Poll finds when was the greatest time to be American - Gen X and Elder Millennials rejoice!
A new poll tasked Americans with picking the best time to be alive in U.S. history, and the results are good news for Gen Xers and elder Millennials.
According to the YouGov survey, the highest-ranked decades for overall quality of life in the U.S. were during the 1980s and the 1990s.
The poll broke up U.S. history into 16 periods — beginning way back during the British colonial era in the 1600s — and asked its 1,139 respondents to rank the periods from best time to be alive to the worst.
The survey found that 57 percent of respondents said the Reagan Era (1980-1991) was excellent or good in terms of quality of life, and thus it was viewed as the best time to be alive. The second best was the Clinton Era (1993-2001), with 55 percent of respondents saying that time was excellent or good.
The third spot went to the Postwar Baby Boom era of 1946-1964, with a 51 percent rating.
Just in case you aren't seeing the pattern: the largest population groups in the U.S. pick the eras that represent their childhoods — times when they had less to worry about and the world seemed more hopeful and less miserable — as their personal best times to be alive.
Millennials are currently the largest age demographic in the U.S. — especially if Gen X is lumped in with their younger counterparts — and span both the Reagan and Clinton years. Baby Boomers are the second largest.
Outside of the childhood eras of both of the largest generational groups in the U.S., the other 13 eras on the list received less than a 50 percent favorability rating.
Only 46 percent thought the Counterculture Era of the 1960s was the best time to be alive, and only 40 percent of respondents thought the Post-9/11 Era of 2001-2008 was the best time to be alive.
The Great Depression was near the very bottom of the list, with only 17 percent of respondents saying it was an excellent or good time to be alive, and the Civil War period of 1861-1865 came dead last, with only five percent of respondents giving it a good or excellent rating.
Some of the other eras included the Gilded Age from the 1870s to 1900, the Reconstruction Era from 1865 to 1877, World War II, and the Great Recession.
The present day also rated well when compared to the worst-rated ages in U.S. history. Thirty-two percent of respondents said living today was excellent or good, and another 29 percent said it was "fair" to be alive today.
Once the poll's respondents are broken down by party affiliation, it's fairly unsurprising how things shake out. Democrats ranked the Clinton Era the highest, with 75 percent saying it was good or excellent with only 41 percent of Republican respondents sharing that view.
Likewise, 82 percent of Republicans said the Reagan Era was excellent or good, and only 35 percent of Democrats agreed.
Democrats and Republicans had shared feelings about the Great Depression, with only three percent on each side saying it was a good or excellent time to be alive, and they were close on the Counterculture Era, with 44 percent of Democrats saying it was a good or excellent time, and 49 percent of Republicans sharing that sentiment.
Respondents were also asked to rank the eras based on their political stability. In that ranking, the Reagan Era again won out — despite much of it playing out during the Cold War and U.S. clandestine action throughout the global south — with 18 percent saying it was the most politically stable time. The Clinton Era came in second, with 14 percent saying it was the most politically stable time in the nation's history.
Thirty-one percent said the least politically stable time in U.S. history is the present, even somehow beating out the Civil War period when Americans were killing each other in pitched battles with cannons.
The survey has a four-point margin of error and was conducted between April 9 - 11, 2025. Respondents were selected from YouGov's 'opt-in panel.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Yahoo
Are dads doing enough? What the data tells us about the state of modern fatherhood.
