Every generation learnt to live in a different world

At a family table, it is easy to hear that young people cannot save, older people fear technology, and those in middle age do nothing but work. It is harder to pause and ask: what kind of world did each of them learn to navigate?

This is the most interesting thread for me in BERRY’s KONSUMER 2026 report. Beneath everyday habits, the authors look for memories of earlier experiences. What did people have to fear? What could they rely on? What were they promised in return for their effort? Seen this way, behaviour that looks unreasonable from a distance can start to make sense.

In the report’s portrait of baby boomers, born between 1946 and 1964, growing up in communist Poland and later living through a change in the rules of everyday life are recurring experiences. The authors connect them with valuing durability, repair and avoiding waste. Something is worth keeping because it may still be useful. A familiar solution can feel more trustworthy than another promise. [1, pp. 34, 39–41]

I read this as a memory of a world where things were less readily available. Being able to buy more today does not necessarily undo habits built over decades.

Fear of technology also looks different through the lens of independence. When a phone becomes a way to pay, buy tickets and contact a bank, difficulty using it affects the ability to manage one’s own affairs without asking children for help. The report also describes very different experiences of later life: active and sociable, but also constrained by health, loneliness or a lack of transport. [1, pp. 39–45]

Generation X — people born between 1965 and 1979 in BERRY’s classification — grew up between communist Poland and the country’s transition. The authors describe people accustomed to adapting and taking responsibility: for work, home, children and, later, ageing parents. [1, pp. 49–53]

That resourcefulness has a cost. If rest has always come after everything else is done, it becomes hard to make room for it when the responsibilities never end. In this portrait, returning to an old interest or refusing to work at the weekend means reclaiming part of life.

This offers another way to read disagreements about work between generations. Pushing through may once have been an effective way to get by. Setting boundaries may reflect having watched what that way of living cost one’s parents. This is one possible interpretation, not a rule attached to a birth year.

Millennials, born between 1980 and 1994 in the report, were offered a powerful story about opportunity: education, languages, personal development and flexibility would open the way to a good life. BERRY sets that promise against repeated disruptions to plans: the financial crisis, the pandemic, housing insecurity and technological change. [1, pp. 63–65]

What interests me is the tension between ambition and exhaustion from constantly adapting. It is possible to enjoy learning and still be tired of feeling that every spare moment should be spent improving oneself.

The authors read nostalgia for the 1990s in this context: as longing for a time when everyday life seemed to require fewer decisions and contingency plans. I find that interpretation persuasive. Returning to an old game or childhood music can offer a pause from the pressure to keep up. [1, p. 64]

In the portrait of Generation Z, born between 1995 and 2009, a distinction keeps returning: what can you influence, and what is beyond your reach? Housing prices and world events are difficult to control. Your daily routine, spending and plans for the evening offer at least some room to act. [1, pp. 75–77]

Seen this way, a coffee or concert ticket on a tight budget can mean more than a small pleasure. The authors interpret such choices as attempts to recover a sense of agency. This does not make every purchase sensible, but it helps explain why a lecture about saving can miss someone’s experience.

The report also describes an interest in phone-free meetings and time without notifications. Growing up with the internet does not necessarily mean wanting to be available all the time. [1, pp. 76, 80]

With Generation Alpha — born between 2010 and 2024 in this classification — ready-made diagnoses deserve particular caution. These are children of very different ages. We have yet to see which of their current habits will stay with them.

BERRY draws attention to contradictory examples from adults: limiting children’s screen time while scrolling themselves, or talking about boundaries while constantly working. Alongside digital skills, there is still a simple need for time together and someone’s presence. A game can be a place to meet friends, while a Saturday with a parent can remain the highlight of the week. [1, pp. 87–89]

Independence, closeness, rest and a say in one’s own life recur throughout these stories. What differs is how people protect them: keeping things in reserve, staying on top of responsibilities, seeking stability or switching off a phone.

For me, that is a good reason to ask about the experience behind a behaviour before judging it. A birth year is not enough. Money, health, where someone lives and responsibility for others also matter. Two people from different generations can sometimes have more in common than people of the same age.

[1] BERRY Insight Lab / BERRY Kolektyw Kreatywny, KONSUMER 2026. Obraz 5 polskich generacji [A portrait of five Polish generations], especially pp. 33–36, 39–45, 49–53, 63–65, 75–80 and 87–89. The cohort boundaries used here follow p. 34.

The report combines existing research, a panel of more than 400 people and qualitative interviews. Its authors state that it is not a representative social study (p. 104). The generational portraits are interpretations: they do not establish that growing-up conditions cause particular behaviours. Some differences may reflect age or present circumstances.

This article includes my own reading of the report. Its Polish context matters; the portraits should not be treated as universal descriptions of generations.