But the early 2010s youth culture was more Millennial in culture, was it not? Technically, even 94ers' teen years leaned more towards the 2010s, since they turned 16 in 2010 and spent most of their teens years in the 2010s, rather than the 2000s. I think the bond that is shared with 94ers-96ers, is that we were all at least in our teen years in the 2000s decade, but spent the bulk of our teen years in the 2010s. However, we were teens mostly before the core 2010s (2013-onwards) truly began to take shape. Hence why logically, I kind of agree with Shadowcookie. Although, I have heard compelling arguments as to why 1994 is the last of Y, I do think that as mid 90s babies are now in their mid 20s, it has become more and more clear that their experiences were more akin to a stereotypical Millennial (Late 80s/Early 90s baby) than a stereotypical Gen Zer (Early/Mid 00s baby). Enough time has passed to see that to be true.

The early 2010s is mostly millennial driven culture. Throughout the early-mid 2010s, Gen Z didn't have a clear identity since they were following the same footsteps as Millennials when it comes to pop culture. Until the 2017-2018 school year is when they started to establish their stereotypical identities.

Sigh.... I hate how this has turned into a generational debate. Here are two Wikipedia articles, one on Millennials and another on Gen Z:


I'm not trying to make this a debate. I have no control over what the media outlets have defined us to be now, it's definitely changed the past 5 years compared to like 2015 let's say. I'll quote this from a recent post on another thread.



I like the 1981-1996 definition. The only reason 1980 gets include is because it’s the first year of the 80s but other than that I don’t think they’re especially Millennial.


According to Google, Wikipedia, and other studies, this is the most widely accepted definition, but at the same time, 1995 has become the most widely accepted start for Gen Z too, which makes 1995 & 1996 right in the middle pack.

So let us go more in depth into this. Now, lets count the ways:


For Millennials:

Sources that end prior to 1994:

NONE that were credible sources.


Sources that end in 1994:

McCrindle Research; 1 in total


Sources that end in 1995:

PricewaterhouseCoopers; 1 in total


Sources that end in 1996:

The Economist, Reuters, The Pew Research Center, Time magazine, BBC, The Washington Post, Business Insider, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, The Federal Reserve Board, American Psychological Association, Ernest & Young, PBS, CBS, ABC Australia, The Washington Times, The Los Angeles Times, Gallup Inc., MSW Research, and The Resolution Foundation; 21 in total


Sources that end in 1997:

The Pew Research Center (they technically at one point ended it in 1997, until they 'officially' revised back to 1996, but I'll include it) and Nielsen Media Research; 2 in total


Sources that end in 1998:

NONE that were credible sources.


Sources that end in 1999:

United States Chamber of Commerce; 1 in total


Sources that end in 2000:

U.S PIRG and The United States Census (I'd argue that this is relatively big one, but I digress); 2 in total


Sources that end post 2000:

The Lucky Few: Between the Greatest Generation and the Baby Boom, authored by Elwood Carlson, and Authors William Strauss and Neil Howe in their own findings; 2 sources in total


And that's about it for Millennials.


Now it's time for Generation Z, and counting:


Sources that begin post 2000:

Authors William Strauss and Neil Howe in their own findings; 1 in total


Sources that begin in 2000:

NONE that were credible sources.


Sources that begin in 1999:

NONE that were credible sources.


Sources that begin in 1998:

NONE that were credible sources.


Sources that begin in 1997:

The Pew Research Center, Bloomberg, American Psychological Association, The Economist, the Harvard Business Review, various Japanese sources, Reuters, PBS, and The Wall Street Journal; 9+ in total


Sources that begin in 1996:

BBC, Business Insider, and Forbes; 3 in total


Sources that begin in 1995:

Psychologist Jean Twinge, Forbes (depending on author, I suppose), Goldman Sachs, McCrindle Research, and Randstad Canada; 5 in total

Sources that begin in 1994:

NONE that were credible sources.


