April 30, 2014. (Video, 2:16)
- Meet Generation Z: Forget Everything You Learned About Millennials – 2014 presentation by Sparks and Honey
- Is a University Degree a Waste of Money? CBC News: The National. March 1, 2017. (Video, 14:39)
- A Generation Z Exploration. (Web version) Rubin Postaer and Associates (RPA). 2018.
- Combi, Chloe (2015). Generation Z: Their Voices, Their Lives. London: Hutchinson. OCLC 910606762.
- Palfrey, John; Gasser, Urs (2008). Born Digital: Understanding the First Generation of Digital Natives. Basic Books.
- McCrindle, Mark; Wolfinger, Emily (2014). The ABC of XYZ: Understanding the Global Generations. McCrindle Research.
NewPP limit report
Parsed by mw1348
Cached time: 20200103194527
Cache expiry: 86400
Dynamic content: true
CPU time usage: 1.756 seconds
Real time usage: 2.008 seconds
Preprocessor visited node count: 9310/1000000
Preprocessor generated node count: 0/1500000
Post‐expand include size: 358360/2097152 bytes
Template argument size: 1379/2097152 bytes
Highest expansion depth: 13/40
Expensive parser function count: 9/500
Unstrip recursion depth: 1/20
Unstrip post‐expand size: 635834/5000000 bytes
Number of Wikibase entities loaded: 4/400
Lua time usage: 1.056/10.000 seconds
Lua memory usage: 7.81 MB/50 MB
dataWrapper 120 ms 11.8%
? 120 ms 11.8%
Scribunto_LuaSandboxCallback::getEntity 100 ms 9.8%
Scribunto_LuaSandboxCallback::find 100 ms 9.8%
recursiveClone 80 ms 7.8%
Scribunto_LuaSandboxCallback::gsub 60 ms 5.9%
Scribunto_LuaSandboxCallback::getExpandedArgument 60 ms 5.9%
Scribunto_LuaSandboxCallback::callParserFunction 60 ms 5.9%
date 60 ms 5.9%
makeMessage 40 ms 3.9%
[others] 220 ms 21.6%