The “selfish elite” own iPads

New technology from Apple always seems to stir up a lot of attention. MyType, a consumer research company, studied both the owners of iPads and the new gadget’s critics (20,000 people total):

iPad owners tend to be wealthy, sophisticated, highly educated and disproportionately interested in business and finance, while they scored terribly in the areas of altruism and kindness. In other words, “selfish elites.”

They are six times more likely to be “wealthy, well-educated, power-hungry, over-achieving, sophisticated, unkind and non-altruistic 30-50 year olds,” MyType’s Tim Koelkebeck told Wired.com.

96 percent those most likely to criticize the iPad, on the other hand, don’t even own one, although as geeks, they were slightly more likely to do so than the average population — and far more likely to have an opinion about the device one way or the other (updated). This group tends to be “self-directed young people who look down on conformity and are interested in videogames, computers, electronics, science and the internet,” said Koelkebeck.

A strong reminder that technology is not just a tool; it is often a status symbol. I remember having a discussion with some students about what it meant to have and display an Apple laptop in class. Students were quite aware that they were sending some sort of message about themselves in their computer choice.

It is also worth remembering that Apple once held its own non-comformist identity as they took on big, bad Microsoft. Today, Apple’s products such as the iPod, iPhone, and iPad are the height of cool but those who have them may be considered comformist.

Unique planned communities in America

CNN Money takes a quick look at a few of “the most unusual planned communities” in the United States. From a large town for active retirees to a Martha Stewart designed community to a community built around a new Catholic university, these places certainly are interesting.

Celebration, Florida also makes this list. Celebration was developed by Disney and is the subject of several interesting books that focus on the early years of the community:

–Celebration, U.S.A.: Living in Disney’s Brave New Town, Douglas Frantz and Catherine Collins, 2000

–The Celebration Chronicles: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Property Value in Disney’s New Town, Andrew Ross, 2000

Designing the suburban future

Allison Arieff writes in the New York Times about a design competition sponsored by the Rauch Foundation for the future of suburbs on Long Island. The blog post includes pictures of some of the 212 entries. Looking quickly at the five entries listed by Arieff, I am intrigued by #1 (a new transportation system better connecting suburb to suburb) and #3 (building compounds that combine uses). Some interesting ideas are out there regarding the future of suburbia…

Minneapolis and Seattle fight congestion

USA Today reports on successful efforts in Minneapolis and Seattle to cut down on congestion on local highways. Some of the efforts include: building more bus lanes, building more light rail, encouraging employers to have flexible schedules, variable speed limits depending on traffic, high-occupancy vehicle lanes, and more.

Show about upper income workers draws upper income watchers

Season Four of Mad Men kicked off this past weekend. Ratings were good (2.92 million viewers) and the show attracted a large proportion of wealthy viewers. Mediaweek reports:

If Mad Men’s numbers can’t compete with high performing cable fare like TNT’s The Closer and Rizzoli & Isles––both of which are averaging around 7.4 million viewers through two episodes each––or USA’s Burn Notice (5.67 million) and Royal Pains (5.46 million), the show does attract a disproportionate spread of high-income supporters. Per Nielsen, approximately 48 percent of Mad Men’s audience is comprised of people who boast annual household income of $100,000 or more.

While it’s not a perfect comparison, USA’s entire suite of original series draws nearly a third (32 percent) of its deliveries from viewers in the 18-49 demo with annual incomes of $100,000 and up.

After seeing this report, I would be curious to see the income figures for other popular television shows. Compared to many television dramas and comedies which seem to aim for a broader audience and so often include more average families and workplaces, Mad Men presents a more upper-class setting. I would assume there are splits between social classes in regards to what television shows are popular.

Even if Mad Men does present compelling and worthy story lines examining the complicated world of the 1960s (and critics do seem to like it), is it just making a presentation for mainly upper class viewers? At the same time, the show also presents an image of “the good life” (and the downsides of it) which could appeal to many.

I’m guessing these income figures appeal to advertisers.

(Full disclosure: I have only seen a few minutes of the show though I have read several appraisals by critics.)

Intergenerational conflict across countries

LiveScience reports on a study of relationships between adult children and parents across six developed nations. According to the study:

American families were more than twice as likely as those living anywhere else to have so-called disharmonious relationships, or those defined by strong negative feelings, such as disagreement and tension, without any strong positive feelings, including feelings of closeness and amicability.

