题目内容
It’s often hard to see your mistakes as you’re making them. When it comes to living arrangements, a humdinger is being made in this country right now and few have noticed it yet."Yikes!The kids are moving back in!" Thus goes the mantra of the baby boom generation, circa 2007. Analysts estimate that some 18 million adults between the ages of 20 and 34 live with their parents. That’s roughly a third of that age group.But letting the kids move back in is not the societal error we’re talking about. Instead, the big mistake is the loudly voiced chagrin of the boomers. Most mistakenly decry the notion of the boomerang generation. In order to fully appreciate the depth of the error being made here, we all need to step back a bit and look at the bigger picture. This epidemic of kids moving back home is first, not "unprecedented," and second, it’s not a bad thing. The precedent for this trend can be found among the other 6.2 billion non-Americans on the planet, many of whom happily live with their adult children, often in three-generation households.Then there’s the growing number of non-Anglo Americans, including many recent immigrants, who see no problem in having adult kids contribute to the household. Finally, the agrarian history of this country before World War II allowed kids to live and work around the farm weI1 into adulthood.Adult kids moving back home is merely the most noticeable symptom of a larger, fundamental transformation of American society. We are nationally beginning to recognize the costs of the independence the so-called greatest generation foisted on us. We can’t blame them. They did have to grow up fast. Kids in their generation went off to World War II and grew up on the bloody beaches of distant lands.After the war, the survivors had factories to build and the wealth to buy their white-picket-fence dream out West. They designed a social and fiscal system that has served their retirement years very well. But their historically unique retirement system mistakenly celebrated independence and ignored the natural state of human beings--that is, interdependence.Moreover, their system breaks down with the onslaught of their kids’ retirement. We can already see the pension systems, both private and public, beginning to disintegrate under the weight of the baby boomers.We are now just starting to understand the substantial fiscal and psychological costs of separating the generations into so-called single-family homes with the ideal of a mother, father and two kids. But times change and so do cultures.Regarding boomerang kids, most demographers focus on the immediate explanations for the changes, such as the growing immigrant population, housing shortages and high prices, and out-of-wedlock childbearing.Many psychologists have noted that baby-boomer parents enjoy closer relationships with their fewer children that allow extended cohabitation. A recent survey conducted for Del Webb (a division of Pulte Homes Inc.)reports that only about one-quarter of baby boomers are happier once the kids move out.However, all these explanations are simply symptoms of the larger, more fundamental reuniting of Americans into households that include extended families--adult, kids, grandparents, grandchildren and other relatives -- rather than just nuclear families.The rate at which our American culture is adapting will accelerate as baby boomers begin retiring in waves. Creative housing arrangements are necessitating and allowing three generations to live together again- under one roof or in close proximity. Now some 6 million American grandparents are living under one roof with their grandchildren.Whether grandparents live in accessory apartments on the property or houses next door, these flexible housing options provide privacy and companionship at the same time. Grandparents can interact with their grandchildren while the parents work, and all benefit from the new togetherness. These 21st century housing arrangements are a creative way to handle the financial needs of the generation that is retiring and, yes, the adult children who are coming home.Such multigenerational households don’t make sense for everyone. Personality conflicts or family characteristics preclude such arrangements for some. Legal constraints such as building and zoning codes are formidable obstacles in most communities across the country.Often more room is mandated for parking your car than parking your grandmother. Home builders have been more interested in selling houses that satisfy immediate needs rather than anticipating the needs of the growing numbers of aging Americans.The culture itself frequently gets in the way, reinforcing the perception of a stigma attaching to lack of independence- the adult child who just won’t move out (and grow up) or the aging grandparent who eschews "being a burden".Despite these problems, once you begin talking with your friends about three-generation households, you will begin hearing stories about how such obstacles are being overcome. You also will begin hearing stories about the wonderful benefits of thinking about housing and family arrangements in creative ways. And you’ll hear stories about the fundamental satisfaction of living together again. What is not the reason for adult moving back home according to researchers of US populations().