Sources that begin prior to 1994:

Statistics Canada; 1 in total


And that's about it for Generation Z.


So we can deduce from the list of sources provided for the years with the most that end a Millennials at 'X', and start Gen Z at 'X', that the logical cutoff is at around 1996/1997. 21 credible sources ended Millennials in 1996, the most birth year with a pretty solid consensus surrounding the topic. The start point for Z is not as necessarily as strong nor agreed upon as the end point for Millennials, but even so the year that received the most consensus on starting Z was 1997, with 9 (& counting) sources. Take this data for what you will.

The early 2010s is mostly millennial driven culture. Throughout the early-mid 2010s, Gen Z didn't have a clear identity since they were following the same footsteps as Millennials when it comes to pop culture. Until the 2017-2018 school year is when they started to establish their stereotypical identities.


But that just further proves my point. People act like us mid 90s babies were born yesterday, but in actuality we were both the targeted audience and the cohort responsible (for better or worse) for the pop culture of that era. That was essentially the peak of our youth.

So yes, if the culture of our youth period was more 'Millennial', in the grand scheme of things, not to mention us already hitting all of the stereotypical 'Millennial boxes' (childhood prior to Web 2.0, in school for 9/11, teens in the 2000s, etc. etc.), then what generation would we logically be then? If this same question was posed back in like, 2015, then I could understand why someone may not be as sure where to put us. But this is 2020, enough time has passed in retrospect in which the answer is quite obvious. Especially since this cohort is now safely within the workforce. Hence why, as mentioned above, most credible sources have coalesced under one particular birth year as being the 'end' for the Millennial generation.

I don’t think all companies have the same weight behind their opinions either. Pew is probably more widely known than any other research company and as such their definitions will probably gain more traction and exposure.

I don't think that's a good definition. The "Big 3" kids cable networks peaked throughout the whole 2000's decade in general, not the early 10's or even late 90's. Just the 2000's decade as a whole. That's not a good definition for Gen Z. There are others out there that define Gen Z (which starts as early as 1995 as much as people including me don't want to accept).

I mean, 1980 isn't a definitive start for Gen Y/millennials, but that's how early it starts rather 1980 born's like it or not. 1995 isn't a definitive start for Gen Z as well as 2010 isn't a definitive start for Gen Alpha, but bottom line whether we feel like we are apart of those generations or not, those are the earliest years it starts. More and more recent articles and the mainstream media are now accepting the fact that Gen Z starts in the mid to late 90's rather than early 00's which is an outdated definition as Rainbowz explained.

It's going to be natural for 1995 & 1996 born's to feel like they're in the transition like mid 60's born's or early 80's born's and that's okay. That's how everyday normal people feel in society, hell, my dad born in 1966 wishes he was a Boomer and never wants to admit he's part of Gen X (he hates that with a passion). Personally I'll always feel like I'm in the transition from Gen Y/millennial to Gen Z. I could look up to millennials as much as I can be the leader of Gen Z. I actually love never being a clear millennial or Gen Z'er because we mid 90's babies can have a special name for ourselves!

So you're saying that the generational boundaries are more fluid than before. Fair enough. I still feel like everyone will have their own opinion on generations no matter what.

Here's my opinion of this thread here since we're getting off of the original intent: There's not gonna be a WW3 anytime soon (because of the threat of mutually assured destruction), so the Gen Alpha unborns/babies/kids, whatever your opinion is on the boundaries is, are safe from that.

So you're saying that the generational boundaries are more fluid than before. Fair enough. I still feel like everyone will have their own opinion on generations no matter what.


I'm not disagreeing with you, Zelda, or Slim, I'm just bringing up what recent articles and studies have shown between 2018-present. Not what was said in 2014 or 2015 which Rainbowz originally said. Going by how I feel, I believe 1999 is the last year of Gen Y and 2000 is the first year of Gen Z. Going by what I've read and what's become more mainstream, Gen Z starts in 1995/1996/1997 with 1995 being the most popular year to start, while Gen Y ends in 1994/1995/1996 with 1996 being the most popular year to end, so in other words, from what I've read lately, 1994 seems to be the last clear cut year for Gen Y, and 1997 seems to be the first clear cut year of Gen Z, while 1995 & 1996 are right in the middle pack (which means we could be millennial or Gen Z at the same time).