The authors suggested some of this conflict may come from welfare systems – if adult children feel they need to care for their parents and older parents need to ask for help, tensions may rise.

But the authors also note the differences in cultural values. This makes sense to me: American children, in particular, are taught from a relatively young age that they should be independent from their parents. While this is perhaps most obvious in the teenager and college years, it carries through into adulthood. American mobility probably plays a role (cell phone calls and Facebook relationships to cover the distance probably don’t carry the same weight) as families scatter over time.

Keeping the elderly in their hometowns

The USA Today reports on efforts by communities to help the elderly grow old in their hometowns. These communities have built “villages” where services for the elderly are coordinated. According to the article:

More than 50 villages in a neighbor-helping-neighbor system have sprouted in the past decade from California and Colorado to Nebraska and Massachusetts. They are run largely by volunteers and funded by grants and membership fees to provide services from transportation and grocery delivery to home repairs and dog walking…

AARP research shows that 90% of people want to grow old in their home and community.

This would seem to be wise for communities: the elderly know many useful things about a community, have made many connections among residents, and can teach and mentor a younger generation. Communities and suburbs without elderly residents are missing a key piece of their own social fabric.

In the Chicago area, when suburbs talk about “affordable housing,” they are not always talking about housing for low-income residents. They are often referring to programs that would help the elderly remain in places where costs of living make it difficult for residents to live on limited incomes.

The diverging diamond interchange

American interchanges can take many forms – see this field guide to highway interchanges from The Infrastructurist – including one called “the diverging diamond.” The goal is to provide better traffic flow from a road onto a highway through switching the lanes of traffic through the interchange area. That is, traffic entering on the right side of the road are then driving on the left through the interchange and vice versa.

Illinois Department of Transportation officials are considering this design, primarily being touted by Missouri officials, for an interchange in Naperville. See the design here and the background to the interchange here.

Cultural ideas about only children

Time explores some of the cultural ideas Americans have about only children. These ideas date back to the late 1800s and are still common today.

Some of the recent research on this topic has been conducted by sociologists. Toni Falbo has countered some of the prevailing cultural ideas:

Twenty-five years ago, she and colleague Denise Polit conducted a meta-analysis of 115 studies of only children from 1925 onward that considered developmental outcomes of adjustment, character, sociability, achievement and intelligence. The studies, mainly from the U.S., cut across class and race. Generally, those studies showed that singletons aren’t measurably different from other kids — except that they, along with firstborns and people who have only one sibling, score higher in measures of intelligence and achievement. No one, Falbo says, has published research that can demonstrate any truth behind the stereotype of the only child as lonely, selfish and maladjusted.

People also have ideas about families that have too many children. Recent coverage and discussions of the Octomom and the Duggars (of 19 Kids & Counting) show there are powerful thoughts about not having too many children.

According to the article, a 2010 Pew survey showed 46% of American adults thought two children was the best number.

It’s fascinating to think that much decision-making about this is driven by economics. When families had farms and mortality rates were higher for children, families had more kids. Today, raising a child is expensive and life expectancy is higher so people have fewer kids.

The effects of decreased mobility

Christianity Today explores the implications of decreased American mobility for churches. According to Census figures:

Despite commercial air travel, interstate highways, mobile phones, and e-mail, the mobility rate has declined steadily since the U.S. Census Bureau began tracking such data in 1948. In the aftermath of World War II, as suburbs began sprouting from farmland, a record 21.2 percent of Americans moved between 1950 and 1951. But only 13.2 percent of Americans moved between 2006 and 2007. Then in April 2009, the Census Bureau reported that a mere 11.9 percent of Americans moved in 2008. This rate was the lowest in recorded U.S. history, and the 1.3 percent drop between 2007 and 2008 was the second-largest one-year decline. The number rebounded only barely in 2009, to 12.5 percent.

Looks like people are staying put though 35 million Americans still moved in 2008. This also suggests the suburbs are no longer drawing people like they used to – perhaps the result of many Americans growing up in suburbia and then sticking around. Some of these suburbs (and their churches) will become established places and will have to move past an image of being “new” or “recent.”

I would think this mobility rate will increase when the economy picks up again.