As Father's Day approaches, American dads insist they're doing a lot more parenting than the men who raised them, according to a new Yahoo News/YouGov poll. Some dads even claim they're doing more than the women they're parenting with. Yet the survey of 1,560 U.S. adults also taps into the complexities and contradictions of contemporary fatherhood, revealing that even the most egalitarian dads might see themselves in ways that don't quite match up with how others see them. Their partners included. I know a little something about this. One of my duties as national correspondent for Yahoo News is to collaborate on our monthly polls with YouGov, a leading public-opinion firm. I write the questions, then analyze and report on the results. At the same time, my wife and I are trying our best to help our two kids — a 9-year-old girl and an 8-year-old boy — grow up to be good people. Like many other millennial parents — I just turned 43 — we aspire to contribute equally to that effort. And so I figured Father's Day would be as good a time as any to ask my fellow dads some of the questions I'm always asking myself. How much are we really doing these days? And is it enough? Gender roles are a perennial topic in the parenting world, and the general consensus is that even though more opposite-sex couples than ever believe in 50/50 parenting — and even though dads have become more involved over the years — moms still do most of the domestic labor. According to a 2023 study by the Pew Research Center, for example, wives in so-called egalitarian marriages — that is, couples where each partner earns about the same amount of money — still spend more than twice as much time on housework than their husbands, and almost two hours more per week on caregiving, including tending to children. 'Egalitarian' husbands, meanwhile, spend three-and-a-half more hours per week on 'leisure activities' than their wives. Yet there may be more to the data than meets the eye, at least based on the results of the new Yahoo News/YouGov poll. For one thing, nearly two-thirds of American dads (63%) now say they spend more time with their kids than their fathers spent with them — and a full 37% describe that generational difference as 'significant.' Dads feel like they're putting in the hours and making progress. What's more surprising, however, is that a third of fathers (34%) also say they carry more than half of their family's "mental load," while another four in 10 (39%) say they shoulder about half. Combined, that's roughly three-quarters of dads who believe the balance is either 50/50 or skewed in their direction. In contrast, just 28% of dads admit to bearing less than half (14%) or none (4%) of their family's mental load. It's fair to say those numbers contradict what researchers have found — and what most moms would tell us if we asked them the same questions about the fathers in their lives. When I shared the poll with my wife and asked how she would answer for me, we agreed on everything — except mental load. And when I told her how many dads seem to believe they shoulder at least half the mental load, she scoffed. My sense is that this disparity reveals a lot about the state of dads today. For the record, I don't really think I take on more of the mental load than my wife — not as the term is typically defined. But I also think the tasks we typically define as 'mental load' fail to fully capture what dads tend to contribute. Here's how the poll put it: 'Mental load refers to the cognitive and emotional effort involved in managing and coordinating household tasks, responsibilities and relationships. As a father, how much of your family's mental load do you believe you carry?' Again, nearly three out of four dads say they do half or more of this invisible labor — these hidden forms of care. Yet when asked which specific parenting responsibilities they 'regularly take on,' relatively few fathers with children aged 18 or younger pick things like 'make the kids' doctor appointments' (36%), 'sign up the kids for camps/school activities/lessons' (26%), 'schedule playdates with the kids' friends' (18%), 'volunteer for school activities' (15%) or 'book babysitters/child care' (10%) — i.e., the classic mental load stuff. Instead, these dads are much more inclined to say they "play with the kids" (72%), "help with homework" (54%), "take the kids on outings" (52%), 'put the kids to bed' (44%) and 'make dinner' (42%). So it's not like dads are deluded. When asked point-blank about their role — Who are your kids closer to? Who spends more time parenting? Who would your kids' school call first? — a majority of fathers answer either 'me' or 'it's about equal.' But an even larger majority answer either 'it's about equal' or 'their mother.' In other words, dads understand that the parenting scales still aren't perfectly balanced. Why, then, do so many dads seem to think that we're carrying more of the mental load than we get credit for? My guess is that we consider that category to be a little more capacious than our partners do. For the initial draft of the Yahoo News/YouGov Father Day's poll, my editors — both moms — floated a fairly narrow set of options for the 'parenting responsibilities' question: booking babysitters, volunteering at school, making doctor appointments and so on. I responded with some additional choices that 'might capture more of what most dads do': playing with the kids, going on outings, cleaning up after dinner, etc. I also