This is not because I was born in 1996. This is not going by how I feel (and it seems like Zelda and Slim are going by feelings). This is going by what the majority of recent studies have said now, and Gen Z has become more mainstream the past few years. More mainstream than it was when I first joined this forum 5 years ago. I've seen plenty of 1995 or 1996 born's in recent Gen Z interviews (articles or videos).

Opinions are going to be opinions and feelings are going to be feelings. My dad who's born in 1966 doesn't feel like he should be Gen X even tho he is, and there's many 1980-1982 born's who feel like they are part of Gen X even tho they could also be early Gen Y, and that's okay because those years mentioned are in the transition phase. I will always believe that the mid 60's, early 80's, and mid 90's are the transitional generations and not definitive.

Well I don't know who made those articles but all my life I've heard Gen Y ending in 2000.

I do think that as mid 90s babies are now in their mid 20s, it has become more and more clear that their experiences were more akin to a stereotypical Millennial (Late 80s/Early 90s baby) than a stereotypical Gen Zer (Early/Mid 00s baby).

Honestly, I think you are being biased when you say this.

I'm assuming that you believe that you grew up more like someone born in 1992 than someone born in 2000. In what way? All of you guys were kids in the 2000's, and both you and the 2000 born would've been growing up with smartphones in the 2010's. Both of you had social media like Facebook, Twitter and Instagram in your teen years. The majority of people born in the late 80's and early 90's would've most likely been using Myspace during their teen years.

I'm not saying that you have more in common with the 2000 baby than the 1992 baby. Realistically, you have just as much in common with a 1992 born as you do with a 2000 born. But you really can't determine this yet when those born in the mid-2000's are still, for the most part, in middle school, meanwhile you and a 1992 born are both in your 20's.

If I had to say right now, I personally think when it comes to childhood, mid-90's babies do have more in common with late 80's/early 90's babies, but when it comes to the teenaged years, they're more like early/mid-2000's babies.

I think we'll have WW3 over the Gen Z start date  ;D

For real though, I didn't have a smartphone when I was in high school. People born 1993/1994 are probably the last for which that's true for a majority. I think people a few years younger than me might have went at least two high school years without a smartphone. For that reason I agree with mc98 on 1997 being the best start date. It's also used by the Pew Research Centre so you're going to have to get used to the media referring to 1997 as the Gen Z start date whether you agree with it or not because Pew makes a lot of media releases.

I personally relate to those born in 1990 way more than those born in 2000 especially because both of my only siblings were born in '88 and '90 and I'm the second youngest member in my entire distant family on both my mother's and father's side. Only my cousin who lives in another country who was born in 2000 is younger than I am. Not only that, but I was actually listening to popular music and into pop culture as a little kid. The people I hung out with were like that, many were older too. I was listening to 50 Cent, Eminem, etc. I completely lost interest in pop culture when I was a teen in 2007 and switched to underground music at that time. Furthermore, I was only born a couple days after the supposed cutoff. And everywhere I've heard people said Gen Z starts in 2000 all the time..... You can call me what you want but I will always consider myself a Gen Y millennial despite what any article says but that's just me!

I'm not disagreeing with you, Zelda, or Slim, I'm just bringing up what recent articles and studies have shown between 2018-present. Not what was said in 2014 or 2015 which Rainbowz originally said. Going by how I feel, I believe 1999 is the last year of Gen Y and 2000 is the first year of Gen Z. Going by what I've read and what's become more mainstream, Gen Z starts in 1995/1996/1997 with 1995 being the most popular year to start, while Gen Y ends in 1994/1995/1996 with 1996 being the most popular year to end, so in other words, from what I've read lately, 1994 seems to be the last clear cut year for Gen Y, and 1997 seems to be the first clear cut year of Gen Z, while 1995 & 1996 are right in the middle pack (which means we could be millennial or Gen Z at the same time).

