Explore the vast range of titles available.

Eighteen. Twenty-one. Sixty-five. In America today, we recognize these numbers as key transitions in our lives-precise moments when our rights and opportunities change-when we become eligible to cast a vote, buy a drink, or enroll in Medicare.This volume brings together scholars of childhood, adulthood, and old age to explore how and why particular ages have come to define the rights and obligations of American citizens. Since the founding of the nation, Americans have relied on chronological age to determine matters as diverse as who can marry, work, be enslaved, drive a car, or qualify for a pension. Contributors to this volume explore what meanings people in the past ascribed to specific ages and whether or not earlier Americans believed the same things about particular ages as we do. The means by which Americans imposed chronological boundaries upon the variable process of growing up and growing old offers a paradigmatic example of how people construct cultural meaning and social hierarchy from embodied experience. Further, chronological age always intersects with other socially constructed categories such as gender, race, and sexuality. Ranging from the seventeenth century to the present, taking up a variety of distinct subcultures-from frontier children and antebellum slaves to twentieth-century Latinas-Age in America makes a powerful case that age has always been a key index of citizenship.

A generations expert and author of When Generations Collide and The M-Factor, teams up with his seventeen-year-old son to introduce the next influential demographic group to join the workforce--Generation Z. At 72.8 million strong, Gen Z (born between 1995 and 2012) is about to make its presence known in the workplace in a major way, and employers need to understand the differences that set them apart. They're radically different than the Millennials, and yet no one seems to be talking about them--until now. This generation has an entirely unique perspective on careers and how to succeed in the workforce. Based on the first national studies of Gen Z's workplace attitudes; interviews with hundreds of CEOs, celebrities, and thought leaders on generational issues; cutting-edge case studies; and insights from Gen Zers themselves, Gen Z @ Work offers knowledge today's leaders need to get ahead of the next gaps in the workplace and how best to recruit, retain, motivate, and manage Gen Zers.

\"Walk through the tightly packed, hierarchically flattened corridors of America's businesses and what do you hear? Not the sounds of harmony. Instead, you'll probably hear the grumbles of irritation as people with wholly different ways of working, talking, and thinking have been tossed together side by side, cubicle by cubicle. It's the teeth-gritting sound of generations in collision.

Age and Generation introduces students to the main sociological and anthropological issues surrounding this topic, from childhood to old age, and focuses, in particular, on youth culture.

The newest edition of this seminal book on navigating the multigenerational workplace offers practical tips to help any leader bridge the generational gap--and create a healthy culture.

Grounded in intimate moments of family life in and out of hospitals, this book explores the hope that inspires us to try to create lives worth living, even when no cure is in sight. The Paradox of Hope focuses on a group of African American families in a multicultural urban environment, many of them poor and all of them with children who have been diagnosed with serious chronic medical conditions. Cheryl Mattingly proposes a narrative phenomenology of practice as she explores case stories in this highly readable study. Depicting the multicultural urban hospital as a border zone where race, class, and chronic disease intersect, this theoretically innovative study illuminates communities of care that span both clinic and family and shows how hope is created as an everyday reality amid trying circumstances.

Politically active individuals and organizations make huge investments of time, energy, and money to influence everything from election outcomes to congressional subcommittee hearings to local school politics, while other groups and individual citizens seem woefully underrepresented in our political system.The Unheavenly Chorusis the most comprehensive and systematic examination of political voice in America ever undertaken--and its findings are sobering. The Unheavenly Chorusis the first book to look at the political participation of individual citizens alongside the political advocacy of thousands of organized interests--membership associations such as unions, professional associations, trade associations, and citizens groups, as well as organizations like corporations, hospitals, and universities. Drawing on numerous in-depth surveys of members of the public as well as the largest database of interest organizations ever created--representing more than thirty-five thousand organizations over a twenty-five-year period--this book conclusively demonstrates that American democracy is marred by deeply ingrained and persistent class-based political inequality. The well educated and affluent are active in many ways to make their voices heard, while the less advantaged are not. This book reveals how the political voices of organized interests are even less representative than those of individuals, how political advantage is handed down across generations, how recruitment to political activity perpetuates and exaggerates existing biases, how political voice on the Internet replicates these inequalities--and more. In a true democracy, the preferences and needs of all citizens deserve equal consideration. Yet equal consideration is only possible with equal citizen voice.The Unheavenly Chorusreveals how far we really are from the democratic ideal and how hard it would be to attain it.