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
Hutu extremists in government organized the killing and used state radio stations to urge ordinary people to crush the cockroaches-- a Hutu () for Tutsis,
First there was a Washington Post article published shortly after the elections on the presumptive new House speaker, "Muted Tones of Quiet Authority: A Look Suited to the Speaker." It offered the information that "Pelosi’s suit was by Giorgio Armani -- the Italian master of neutral tones and modem power dressing- and she wore it well."The article at least appeared in the newspaper’s Style section, but was chock--full of psychoanalytic forays into Pelosi’s wardrobe choices, asserting that an Armani suit, for a woman, is a tool for playing with the boys without pretending to be one. I would wager that Pelosi is one woman who doesn’t play around with anyone.Then there was a New York Times article in January in its Thursday Styles section titled "Speaking Chic to Power."While noting that Pelosi, barely in her new job a month, had brought the House to votes on a minimum wage increase, stem cell research and Medicare drug prices, the article said "she did it looking preternaturally fresh, with a wardrobe that, while still subdued and over-reliant on suits, has seldom spruced the halls of Congress."Similar articles appeared in the Baltimore Sun and Chicago Tribune. Mentioned were other women politicians and their fashion choices, such as Sen. Hillary Clinton’s hair style and preference for black pantsuits or Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s haircut. The question is whether focusing on the clothing choices of serious female political players risks rendering them less than serious. Another question is whether such reports warrant precious space. After all, with rare exceptions, male politicians are seldom scrutinized for their choice of suits.Some reporters and editors haven’t figured out a way to cover female politicians that doesn’t rely on the old stereotypes, says Gail Dines, sociology and women’s studies professor at Wheelock College in Boston. "To be a woman politician, you have to strategize and work hard, and yet what matters is what designer you’re wearing. It’s a way to make women in power less scary," Dines notes. "It’s putting women into a comfort zone for those who are still baffled by how to treat strong women."The articles seem a throwback to a time when women were only spouses, not players, says Ruth Mandel, director of the Eagleton Institute of Politics at Rutgers University. "To focus on their attire, the cut of their clothes...is to be in danger of trivializing who they are, the important role they play and the meaning behind women’s advancement to positions of power: That is, we’re moving to a true democracy of shared leadership."The problem is the media haven’t quite caught up. "A woman who rises to a leadership position at any level is going to dress appropriately," says Kathleen Hail Jamieson, professor at the Annenberg School of Communications at the University of Pennsylvania. "It underscores her competence and is not a distraction. You take for granted that it would not be worthy of comment any more." Jamieson thinks the underlying motivation for reporting on femaIe politicians’ style is "the naturaI news interest in talking about what changes, and men don’ t look different. There is a uniform for men in power and we all know that it looks like.The only thing to change is the color of the shirt or tie." Because women have greater fashion options, changes they make are more obvious and invite analysis. Now that Pelosi’s "uniform" has been established, that should be the end of it. Ditto for Clinton. "Clinton now has a range of what she wears." Jamieson says. "She hasn’t been changing hairstyles or her pantsuits. That is our definition of what she wears, and that should end it."Tom Rosenstiel, director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism, thinks reporting that describes women politicians’ appearance is justified in profiles of them. Female politicians will certainly survive such silly coverage, and some argue the stories are harmless. But these women are role models for young women and offer an alternative to the fashion model and celebrity in setting the standard for female beauty and worth.Dines worries that when the media emphasize the appearance of women, it perpetuates attitudes in the larger world that devalue and limit women. "These are fortunate, privileged women," Dines notes of politicians, "but for yong women trying to make it in the world, how they look can affect their opportunities.\ Some people contend the media().
First there was a Washington Post article published shortly after the elections on the presumptive new House speaker, "Muted Tones of Quiet Authority: A Look Suited to the Speaker." It offered the information that "Pelosi’s suit was by Giorgio Armani -- the Italian master of neutral tones and modem power dressing- and she wore it well."The article at least appeared in the newspaper’s Style section, but was chock--full of psychoanalytic forays into Pelosi’s wardrobe choices, asserting that an Armani suit, for a woman, is a tool for playing with the boys without pretending to be one. I would wager that Pelosi is one woman who doesn’t play around with anyone.Then there was a New York Times article in January in its Thursday Styles section titled "Speaking Chic to Power."While noting that Pelosi, barely in her new job a month, had brought the House to votes on a minimum wage increase, stem cell research and Medicare drug prices, the article said "she did it looking preternaturally fresh, with a wardrobe that, while still subdued and over-reliant on suits, has seldom spruced the halls of Congress."Similar articles appeared in the Baltimore Sun and Chicago Tribune. Mentioned were other women politicians and their fashion choices, such as Sen. Hillary Clinton’s hair style and preference for black pantsuits or Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s haircut. The question is whether focusing on the clothing choices of serious female political players risks rendering them less than serious. Another question is whether such reports warrant precious space. After all, with rare exceptions, male politicians are seldom scrutinized for their choice of suits.Some reporters and