This is not because I was born in 1996. This is not going by how I feel (and it seems like Zelda and Slim are going by feelings). This is going by what the majority of recent studies have said now, and Gen Z has become more mainstream the past few years. More mainstream than it was when I first joined this forum 5 years ago. I've seen plenty of 1995 or 1996 born's in recent Gen Z interviews (articles or videos).

Opinions are going to be opinions and feelings are going to be feelings. My dad who's born in 1966 doesn't feel like he should be Gen X even tho he is, and there's many 1980-1982 born's who feel like they are part of Gen X even tho they could also be early Gen Y, and that's okay because those years mentioned are in the transition phase. I will always believe that the mid 60's, early 80's, and mid 90's are the transitional generations and not definitive.

Looking at Zelda’s list, 1997 is the most common starting year. 1995 isn’t exactly uncommon but not the most common.

Honestly, I think you are being biased when you say this.


How so?

I'm assuming that you believe that you grew up more like someone born in 1992 than someone born in 2000.

When did I ever say that? I have been consistent on the record that I can relate to both 1992ers and 2000ers, relatively easy. Those born from 1992-2000 all grew up similar to myself. But that is not exactly what I am arguing though, I think that is irrelevant.

In what way? All of you guys were kids in the 2000's, and both you and the 2000 born would've been growing up with smartphones in the 2010's.

This is where I have to disagree. While I am on the record in saying that, yes, me and people in my general age range all grew up in the 2000s, making me able to relate to everybody on some level, the 2000s decade still was relatively fast paced, especially when compared to the 2010s, making the difference between a 92er and 00er rather large. Even though I can still relate to a 2000 baby on a sizable amount of things, there is a distinct difference between spending most of your childhood prior to 2005, and spending most of your child post 2005. And it’s not just an arbitrary reason as to why I pick 2005, as that was the official start of the Web 2.0 era. I’ve already relayed in the past the various cultural reasons as well, you can simply just check out previous threads devoted to the topic;

Silver Age of Nickelodeon: http://www.inthe00s.com/index.php?topic=54892.0

Or

The Golden Age of Disney Channel: http://www.inthe00s.com/index.php?topic=51539.0


As an example. Being an 8 year old in 2004 was much more different than being an 8 year old in 2009, and when compared to being an 8 year old in 2014 vs. being 8 years old in 2019, the differences between 2004 and 2009 are much more staggering than 2014 and 2019.


Both of you had social media like Facebook, Twitter and Instagram in your teen years. The majority of people born in the late 90's and early 2000's would've most likely been using Myspace during their teen years

This is also where things start to differ a little bit. Yeah, we all used Facebook and Twitter, aka, the main sites for myself and my respected cohorts 4 years older/younger respectively. But us 92ers & 96ers also used MySpace in our youth as well. Us 96ers and 00ers also used Instagram and Vine in our youth as well. Some 00ers also may be currently into sites like TikTok, which is something that not many 90s babies have really used, but are aware of, rather sparsely though. In the same way that some 92ers may have also been into AIM chat rooms back in the mid 00s, something not many people born later in the 90s used (although I used it a little back in 07’-08’, but I could be more the exception rather than the norm).

One thing you forgot to mention, that is important, is that 92ers and 96ers spent their core teenaged/youthful years in the Golden Age of YouTube, while 00ers core teens years were with state of the site after the Google+ debacle in 2013, aka the start of the modern era of YouTube. However, I will grant that many 00ers also have nostalgic memories of the Golden Age of YouTube, granted as kids, but nonetheless there is that.

I'm not saying that you have more in common with the 2000 baby than the 1992 baby. Realistically, you have just as much in common with a 1992 born as you do with a 2000 born. But you really can't determine this yet when those born in the mid-2000's are still, for the most part, in middle school, meanwhile you and a 1992 born are both in your 20's.

