What years are the peak, or middle Millenial years?

I think around the late 80s or early 90s. Which everybody has already talked about since the generation was mentioned lots of times.

1989-1995

I talk #exclusively in Twitter #speak.

I think around the late 80s or early 90s. Which everybody has already talked about since the generation was mentioned lots of times.


They keep changing it. First it was around 1980 to 1996. Now, it's like 1984 to 2004, or whatever.

1989-1995


My guess is you're going with the latter 1984 to 2004 range, for Millenials

I talk #exclusively in Twitter #speak.


I,.....I can't discern,.......I can't,........,information overload!! Information overload!

:.Must recharge batteries:.

Do we really need more of these threads after 123 pages of a thread called "A New Way of Defining Generations?" I was born in 1992, and yet I pity my generation. Conversely, there's no reason somebody born in 1980 or 2000 or whenever can personally identify with millennials to the max.

Let me introduce you to the real #peak millennials.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CrY-ohJVMAAm0ER.jpg

Our #leaders are born 1977, 1981, and 1984. The rest of y'all are #fakes.

Do we really need more of these threads after 123 pages of a thread called "A New Way of Defining Generations?" I was born in 1992, and yet I pity my generation. Conversely, there's no reason somebody born in 1980 or 2000 or whenever can personally identify with millennials to the max.


Haha!!!

Let me introduce you to the real #peak millennials.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CrY-ohJVMAAm0ER.jpg

Our #leaders are born 1977, 1981, and 1984. The rest of y'all are #fakes.


I think the blonde is a fembot. Don't you think she's a fembot?

Let me introduce you to the real #peak millennials.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CrY-ohJVMAAm0ER.jpg

Our #leaders are born 1977, 1981, and 1984. The rest of y'all are #fakes.


More like #WhiteMillennialsForTrump. lol

I don't think a lot of college-aged students would vote for Trump, especially in America.

I honestly don't really care when they were. We'll find out eventually, but this has been discussed a lot. It doesn't seem like people will come to an (some people will, but I mean everyone) agreement, so I don't see the reason to discuss it further until later. I don't know how many people feel this way, it might just be me, but I thought I'd give my opinion.

More like #WhiteMillennialsForTrump. lol

I don't think a lot of college-aged students would vote for Trump, especially in America.


I heard he has problems with the Millenial crowd. But I don't trust polls, so..........

I think the blonde is a fembot. Don't you think she's a fembot?


Err that is the #demigoddess Ivanka, queen #of the millennials.

I heard he has problems with the Millenial crowd. But I don't trust polls, so..........


Pretty much both candidates this year have problems with millennials. Although, I think they want to vote for Clinton in this election.

Err that is the #demigoddess Ivanka, queen #of the millennials.


She's not the ultimate queen, like Hillary.  :)

quote author=Millenium Mansion 07 link=topic=54199.msg3471238#msg3471238 date=1472868640]
I heard he has problems with the Millenial crowd. But I don't trust polls, so..........


http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/08/14/donald-trump-historic-trouncing-among-younger-voters-hillary-clinton-president-poll/88666746/

Clinton beats him 56% to 20%  :o


She's not the ultimate queen, like Hillary.  :)


The Queen of Pop. She'll make pop music great again!

My guess is you're going with the latter 1984 to 2004 range, for Millenials


1983 to 2004 but close.

Let me introduce you to the real #peak millennials.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CrY-ohJVMAAm0ER.jpg

Our #leaders are born 1977, 1981, and 1984. The rest of y'all are #fakes.


1984 is Millennial.

1983 is the start of the Millennials. 2005 is the start of Generation Z.

1984 is Millennial.


I agree.

1987-1993

1989-1995


late 1992/1993-1995 are late millennials IMO :p

1987-1991 born's. In other words, those who graduated high school throughout the second half of the 2000's. 1992 born's are a hybrid between peak & late while 1986 born's are a hybrid between early & peak.

late 1992/1993-1995 are late millennials IMO :p


How is 1992 late? Millennials end in the 2000s.
1987 is also early if Millennials end in 2004.

How is 1992 late? Millennials end in the 2000s.
1987 is also early if Millennials end in 2004.


Millennials shouldn't really end in 2004. They're still in middle school, and they didn't really spent a lot of years in elementary school.

Millennials shouldn't really end in 2004. They're still in middle school, and they didn't really spent a lot of years in elementary school.


I think it should end in 2000 instead.

I think it should end in 2000 instead.