told my editors that 'in general, I think mental load conversations miss things like this (even if they are more about household management than parenting, per se): take care of the house, take care of the yard, take care of the car, take care of the garbage, take care of the finances. We didn't end up asking dads about those duties. But looking back, I can't help but wonder if they would have polled even higher than, say, playing with the kids — and if they were the kinds of responsibilities our dad respondents had in mind when assessing their own share of the mental load. For me, I think the answer is yes. In 2010, I wrote an essay for Newsweek explaining why marriage mattered so much to me; it was a direct rebuttal to a piece by two of my female colleagues about why the institution is 'quite simply, no longer necessary." I agreed with my coworkers that all of marriage's 'antiquated ancillary benefits — its grubby socioeconomic justifications' — no longer really applied. But that, I argued, was 'the point.' 'Dustin and I are not 'getting anything' out of this deal,' I explained. 'Or at least we're not getting what previous generations of men and women were conditioned to expect. I'm not getting a cooking, cleaning, child-rearing machine. She's not getting a bringer-home of the bacon. I clean. Both of us cook. Sometimes, Dustin earns more money than I do. Sometimes she doesn't. We both go to work every day. We both have careers. And when we have children, we'll both take turns staying home to raise them. 'In other words,' I continued, 'our roles within the relationship are not defined by gender. They're defined by who we are as people. … In a world where the practical reasons for marriage no longer apply, the only reason left is love.' Fifteen years and two kids later, nearly every word of that essay still rings true to me. I do all of the laundry — and almost all of the cleaning. She packs lunches; I make dinner. She works longer hours. I drop off the kids at school in the morning, then pick them up in the afternoon. I coach their soccer teams. She plays with them more. We both read books at bedtime. But if I'm being honest with myself, our 'roles within the relationship' are still somewhat 'defined by gender.' As my wife was quick to point out when I shared the mental load results with her, she's the one who makes the doctor appointments, schedules the playdates, books the babysitters and signs up for summer camps. 'OK,' I said. 'But what about all the 'invisible labor' I do?' I mentioned the finances, the house, the yard, the car, the garbage. 'That doesn't have anything to do with parenting,' she responded. 'It's household management,' I responded. 'Someone has to do it.' 'But someone would have to do it even if we didn't have kids,' she said. I think we both have a point here. I feel like I'm doing about half of the hands-on parenting, plus a bunch of hidden work that keeps our lives running smoothly. She feels like she's doing about half of the hands-on parenting, plus a bunch of hidden work that keeps our kids' lives running smoothly. We've gravitated toward these roles — mine indirectly related to parenting, hers directly — because of gender. Or, more specifically, because of gender expectations. The truth is, I don't feel judged for not volunteering at school, or not packing a particularly healthy lunch, or not hosting a playdate. My wife does. She even judges herself. As a dad, I tend to feel OK about how much I do. As a mom, she tends to feel guilty for not doing more. We've inherited and internalized different standards of what it means to be a parent — and hers are higher. That's hard to shake. Egalitarian dads might think they're shouldering half of the mental load, or more. But as hard as we're lifting, most of us still don't know what that feels like. __________________ The Yahoo News survey was conducted by YouGov using a nationally representative sample of 1,560 U.S. adults interviewed online from May 22-27, 2025. The sample was weighted according to gender, age, race, education, 2024 election turnout and presidential vote, party identification and current voter registration status. Demographic weighting targets come from the 2019 American Community Survey. Party identification is weighted to the estimated distribution at the time of the election (31% Democratic, 32% Republican). Respondents were selected from YouGov's opt-in panel to be representative of all U.S. adults. The margin of error is approximately 2.9%.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
13 Reasons Gen X Feels Like The Forgotten Generation
Sandwiched between the loud idealism of the Boomers and the digital dominance of Millennials, Gen X often gets sidelined in the cultural conversation. They were latchkey kids turned quiet revolutionaries, carrying the weight of change without demanding a spotlight. But beneath that detached coolness lies a generation that feels distinctly overlooked—and not without reason. Here are 13 unexpected and quietly powerful reasons Gen X often feels like the invisible middle child of modern society. Gen X helped build the digital world we live in, adapting to the rise of email, dial-up, and early social media while holding down traditional jobs. Yet, today's tech culture largely belongs to younger generations, who are assumed to be the digital natives. Gen Xers are often viewed as 'too old' for new platforms but 'too young' to be nostalgic relics as this article in Forbes