That’s exactly my point, so what exactly are you arguing then? I don’t mean to be rude, but I think you’re conflating a misunderstanding to suggest that is my overall point. Like if I’m trying to snub people 4 years younger than myself, but that is not the case. Perhaps I should clear the air, but what I meant by early-mid 00s babies, I’m really referring to those born in 2001/2002ish to about 2006 or so. I wouldn’t really include those born in 2000 in that, I consider them ‘honorable’ Late 90s babies, just not in technical name. In fact, I think I’ll slightly retract the statement I made before. I think I was really more claiming that both mid 90s babies’ childhoods and teen hoods (yes, I’m also claiming teen hoods) were a lot closer culturally (that key word is important) to, for arguments sake, those born from roughly 1987-1989; the ‘core’ of Millennials’, rather than than those born from 2001-2003; the ‘core’ of Zoomers.

If I had to say right now, I personally think when it comes to childhood, mid-90's babies do have more in common with late 80's/early 90's babies, but when it comes to the teenaged years, they're more like early/mid-2000's babies.

Now this is where I will chime in. When I said that our teenager years are closer to late 80s/early 90s babies rather than early-mid 00s babies, what I meant by that is that culturally:

1 ) We were in our core teen hoods in the early 2010s,  which that alone should be evidence of that. That was the Millennial era of youth culture. I honestly don’t understand why that is a hard concept for some people to understand, but nonetheless I got some other examples to give to you.

2 )We were are all still technically teens when the 2000s were over. Now of course there are varying degrees; 94ers and most 95ers were the last to be in high school in the 2000s decade, while most 94ers specifically were the last to be in high school in the 2008-2009 school year (arguably the last ‘core’ 2000s school year). Still though, just the mere fact that we were teens in the 2000s, spent the majority of our teen years in the early 2010s, not to mention graduating high school in the first half of the 2010s decade or the Pre ‘Trump era’, and never touching a single day of our teenaged years in the Trump presidency let alone the 2020s, yeah it’s just quite obvious where we belong. But if you really need more evidence, I got more points.

3 ) We still spent a good chunk of our youth in the mid-late 2000s, hence our slight relatability to Late 80s babies in that aspect as well.

4 )We were in our youth/core teenaged years during the entire duration of the Seventh Generation or Video Game consoles, for teen/youth culture, that was 100% Millennial/Y influenced.

5 ) I already gave the examples above for social media sites we used in our earlier youth periods; MySpace, chatrooms, Golden Age YouTube, early Facebook, etc.

6 ) We were the last generation of ‘Mall culture’, actual social cliches defined by pop culture (emos/scenes, hip-hop, jocks, peeps, skaters, etc. etc.).

7 )To continue 6’s point, name brands were still a thing from 2007-2012; Prep brands like Abercrombie, Hollister, American Eagle, etc.; Emo/Scene/Skater brands like Zumez, Hot Topic, Vans, etc.; hip-hop/urban brands like Polo, Ecko, Urban Outfiters, Rockawear, etc.; Jock brands like Nike, Adidas, Puma, etc. ‘Douchey’ brands like Ed Hardy, Gucci, Juicy Couture, G-Unit, etc. etc.

It is not to say that name brands don’t mean anything to current youth, but it’s certainty not as indicative to one’s social standing and clout, as it did back when I was growing up. Even then, I can guarantee you that most of these brands listed are NOT currently popular with teens today, at least not unironically.


8 ) Smartphones. Glad you brought that up. Guess what? Objectively speaking, the Smartphone market penetration didn’t really gain in earnest until about Late 2011/Early 2012. Many 94-96 babies first cell phones would’ve been flip phones or brick phones in the 2000s. We were the generation of flashy ‘dumb phones’ like ‘Sliders’ ‘Chocolates’, ‘Sidekicks’, Blackberries, etc. etc. iPhones were big by almost everybody by  about Late 2012/Early 2013, but by that point we all had spent most (in the case of 94ers, all) of our core teen years prior. So yeah, that’s a pretty big difference between us and early-mid 00s babies, many whom which have little to no memories of life before smartphones, let alone never experiencing any of their teen years when an actual Nokia ‘brick’ phone with limited texting minutes was a viable phone for communication ;D.