It should end around 2000 or 2001 at the latest. There's no way in hell that 2002-2004 babies could be related towards most Millennials, since half of their elementary school years was in the early or mid 2010s.

How is 1992 late? Millennials end in the 2000s.
1987 is also early if Millennials end in 2004.


Who said Millennials end at 2004? I know the end year for millennials is still being debated, with some cutting it off at the mid 90s (which is way off base, in my opinion), others cutting it off at 1997/1998, or even 2000. However, while most people still debate the cutoff, most people would agree that those born from 2001 onward are undeniably Gen Z.

It should end around 2000 or 2001 at the latest. There's no way in hell that 2002-2004 babies could be related towards most Millennials, since half of their elementary school years was in the early or mid 2010s.


Agreed.

In terms of pure numbers, the peak would be the years 1989 through 1993, but not in terms of rates. If you want an explicit answer, here is the link.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005067.html

Honestly, I'm not concerned about "early", "peak", and "late" Millennials. I just go by older and younger members. A 20 year generation (1982-2001), divided into two halves (1982-1991/1992-2001).

Personally, I always thought that 1988 to 1991 were the middle years. Pure Millenial years.

Agreed.


I disagree. 2004 babies are the last to remember the vibes before the 2008 crash.

I disagree. 2004 babies are the last to remember the vibes before the 2008 crash.


But they don't remember anything politically. I don't even think they remember Obama winning the election in 2008, which I think 1999-2002 babies would understand by then.

I disagree. 2004 babies are the last to remember the vibes before the 2008 crash.


What I don't get is that you say 2004 borns can learn about the Great Recession through "osmosis" or the people around them, despite not knowing what's going on. Why can't similar reasoning be used for people born 2005-2008?

What I don't get is that you say 2004 borns can learn about the Great Recession through "osmosis" or the people around them, despite not knowing what's going on. Why can't similar reasoning be used for people born 2005-2008?


I don't even think newborns would even know what the hell is going on with them. Knowing about the Great Recession in 2008 as a newborn is like an impossible dream. That's like me knowing what 9/11 as a baby, despite only caring about toys or little kid shows at the time. Especially when I was really into Sesame Street during the early 2000s. Knowing what the Twin Towers had with its legacy in 9/11 would be very weird for a baby to understand. They have to be like older kids or preteens in order to fully understand what the hell is going on during 9/11.

What I don't get is that you say 2004 borns can learn about the Great Recession through "osmosis" or the people around them, despite not knowing what's going on. Why can't similar reasoning be used for people born 2005-2008?


It's how parents treated them before the great recession or the mentalities they were raised with in early childhood. They don't remember the recession but they absorb how the era felt. People born in 2005 to 2009 wouldn't absorb the feel of the era because they never even spent a year of being 3 before the crash.

I don't even think newborns would even know what the hell is going on with them. Knowing about the Great Recession in 2008 as a newborn is like an impossible dream. That's like me knowing what 9/11 as a baby, despite only caring about toys or little kid shows at the time. Especially when I was really into Sesame Street during the early 2000s. Knowing what the Twin Towers had with its legacy in 9/11 would be very weird for a baby to understand. They have to be like older kids or preteens in order to fully understand what the hell is going on during 9/11.


Oh, we're on the same page. I'm just using an extreme example to show the logic is faulty  ;)

What I don't get is that you say 2004 borns can learn about the Great Recession through "osmosis" or the people around them, despite not knowing what's going on. Why can't similar reasoning be used for people born 2005-2008?


They were reading Harry Potter through osmosis.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/c6/fb/91/c6fb91ebbd44b0933dc94a40eadbcba4.jpg

They were reading Harry Potter through osmosis.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/c6/fb/91/c6fb91ebbd44b0933dc94a40eadbcba4.jpg


There was a Radio Active episode about this, lol.

There was a Radio Active episode about this, lol.


;D

It's how parents treated them before the great recession or the mentalities they were raised with in early childhood. They don't remember the recession but they absorb how the era felt. People born in 2005 to 2009 wouldn't absorb the feel of the era because they never even spent a year of being 3 before the crash.


I don't even think they could remember that much about 2006/2007. Don't even get me started with them not understanding economics, for that matter.

I think there is such a thing as unconscious influences on an infant. Like I like the mountains of Phillipines. Perhaps my family being in the Phillipines, and close to its mountains, in 1990/1991, influenced me, on an unconscious level.

But I don't remember the details and particulars of the 7 months in the Phillipines.

