Generational Labels -- should we abandon them?

[DMC]

10 minutes ago, Ormond said:

The dates of the Baby Boom are those years when the birth rate was higher than it was previous.

I dunno according to this image it certainly appears the birth rate had declined back to pre-boomer levels by about 1959.

[DMC]

4 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

I was just thinking this. I have no idea what I'm meant to be (I'm 45) and I don't know what any of the labels actually refer to. 

You'd be a (younger) Gen Xer, alternatively dubbed the "Latchkey" and the "MTV" generation.

[Ormond]

5 minutes ago, DMC said:

I dunno according to this image it certainly appears the birth rate had declined back to pre-boomer levels by about 1959.

It's hard to be sure from looking at the chart, but I think the problem here is that they did not turn the line red until AFTER the data point for 1946, when I think they should have turned it red for the line between the 1945 and 1946 data point to better represent the start of the Boom. The incredible steep line between the 1945 and 1946 data points shows what was happening during calendar year 1946, so to me it should be part of the Boom. 

[DMC]

15 minutes ago, Ormond said:

It's hard to be sure from looking at the chart, but I think the problem here is that they did not turn the line red until AFTER the data point for 1946, when I think they should have turned it red for the line between the 1945 and 1946 data point to better represent the start of the Boom. The incredible steep line between the 1945 and 1946 data points shows what was happening during calendar year 1946, so to me it should be part of the Boom. 

Well, this is all quibbling, but it's always seemed to me the cut off should be once the birth rates started consistently declining, which looks like it was a little before 59.  It's also always seemed kinda silly to me that the last couple years of the age range have lower birth rates than that one spike you see during WWII (hard to tell from the graph precisely what year or two that was).

Substantively, I always thought it was weird that, for instance, Barack Obama was described as a Boomer.  His parents were 12 and 4 years old in 1946, hardly representative of the greatest generation coming home from fighting and starting a family - and I suspect this is the case of most people born from 1960 to 1964.

[Ormond]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

Well, this is all quibbling, but it's always seemed to me the cut off should be once the birth rates started consistently declining, which looks like it was a little before 59.  It's also always seemed kinda silly to me that the last couple years of the age range have lower birth rates than that one spike you see during WWII (hard to tell from the graph precisely what year or two that was).

Substantively, I always thought it was weird that, for instance, Barack Obama was described as a Boomer.  His parents were 12 and 4 years old in 1946, hardly representative of the greatest generation coming home from fighting and starting a family - and I suspect this is the case of most people born from 1960 to 1964.

Well, of course when the term was first created it was just empirically referring to the years birth rates were higher. The whole idea that the "Baby Boom" should only include those whose parents were part of the WWII generation came later, when people started talking about the social and psychological factors they thought impacted Boomers rather than using the label just as a purely demographic term. The Baby Boom wasn't thoought of as a "generation" when the term was created, just a problem of the huge numbers of kids impacting school systems, etc. Probably wasn't until the early 60s when people started talking about the supposedly spoiled selfish nature of Boomers -- the early Boomers had to be teenagers before they became the "What's The Matter With Kids Today?" group.

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Ormond said:

The Baby Boom wasn't thoought of as a "generation" when the term was created

Fair enough.  But again, if we're just looking at it purely as demographic trend lines, then the "baby bust" actually started in the late 50s.  Looking at the wikipedia page for baby boomers, it is interesting that when describing it as a generation others have identified 1960 as the cutoff:

Quote

Others have delimited the baby boom period differently. Authors William Strauss and Neil Howe, in their 1991 book Generations, define the social generation of boomers as that cohort born from 1943 to 1960, who were too young to have any personal memory of World War II, but old enough to remember the postwar American High before John F. Kennedy's assassination.[39]

 

[Iskaral Pust]

3 hours ago, DMC said:

Well, this is all quibbling, but it's always seemed to me the cut off should be once the birth rates started consistently declining, which looks like it was a little before 59.  It's also always seemed kinda silly to me that the last couple years of the age range have lower birth rates than that one spike you see during WWII (hard to tell from the graph precisely what year or two that was).

Substantively, I always thought it was weird that, for instance, Barack Obama was described as a Boomer.  His parents were 12 and 4 years old in 1946, hardly representative of the greatest generation coming home from fighting and starting a family - and I suspect this is the case of most people born from 1960 to 1964.

Obama’s parents were the Silent Generation that comes between the Greatest Generation (who fought the war) and the Boomers.  The labels don’t line up with biological generations, so it’s defined by the state of the world during your formative years rather than the experiences your parents had.