I could go on and on, but I feel like these points would suffice enough.

Honestly, I think you are being biased when you say this.

I'm assuming that you believe that you grew up more like someone born in 1992 than someone born in 2000. In what way? All of you guys were kids in the 2000's, and both you and the 2000 born would've been growing up with smartphones in the 2010's. Both of you had social media like Facebook, Twitter and Instagram in your teen years. The majority of people born in the late 80's and early 90's would've most likely been using Myspace during their teen years.

I'm not saying that you have more in common with the 2000 baby than the 1992 baby. Realistically, you have just as much in common with a 1992 born as you do with a 2000 born. But you really can't determine this yet when those born in the mid-2000's are still, for the most part, in middle school, meanwhile you and a 1992 born are both in your 20's.

If I had to say right now, I personally think when it comes to childhood, mid-90's babies do have more in common with late 80's/early 90's babies, but when it comes to the teenaged years, they're more like early/mid-2000's babies.


Something to consider is that 14-15% of teens (13-17) had a smartphone in 2009, 24-25% in 2010. By 2014, that had risen to over 70%. So although smartphones were clearly becoming prolific in the early 2010s they were still the minority. That is surely an important distinction. And most people born in the mid (and probably early) 2000s will have had a smartphone as their first phone which is obviously not the case for virtually anyone born in the mid 90s.

Facebook overtook MySpace in 2009 but had already fallen out of favour with teenagers by the mid 2010s, in favour of Snapchat and Instagram. Neither platform were very popular in the early 2010s, it was definitely all Facebook and Twitter then.

I think there are some similarities between mid 90s babies and early 00s babies - in the grand scheme of things it’s not that big an age gap - but with mid 00s babies? That’s going too far. A decade age gap is significant regardless of age.

Something to consider is that 14-15% of teens (13-17) had a smartphone in 2009, 24-25% in 2010. By 2014, that had risen to over 70%. So although smartphones were clearly become prolific in the early 2010s they were still the minority. That is surely an important distinction. And most people born in the mid 2000s will have had a smartphone as their first phone which is obviously not the case for virtually anyone born in the mid 90s.

I think there are some similarities between mid 90s babies and early 00s babies - in the grand scheme of things it’s not that big an age gap - but with mid 00s babies? That’s going too far. A decade age gap is significant regardless of age.

When I compare myself to my 2005 born sisters, I would say their early childhood in 2008-2012 was not too different from mine. In 2013 when they got an iPad is when things got a bit high tech, but they barely used the thing and preferred stealing my 3DS. Teenage years is when things start to diverge, with her getting a smartphone at 13 and the assorted social media apps. I personally did not sign up for any social media until I was 16, and didn't get a smartphone until after I graduated. I think the teenage years are the main difference between Gen Y and Gen Z.

I was at the mall with her last month for Holiday shopping. We were eating at the food court, and I was just people-watching while eating. She asked me "Why are you staring at people? Weirdo", and I asked what you think I should be doing instead, and she said "I don't know, look at your phone, talk to your friends." Not that Millennials don't look at their phones all the time either, but the seriousness in her response was the most Gen Z thing she ever said to me ;D

When I compare myself to my 2005 born sisters, I would say their early childhood in 2008-2012 was not too different from mine. In 2013 when they got an iPad is when things got a bit high tech, but they barely used the thing and preferred stealing my 3DS. Teenage years is when things start to diverge, with her getting a smartphone at 13 and the assorted social media apps. I personally did not sign up for any social media until I was 16, and didn't get a smartphone until after I graduated. I think the teenage years are the main difference between Gen Y and Gen Z.