highlights. That weird digital no-man's-land leaves them out of both the innovation narrative and the retro appreciation era. Their contributions get erased because they were transitional—not flashy. It's hard to be remembered when you were always expected to quietly adapt. Gen X grew up with sky-high divorce rates, minimal emotional validation, and the 'figure it out yourself' parenting philosophy. That upbringing forged a hyper-independent generation praised for grit and stoicism. But that same resilience often gets mistaken for not needing support. Because they're not openly struggling or demanding change, their pain doesn't register. They become background characters in the social dialogue. Quiet endurance is noble—but it's also easily ignored. From grunge and hip-hop to indie cinema and the alt movement, Gen X was behind some of the most transformative shifts in culture as Psychology Today highlights. But those aesthetics and ideas have been co-opted, rebranded, and credited to newer generations. Think flannel and vinyl coming back without a nod to their original architects. The trend cycle skips the origin story and just slaps on a Gen Z filter. What was once revolutionary for Gen X now gets sold back to them like a lifestyle brand. That erasure stings. Boomers still dominate leadership roles while Millennials are treated as the innovation engine. Gen X? They're the dependable in-between, expected to manage everyone else's chaos. But rarely are they spotlighted, mentored upward, or included in big-picture strategy. They keep the corporate world running without ever being acknowledged for it. It's workplace invisibility in its most polished form. No drama, no thanks. As this CNN article points out, Gen X was supposed to be the first generation to do worse financially than their parents—and that forecast became all too real. They've weathered the dot-com crash, the 2008 recession, and now inflation during peak midlife expenses. Yet, financial narratives often skip over them entirely in favor of Boomer wealth or Millennial struggle. Gen X is left holding student debt and college bills at the same time. They're caring for both kids and aging parents with little structural support. But no one's putting their economic crisis on magazine covers. Unlike Millennials or Gen Z, Gen X wasn't raised with language for emotional health. Vulnerability wasn't modeled—it was avoided. Now in midlife, many are learning to process trauma or set boundaries for the first time. But the mental health conversation tends to spotlight younger generations. Gen X feels emotionally underdeveloped and out of sync in today's therapeutic age. They're healing in private while others heal in public. Gen X parents rejected the lax parenting style of Boomers and chose to raise emotionally intelligent, autonomous kids as points out. They were the first to talk about feelings at the dinner table and embrace co-parenting models. But they rarely get credit for that seismic shift. Millennial parenting is now seen as progressive and evolved, while Gen X quietly pioneered that entire playbook. They're the beta version no one credits. It's legacy without recognition. Media, tech, fashion, even wellness brands rarely cater to Gen X. The messaging always skews either older ('retire with confidence!') or younger ('here's how to go viral!'). Gen X is stuck in a demographic black hole where nothing is *for* them. They're left adapting products and narratives that weren't designed with their reality in mind. When you're never the customer, you're also never the priority. That absence is loud. Gen X rejected corporate conformity and the American Dream quietly but firmly. They turned to minimalism, DIY, and creative careers long before it was cool. But because they didn't post about it, no one noticed. Their rebellion was internal, philosophical. And that's why history forgets them—they didn't ask to be remembered. They just lived differently. Gen X is simultaneously parenting teens and supporting elderly parents. That dual pressure leaves them burnt out, with no clear place to vent or receive help. Boomers are aging out, Millennials are parenting young kids—but Gen X is stuck doing both. They're caregivers without a care system. It's unpaid labor that rarely gets acknowledged. And that sense of isolation runs deep. '90s nostalgia is everywhere, but Gen Xers are notably missing from the cast of characters being celebrated. Shows, memes, and fashion pull from their youth, but the people themselves are erased. It's as if the era mattered—but the generation didn't. Gen X is watching their memories get mined for content while they themselves remain on mute. It's a cultural extraction without a human face. And it adds to the invisibility. Gen X doesn't overshare or self-promote online the way Millennials and Gen Z do. Their core identity is built on irony, detachment, and distrust of authority. So they often sit out the viral discourse entirely. That silence gets misread as apathy or irrelevance. But it's actually a survival mechanism rooted in hard-earned skepticism. Unfortunately, algorithms don't reward restraint. Gen X doesn't crave the spotlight, but they do want to be acknowledged. They built, raised, repaired, and adapted without applause. But even quiet strength deserves recognition. Being overlooked isn't a badge of honor—it's a wound. And it's time we start seeing Gen X not just as a bridge—but as a generation with its own identity worth celebrating.