In the United States, non-Hispanic Black (NHB), Hispanic, and non-Hispanic American Indian/Alaska Native (NHAIAN) populations experience excess COVID-19 mortality, compared to the non-Hispanic White (NHW) population, but racial/ethnic differences in age at death are not known. The release of national COVID-19 death data by racial/ethnic group now permits analysis of age-specific mortality rates for these groups and the non-Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander (NHAPI) population. Our objectives were to examine variation in age-specific COVID-19 mortality rates by racial/ethnicity and to calculate the impact of this mortality using years of potential life lost (YPLL). This cross-sectional study used the recently publicly available data on US COVID-19 deaths with reported race/ethnicity, for the time period February 1, 2020, to July 22, 2020. Population data were drawn from the US Census. As of July 22, 2020, the number of COVID-19 deaths equaled 68,377 for NHW, 29,476 for NHB, 23,256 for Hispanic, 1,143 for NHAIAN, and 6,468 for NHAPI populations; the corresponding population sizes were 186.4 million, 40.6 million, 2.6 million, 19.5 million, and 57.7 million. Age-standardized rate ratios relative to NHW were 3.6 (95% CI 3.5, 3.8; p < 0.001) for NHB, 2.8 (95% CI 2.7, 3.0; p < 0.001) for Hispanic, 2.2 (95% CI 1.8, 2.6; p < 0.001) for NHAIAN, and 1.6 (95% CI 1.4, 1.7; p < 0.001) for NHAP populations. By contrast, NHB rate ratios relative to NHW were 7.1 (95% CI 5.8, 8.7; p < 0.001) for persons aged 25-34 years, 9.0 (95% CI 7.9, 10.2; p < 0.001) for persons aged 35-44 years, and 7.4 (95% CI 6.9, 7.9; p < 0.001) for persons aged 45-54 years. Even at older ages, NHB rate ratios were between 2.0 and 5.7. Similarly, rate ratios for the Hispanic versus NHW population were 7.0 (95% CI 5.8, 8.7; p < 0.001), 8.8 (95% CI 7.8, 9.9; p < 0.001), and 7.0 (95% CI 6.6, 7.5; p < 0.001) for the corresponding age strata above, with remaining rate ratios ranging from 1.4 to 5.0. Rate ratios for NHAIAN were similarly high through age 74 years. Among NHAPI persons, rate ratios ranged from 2.0 to 2.8 for persons aged 25-74 years and were 1.6 and 1.2 for persons aged 75-84 and 85+ years, respectively. As a consequence, more YPLL before age 65 were experienced by the NHB and Hispanic populations than the NHW population-despite the fact that the NHW population is larger-with a ratio of 4.6:1 and 3.2:1, respectively, for NHB and Hispanic persons. Study limitations include likely lag time in receipt of completed death certificates received by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for transmission to NCHS, with consequent lag in capturing the total number of deaths compared to data reported on state dashboards. In this study, we observed racial variation in age-specific mortality rates not fully captured with examination of age-standardized rates alone. These findings suggest the importance of examining age-specific mortality rates and underscores how age standardization can obscure extreme variations within age strata. To avoid overlooking such variation, data that permit age-specific analyses should be routinely publicly available.

Cancer statistics for adolescents and young adults (AYAs) (aged 15‐39 years) are often presented in aggregate, masking important heterogeneity. The authors analyzed population‐based cancer incidence and mortality for AYAs in the United States by age group (ages 15‐19, 20‐29, and 30‐39 years), sex, and race/ethnicity. In 2020, there will be approximately 89,500 new cancer cases and 9270 cancer deaths in AYAs. Overall cancer incidence increased in all AYA age groups during the most recent decade (2007‐2016), largely driven by thyroid cancer, which rose by approximately 3% annually among those aged 20 to 39 years and 4% among those aged 15 to 19 years. Incidence also increased in most age groups for several cancers linked to obesity, including kidney (3% annually across all age groups), uterine corpus (3% in the group aged 20‐39 years), and colorectum (0.9%‐1.5% in the group aged 20‐39 years). Rates declined dramatically for melanoma in the group aged 15 to 29 years (4%‐6% annually) but remained stable among those aged 30 to 39 years. Overall cancer mortality declined during 2008 through 2017 by 1% annually across age and sex groups, except for women aged 30 to 39 years, among whom rates were stable because of a flattening of declines in female breast cancer. Rates increased for cancers of the colorectum and uterine corpus in the group aged 30 to 39 years, mirroring incidence trends. Five‐year relative survival in AYAs is similar across age groups for all cancers combined (range, 83%‐86%) but varies widely for some cancers, such as acute lymphocytic leukemia (74% in the group aged 15‐19 years vs 51% in the group aged 30‐39 years) and brain tumors (77% vs 66%), reflecting differences in histologic subtype distribution and treatment. Progress in reducing cancer morbidity and mortality among AYAs could be addressed through more equitable access to health care, increasing clinical trial enrollment, expanding research, and greater alertness among clinicians and patients for early symptoms and signs of cancer. Further progress could be accelerated with increased disaggregation by age in research on surveillance, etiology, basic biology, and survivorship.