I agree with Slowpoke, mostly, though.

It's how parents treated them before the great recession or the mentalities they were raised with in early childhood. They don't remember the recession but they absorb how the era felt. People born in 2005 to 2009 wouldn't absorb the feel of the era because they never even spent a year of being 3 before the crash.


But if remembering the recession isn't important, just absorbing the feel of the era, then aren't people born 2005-2008 capable of the same thing?

Oh, we're on the same page. I'm just using an extreme example to show the logic is faulty  ;)


It's not what they learn. It's what they feel and absorb from the environment around them. They don't have to understand it.

But if remembering the recession isn't important, just absorbing the feel of the era, then aren't people born 2005-2008 capable of the same thing?


No because experiences before age 3 or 4 don't have as much of an impact on your brain. 2004 babies were 4 or at least almost 4.

No because experiences before age 3 or 4 don't have as much of an impact on your brain. 2004 babies were 4 or at least almost 4.


But even then, remembering something economically as a toddler wouldn't make that much sense.

But even then, remembering something economically as a toddler wouldn't make that much sense.


No but they'd notice their parents more stressed out, maybe getting fewer toys...

No but they'd notice their parents more stressed out, maybe getting fewer toys...


But would they really give it a second thought? Sure, they might of noticed that their parents were buying less toys, but would they really put that down to the economic crisis? I don't think so...

Mathematically, making the centre the largest where applicable...

In a 1980-2000 definition, 1990 would be the centre, 1987-1993 would be the central range.

In a 1982-2000 definition, 1991 would be the centre, 1988-1994 would be the central range.

In a 1983-2000 definition, late 1991/early 1992 would be the centre, 1989-1994 would be the central range.

In a 1983-2004 range, 1994 would be the centre, late 1990 - early 1998 would be the central range.

In a 1981-1997 definition, 1989 would be the centre, 1986-1992 would be the central range.

In a 1980-1994 definition, 1987 would be the centre, 1985-1989 would be the central range.

In a 1977-1994 definition, late 1985/early 1986 would be the centre, 1983-1988 would be the central range.

Book it.

But would they really give it a second thought? Sure, they might of noticed that their parents were buying less toys, but would they really put that down to the economic crisis? I don't think so...


It would affect their early childhood feelings and impact them for life.

Late 80s and VERY early 90s(90/91) births.... Simple.

Mathematically, making the centre the largest where applicable...

In a 1980-2000 definition, 1990 would be the centre, 1987-1993 would be the central range.

In a 1982-2000 definition, 1991 would be the centre, 1988-1994 would be the central range.

In a 1983-2000 definition, late 1991/early 1992 would be the centre, 1989-1994 would be the central range.

In a 1983-2004 range, 1994 would be the centre, late 1990 - early 1998 would be the central range.

In a 1981-1997 definition, 1989 would be the centre, 1986-1992 would be the central range.

In a 1980-1994 definition, 1987 would be the centre, 1985-1989 would be the central range.

In a 1977-1994 definition, late 1985/early 1986 would be the centre, 1983-1988 would be the central range.

Book it.
Damn Slowpoke! This is an awesome analysis. I truly have a feeling that the last 3 ranges will be the ones for Millennials. There's truly no way 2000s folks can still be part of this generation. I mean come on, by adding the former to the group, some people are pretty much pushing some 80s folks into the Gen X cohort when the latter is clearly not even close to being part of the MTV group.  ;D ;D

Mathematically, making the centre the largest where applicable...

In a 1980-2000 definition, 1990 would be the centre, 1987-1993 would be the central range.

In a 1982-2000 definition, 1991 would be the centre, 1988-1994 would be the central range.

In a 1983-2000 definition, late 1991/early 1992 would be the centre, 1989-1994 would be the central range.

In a 1983-2004 range, 1994 would be the centre, late 1990 - early 1998 would be the central range.

In a 1981-1997 definition, 1989 would be the centre, 1986-1992 would be the central range.

In a 1980-1994 definition, 1987 would be the centre, 1985-1989 would be the central range.

In a 1977-1994 definition, late 1985/early 1986 would be the centre, 1983-1988 would be the central range.

Book it.


Good analysis. What's funny is that pretty much every one of these definitions for Millennials have been used at various points over the years.

I remember, when I first started coming to this site in 2005, the 1977-94 definition of Gen Y was actually a fairly common one. At that time, most people considered my cohort of 1987 and 1988 babies to be either right in the middle of Gen Y, or even on the later half. Nowadays that we're seeing more 1982-2000 definitions, and even some 1983-2004 definitions, I see my group more and more often getting grouped as Early Y.