editors haven’t figured out a way to cover female politicians that doesn’t rely on the old stereotypes, says Gail Dines, sociology and women’s studies professor at Wheelock College in Boston. "To be a woman politician, you have to strategize and work hard, and yet what matters is what designer you’re wearing. It’s a way to make women in power less scary," Dines notes. "It’s putting women into a comfort zone for those who are still baffled by how to treat strong women."The articles seem a throwback to a time when women were only spouses, not players, says Ruth Mandel, director of the Eagleton Institute of Politics at Rutgers University. "To focus on their attire, the cut of their clothes...is to be in danger of trivializing who they are, the important role they play and the meaning behind women’s advancement to positions of power: That is, we’re moving to a true democracy of shared leadership."The problem is the media haven’t quite caught up. "A woman who rises to a leadership position at any level is going to dress appropriately," says Kathleen Hail Jamieson, professor at the Annenberg School of Communications at the University of Pennsylvania. "It underscores her competence and is not a distraction. You take for granted that it would not be worthy of comment any more." Jamieson thinks the underlying motivation for reporting on femaIe politicians’ style is "the naturaI news interest in talking about what changes, and men don’ t look different. There is a uniform for men in power and we all know that it looks like.The only thing to change is the color of the shirt or tie." Because women have greater fashion options, changes they make are more obvious and invite analysis. Now that Pelosi’s "uniform" has been established, that should be the end of it. Ditto for Clinton. "Clinton now has a range of what she wears." Jamieson says. "She hasn’t been changing hairstyles or her pantsuits. That is our definition of what she wears, and that should end it."Tom Rosenstiel, director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism, thinks reporting that describes women politicians’ appearance is justified in profiles of them. Female politicians will certainly survive such silly coverage, and some argue the stories are harmless. But these women are role models for young women and offer an alternative to the fashion model and celebrity in setting the standard for female beauty and worth.Dines worries that when the media emphasize the appearance of women, it perpetuates attitudes in the larger world that devalue and limit women. "These are fortunate, privileged women," Dines notes of politicians, "but for yong women trying to make it in the world, how they look can affect their opportunities.\ Professor Jamieson believes that ().
Forum for the Future, working with Tesco and Unilever, reckon that by 2022 what we buy, how we buy it and who from will have changed radically. In their report, Retail Futures, they look ahead 15 years to see what lies in store for shoppers and the retail groups. They see not only new or bigger store chains, more sprawling retail parks, and more poultry products and pasta sauces. Their visions range from multi- storey car parks converted into city centre allotments or"vertical farms"with produce markets where the parking payment booths once were, to a nation of stay-at-home shoppers who let their fingers do the walking to order in almost everything they need or let their refrigerators do the talking, with automatic, direct-to-store reordering and home delivery every time yoghurt, salad or beer stocks run low.Forum for the Future, a sustainable development charity founded by veteran environmentalist Sir Jonathon Porritt and which now advises more than 100 organizations in the public and private sector, says the reality of 2022 is probably somewhere between the two extremes. "It will be a mixture," said Tom Berry, the Forum’s main sustainability adviser.The high street is vital to the economy and the environment: nearly three million people work in retail which generates 6% of UK GDP-- and 2.5% of the country’s carbon dioxide emissions. The Forum says stores and retail groups have a disproportionate influence over society as a result of marketing campaigns and daily dealings with consumers.The Forum’s researchers identified a range of factors which will affect what we buy, how we buy and who we will buy from in the next 15 years. They include: climate change, which is likely to affect agricultural production, higher- or lower- oil prices, new technology, advances in energy production, more globalization and demographic changes that will mean more immigrant labor and more elderly and single person households.They could prompt new shopping formats, says the Forum, like "Tesco Silver" outlets with customized products for retired baby boomers. They also reckon the bell could be tolling for endless aisles of utility products like toilet paper and bin liners, which might only be sold online, or from a utility section at the back of a store, alongside vast vats of liquids like fabric conditioner, where shoppers could fill reusable containers. The long queue at the checkout could also be history when bar codes are read for prices immediately an item is dropped into a trolley.The online revolution, says the Forum, has only just started: "We can anticipate innovations such as entering your postcode for hyper-local sourcing". Consumers, however, might also use the Internet to cut out the middleman and source direct from farms and manufacturers "so posing a threat to major retailers".The explosion in the number of TV channels and the rise of the Internet to download entertainment means store chains will have to work far harder to build, and keep consumers’ trust. One retailer told the researchers: "We won’t be able to rely on hitting millions of people at 7:45p.m. on a Wednesday night with a Coronation Street advertising slot."The Forum came up with four different visions of the future depending on high or low economic growth and changing consumer outlooks; whether shoppers want more convenience or to do more for themselves; perhaps buying more locally sourced products with more information about what their families are eating and wearing. When the Forum advances four kinds of future consumption, the condition not taken into consideration is().
微信支付 
支付宝支付