Fox News
2 days ago
- Fox News
What's the right time to get your kids off the family payroll?
America has a parenting problem. We're raising our kids to be dependent adults – financially coddled long past the point of reason. And it's not just hurting them. It's killing our retirement. As a parent of three children aged 23, 25 and 27, I get asked all the time about when the right time is to get your kids off the family payroll. When should you "kick" them out of the house? When should they get off the family mobile phone bill? When should they take over their own car insurance? Over the past 10 years, I've seen firsthand how Baby Boomer and Gen X parents sabotage their golden years trying to bankroll their grown children's lives. Enough is enough. If your kid is 25, has a college degree, and still expects you to Venmo them money for their You Tube TV bill, it's time for a family intervention – not another handout. Let's talk about why it's time to cut the cord and how to do it without wrecking your family dynamics – or your future. According to Pew Research, over 50% of Americans aged 18 to 29 are living at home with their parents. Have we become Italy? Let that sink in. More than half of young adults are still sleeping in their childhood bedrooms, many of them not paying rent, utilities or even their own Netflix subscriptions. Is this really because inflation has grown massively over the past five years? Instead, we've raised and coddled a generation of kids with participation trophies and safety nets so wide they don't know what it means to fall – and get back up. My career started with having $67 to my name in a Boston BayBank account and living in Section 8 housing in South Boston. It motivated me to work hard and become a big success. You could argue though, it's not entirely their fault. In 1980, the home to income ratio was 2 to 1 and now in 2025 it's 6 to 1. Wages simply have not kept up with the cost of real estate. College is more expensive, grocery prices have skyrocketed, and new and used car prices are at an all-time high. But there's a fine line between helping and enabling. And right now, too many parents are crossing it. The right time to get your kids off the family payroll? Between 22 and 25, no exceptions. By that age, they should be working, budgeting and learning how to manage money without your daily deposits. I'm not saying you shouldn't help them through school or during a job transition. But after graduation – or a reasonable gap year – it's time for them to face the real world. If they're still living at home, they need to contribute. Charge rent. Ask them to pay their share of groceries and utilities. Hold them accountable. Parents often ask me what's OK to cover after their kids turn 22. Here's the short list: Everything else – rent, car insurance, cell phone, credit cards, student loans, groceries, even gas – should be on them. Yes, it's hard. But that's life. And it's far better to teach financial responsibility now than watch them flounder at 35 because no one made them pay a bill. You only value what you earn, not what's given to you. Here's what nobody wants to say out loud: you can't retire on guilt. Every dollar you spend bailing out your adult children is a dollar you're not putting into your 401(k), IRA or savings. Over time, it adds up – big time and why many people now must work into their 70s. A recent Merrill Lynch study showed that parents spend an average of $500 per month supporting adult children. That's $6,000 a year. Over a decade, that's $60,000 – money that could grow your nest egg or pay off your mortgage. If you don't start protecting your own future, who's going to support you later? Your kid who doesn't know how to write a check? You don't need to be mean. You need to be clear. Happiness is about expectations met or unmet, so it's time to set expectations. Sit down with your kids and lay out a plan: Set a deadline: "In six months, you'll be covering your own car insurance and phone bill." Charge rent if they're living at home: Even a few hundred bucks builds responsibility. If you want to save it and give it to them when they leave, that could make perfect sense. Offer tools, not bailouts: Teach them to budget, apply for jobs and build credit. Share your retirement goals: Let them see the bigger picture – your financial health matters, too. Loving your kids doesn't mean supporting them forever. It means preparing them to stand on their own two feet. If you really want to help them, stop being their bank. Give them the skills and motivation to earn their own paycheck – and protect yours. Because in the end, your job isn't to raise kids. It's to raise adults.