Good analysis. What's funny is that pretty much every one of these definitions for Millennials have been used at various points over the years.

I remember, when I first started coming to this site in 2005, the 1977-94 definition of Gen Y was actually a fairly common one. At that time, most people considered my cohort of 1987 and 1988 babies to be either right in the middle of Gen Y, or even on the later half. Nowadays that we're seeing more 1982-2000 definitions, and even some 1983-2004 definitions, I see my group more and more often getting grouped as Early Y.


The problem I have with ending Gen Y before 2000 is that it would break the cycle of having the entire odd numbered decades in one generation, plus it wouldn't make sense to have Gen Z spanning 2 centuries/millenniums.

Mathematically, making the centre the largest where applicable...

In a 1980-2000 definition, 1990 would be the centre, 1987-1993 would be the central range.

In a 1982-2000 definition, 1991 would be the centre, 1988-1994 would be the central range.

In a 1983-2000 definition, late 1991/early 1992 would be the centre, 1989-1994 would be the central range.

In a 1983-2004 range, 1994 would be the centre, late 1990 - early 1998 would be the central range.

In a 1981-1997 definition, 1989 would be the centre, 1986-1992 would be the central range.

In a 1980-1994 definition, 1987 would be the centre, 1985-1989 would be the central range.

In a 1977-1994 definition, late 1985/early 1986 would be the centre, 1983-1988 would be the central range.

Book it.


So many facts. I likey! Don't forget your footnotes!  :o

the most common date for millenials that i've been seeing recently (internet articles, pew research) everywhere is 1980-2000. i happen to agree with that based on my high school experience (i'm 17) ;)

this one starts gen z as 14/15 year olds, so 2001+.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3790614/They-don-t-like-drugs-gay-marriage-HATE-tattoos-Generation-Z-conservative-WW2.html

But would they really give it a second thought? Sure, they might of noticed that their parents were buying less toys, but would they really put that down to the economic crisis? I don't think so...


No but it would deeply influence their inner psyche.

Not to throw the topic...well...off-topic, but I'm curious on what you guys think are the peak years for Plurals (depending on the year span that you use).

No but it would deeply influence their inner psyche.


I was 9 during 2008, and wasn't aware of it for several years, I personally never noticed anything.

Not to throw the topic...well...off-topic, but I'm curious on what you guys think are the peak years for Plurals (depending on the year span that you use).


In a 2001-2020 définition, late 2009/early 2010 would be the centre, 2006-2013 would be the central range.

In a 2001-2019 definition, 2010 would be the centre, 2007-2013 would be the central range.

In a 2001-2015 definition, 2008 would be the centre, 2006-2010 would be the central range.

In a 2005-2023 definition, 2014 would be the centre, 2011-2017 would be the central range.

In a 1997-2013 definition, 2005 would be the centre, 2002-2008 would be the central range.

In a 1995-2009 definition, 2002 would be the centre, 2000-2004 would be the central range.

In a 1994-2011 definition, late 2002/early 2003 would be the centre, 2000-2005 would be the central range.

In a 1993-2009 definition, 2001 would be the centre, 1998-2004 would be the central range.

IDK when it's supposed to end lol

In a 2001-2020 définition, late 2009/early 2010 would be the centre, 2006-2013 would be the central range.

In a 2001-2019 definition, 2010 would be the centre, 2007-2013 would be the central range.

In a 2001-2015 definition, 2008 would be the centre, 2006-2010 would be the central range.

In a 2005-2023 definition, 2014 would be the centre, 2011-2017 would be the central range.

In a 1997-2013 definition, 2005 would be the centre, 2002-2008 would be the central range.

In a 1995-2009 definition, 2002 would be the centre, 2000-2004 would be the central range.

In a 1994-2011 definition, late 2002/early 2003 would be the centre, 2000-2005 would be the central range.

In a 1993-2009 definition, 2001 would be the centre, 1998-2004 would be the central range.

IDK when it's supposed to end lol


Too much info. :.sweating:.

I was 9 during 2008, and wasn't aware of it for several years, I personally never noticed anything.


Yeah, the only reason why I noticed it was because I like watching doom and gloom videos. And I searched it then during The Golden Age Of Youtube! :-X  :-X

Had it not been for my interest in doom and gloom, I might not have cared so much about the 2008/2009 stock market crash.