My parents were Boomers (mid 1950s) but I’m a late GenX like BFC because they were very young starting their family — thank you Catholic Ireland.  In the US, Boomers mostly have Millenial kids, which is why the Millenial generation is even larger than the Boomers: the generational echo.  GenX is a smaller cohort stuck between them; partly because of the echo of the small Silent Generation (most of GenX’s parents) due to low birth rates during the Depression and WWII, and partly because of GenX’s own lower birth rate due to recession and the growth of two income families in the 1970s.  Similarly the GenZ kids of GenX will be a much smaller generation than the Millenials due to the echo effect.  Probably the kids of Millenials will be a slightly smaller generation, though, from the recession effect after the GFC and continued growth of dual income families (student debt, unaffordable houses, etc).

[DMC]

5 minutes ago, Iskaral Pust said:

Obama’s parents were the Silent Generation that comes between the Greatest Generation (who fought the war) and the Boomers.  The labels don’t line up with biological generations, so it’s defined by the state of the world during your formative years rather than the experiences your parents had.

I'm aware of all this, I was just speaking in generalities - which is kinda the idea of delineating generations.  Boomers tend to be the children of the greatest generation and the parents of millennials.  Obviously there are plenty of exceptions - my mother was born in 1953, comfortably within any reasonable age range for the boomers, but my grandma had her at 18, so she's a member of the Silent Generation as well.

[Which Tyler]

16 hours ago, BigFatCoward said:

I was just thinking this. I have no idea what I'm meant to be (I'm 45) and I don't know what any of the labels actually refer to. 

UK, we'd be firmly Gen X.
20 years ago, we were firmly Gen X.
Modern US, we'd be borderline between Gen X and Millennial - the boundaries shifted when it was decided to name Millenials by Y2K, so the duration of birth dates for GenX and Millenial were both shrunk

[Buckwheat]

On 8/2/2021 at 5:34 PM, Ormond said:

And how much attention do generational labels get in other countries?  

I am not a sociologist or a psychologist, but don't remember ever seeing these labels used elsewhere than US-based websites - they are not a thing in the general media and casual conversation in my language.

On 8/2/2021 at 10:29 PM, kiko said:

I believe that it doesn't have do much relevance in Central and Eastern Europe because we definitely have different cut-off dates.

Also this. I think I am the eastern-most person posting in this thread up to now, and I don't think the political events that were mentioned to make the cutoff dates had as much impact here to make them relevant to describe generations according to them. I suppose remembering the death of Tito and the separation from Yugoslavia would be much more relevant if you wanted to make such divisions here.

Even technology didn't reach all the places at the same time.

[Lord of Oop North]

In Canada, the terminology is also used.

However, it has it's limitations in my experience.

For example, I am technically a Millenial (born mid 80s) and my parents are Boomers. THey are immigrants though, so they don't have the typical 'parents fought the war and came home' background. More like, their parents lived in Europe during the war, and then came here. That situation is fairly common in Toronto, Canada.

However, my life experience growing up was more similar to someone born in the late 70s to early 80s than someone in the late 80s to early 90s. I know there are a few other people on this board who would probably have this same feeling (SJohn Comes to mind) 

The ubiqutious of mobile devices, social media, internet etc. didn't really take off until I was graduated from High School, so my childhood has much more in common with people born 5-10 years earlier than even 5 years later.

People usually call Millenials 'Digital Natives', and I'm definitely completely comfortable with technology, but to call people born 1980 - 1986 native technology users is not correct. Probably most of us in that period learned it at an almost adult age - or certainly at the tail end of high school.

Also most people born 1980-1986 would already have been in the labour market during the Great Recession, instead of just entering it for the first time during the Recession. Certainly it affected us (but much less so in Canada than the USA), but that is often used as a marker / life event for Millenials.

September 11th Attacks / Afghanistan / Iraq War are likely bigger generational events for the 1980 - 1986 cohort than typical MIllenials. 

[Which Tyler]

20 hours ago, Lord of Oop North said:

In Canada, the terminology is also used.

However, it has it's limitations in my experience.

For example, I am technically a Millenial (born mid 80s) and my parents are Boomers. THey are immigrants though, so they don't have the typical 'parents fought the war and came home' background. More like, their parents lived in Europe during the war, and then came here. That situation is fairly common in Toronto, Canada.

However, my life experience growing up was more similar to someone born in the late 70s to early 80s than someone in the late 80s to early 90s. I know there are a few other people on this board who would probably have this same feeling (SJohn Comes to mind) 

The ubiqutious of mobile devices, social media, internet etc. didn't really take off until I was graduated from High School, so my childhood has much more in common with people born 5-10 years earlier than even 5 years later.

People usually call Millenials 'Digital Natives', and I'm definitely completely comfortable with technology, but to call people born 1980 - 1986 native technology users is not correct. Probably most of us in that period learned it at an almost adult age - or certainly at the tail end of high school.

Also most people born 1980-1986 would already have been in the labour market during the Great Recession, instead of just entering it for the first time during the Recession. Certainly it affected us (but much less so in Canada than the USA), but that is often used as a marker / life event for Millenials.

September 11th Attacks / Afghanistan / Iraq War are likely bigger generational events for the 1980 - 1986 cohort than typical MIllenials. 

All of which is why the X : Millennial change over had been mid-80s... Until they decided to use the millennium as the naming device rather than lived experience.

It's also a good example of why the generations ease into each other, rather than having hard cut-off points - which as far as I can tell is an exclusively USA thing anyway.

[Larry of the Lawn]

I don't even talk to people who can't tell me which sub-generation they are.  I've blocked half of you who posted in this thread in the last five minutes.  

I am millennial under a gen-x rising moon with gen z leanings in retrograde.  Which should have been obvious.  

Only the real ones know 

 

[aceluby]

On 8/7/2021 at 5:47 PM, Lord of Oop North said:

People usually call Millenials 'Digital Natives', and I'm definitely completely comfortable with technology, but to call people born 1980 - 1986 native technology users is not correct. Probably most of us in that period learned it at an almost adult age - or certainly at the tail end of high school.

Also most people born 1980-1986 would already have been in the labour market during the Great Recession, instead of just entering it for the first time during the Recession. Certainly it affected us (but much less so in Canada than the USA), but that is often used as a marker / life event for Millenials.

I was born in 1983 and computers in school were common by the early 90's - number munchers and oregon trail were daily prizes for finishing early.  It was definitely a transitional period, but I have far more in common (generationally speaking) with my wife who was born in 1990 than I do my brother, who was born in 1975.  Maybe my schools and upbringing weren't common, but I've pretty much always had access to technology since my grandpa built our first computer in 1988 and I built my own in 1992 that was finally powerful enough to run Windows - everything before that was DOS based except for the Commodore my mom used through the late 90's that saved data to cassette tapes.  I remember biking to my friend's house to play DOOM in middle school.  I feel like 'Digital Native' is a pretty apt description TBH

[Luzifer's right hand]

34 minutes ago, aceluby said:

I was born in 1983 and computers in school were common by the early 90's - number munchers and oregon trail were daily prizes for finishing early.  It was definitely a transitional period, but I have far more in common (generationally speaking) with my wife who was born in 1990 than I do my brother, who was born in 1975.  Maybe my schools and upbringing weren't common, but I've pretty much always had access to technology since my grandpa built our first computer in 1988 and I built my own in 1992 that was finally powerful enough to run Windows - everything before that was DOS based except for the Commodore my mom used through the late 90's that saved data to cassette tapes.  I remember biking to my friend's house to play DOOM in middle school.  I feel like 'Digital Native' is a pretty apt description TBH

I feel like a digital native too(born 1984) but the most useful skill I learned is still touch typing and I learned that with a typewriter.

I got my first own PC in the 94 but 3 of my uncles were early adopters and I had used DOS based computers quite often before I got my own. 

The least useful skill I learned is probably old style texting... 

I actually got a smartphone pretty late though(my first one was an S3) as I spent a large part of my free time in front of the computer anyway.

 

[DMC]

I don't think the difference really has to do with computers per se.  Born in 85, I was privileged enough to have a computer in my room and played Oregon Trail, Sim City, Carmen Sandiego.  The important distinction was the internet, which came about late enough that my childhood was before it predominated everybody's lives.  I think the "millennials" that were born even a few years later don't really share that same experience.

[DMC]

Just now, Chataya de Fleury said:

I honestly thought “this internet stuff is going nowhere but for p0rn”.

You were mostly right...

Can't find a clip, but reminds me of a great quote from West Wing:

Quote

Leo: My generation never got the future it was promised. Thirty-five years later, cars, air travel is exactly the same. We don't even have the Concorde anymore. Technology stopped.

Josh: The personal computer.

Leo: A more efficient delivery system for gossip and pornography? Where's my jet pack? My colonies on the Moon?

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

On 8/3/2021 at 6:43 PM, DMC said:

I'm aware of all this, I was just speaking in generalities - which is kinda the idea of delineating generations.  Boomers tend to be the children of the greatest generation and the parents of millennials.  Obviously there are plenty of exceptions - my mother was born in 1953, comfortably within any reasonable age range for the boomers, but my grandma had her at 18, so she's a member of the Silent Generation as well.

My parents are early boomers (1946 and 1947).  I’m GenX (1971).  My kids are Zoomers (2003; 2006).

I’m the oldest of 4 but my siblings and l all waited until our thirties to have kids.  My parents were in their early 20s.  How much impact does waiting longer to have kids have on generational boundaries?

[TheLastWolf]

4 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

My kids are Zoomers (2003; 2006).

I'm a Zoomer? Thanks. Gen z hmm

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

5 minutes ago, The_Lone_Wolf said:

I'm a Zoomer? Thanks. Gen z hmm

If you were born after 2000, yes, you’re a Zoomer.