I was at the mall with her last month for Holiday shopping. We were eating at the food court, and I was just people-watching while eating. She asked me "Why are you staring at people? Weirdo", and I asked what you think I should be doing instead, and she said "I don't know, look at your phone, talk to your friends." Not that Millennials don't look at their phones all the time either, but the seriousness in her response was the most Gen Z thing she ever said to me ;D


Yeah, getting a smartphone at 13 isn’t something I could imagine. I don’t think kids that age even really need smartphones tbh.

This is not because I was born in 1996. This is not going by how I feel (and it seems like Zelda and Slim are going by feelings).


I cannot speak for Slim, but I certainly am not going off feelings. If anything, I have been rather objective this entire conversation. I brought up the fact that numerically, there is a consensus surrounding 1996 as the end of Y, and 1997 as the start of Z. I understand your point about us 95ers-96ers being the middle, as it’s almost indisputable that 94ers are clearly Y, and 97ers are clearly Z (based on most sources), but I think you’re putting too much credence onto some sources merely because some of these sources may exist.

No offense, but by your own logic, the mere fact that one of the sources that Wikipedia cited in the Generation Z article (which they decided that this source was creditable, in some capacity) claims that Z started in 1993, what’s stopping you from then making the Z cusp 1993-1996 or whatever. I also think that the logic surrounding the decision to pick a certain cutoff point is important. 1994 or 1996 have many valid points, I’m sure people reading this can find old threads discussing this. 1995 though? There aren’t many. Zelek mentioned once, and I happen to agree with him, but it’s how we tend to subconsciously and instantly determine certain cutoff points (1980,1995,2000 etc.) because they round-off nicely, not necessarily because there has been any meticulous analysis as to what suggests to their validity a solid cutoff point.

And to be clear, I honestly do not personally like the 1996 cutoff, there I said it. I actually prefer the 2000 cutoff, although not because it sounds nice (as one particular person likes it as), I like it because demographically when compared to our main parental figures/cultural predecessors, the Baby Boomers, 1982-2000 follows similarly to 1946-1964 for Baby Boomers, both when you look at the Chinese Zodiac. There are reasons specific to 2000 itself, but I’ll probably list those later. My main point is that, and I agree with Shadowcookie on this, is that not all sources are as valid as others. 1996 happens to be a popular birth year to end, but only because it is used when citing the trusted Pew definition of 1981-1996 (in which the reasoning Pew uses is valid). If it was a source that ended it at 1996, but the span was like 1984-1996 or something like that, I wouldn’t consider that a valid source.

Honestly, the best way to describe people born in 1995-98 are "Zillenials". 1995 and 1996 lean more Gen Y while 1997 and 1998 lean more Gen Z.

Something to consider is that 14-15% of teens (13-17) had a smartphone in 2009, 24-25% in 2010. By 2014, that had risen to over 70%. So although smartphones were clearly becoming prolific in the early 2010s they were still the minority. That is surely an important distinction. And most people born in the mid (and probably early) 2000s will have had a smartphone as their first phone which is obviously not the case for virtually anyone born in the mid 90s.

Smartphones were already very widespread by 2012 though. Those born in 1996 would’ve been 16 at the time, which is the absolute peak of the teenaged years. It’s reasonable to assume that the vast majority of 1996 borns had smartphones and iPhones in the 2010’s as core teenagers, which is one aspect that makes them more like early 2000’s borns than early 90’s borns.

Even though I can still relate to a 2000 baby on a sizable amount of things, there is a distinct difference between spending most of your childhood prior to 2005, and spending most of your child post 2005. And it’s not just an arbitrary reason as to why I pick 2005, as that was the official start of the Web 2.0 era. I’ve already relayed in the past the various cultural reasons as well, you can simply just check out previous threads devoted to the topic;


This arbitrary (which it is) 2005 cut-off doesn't make much sense to me. We can't just assume that internet usage rates among kids/tweens suddenly increased immediately after the Web 1.0 era came to an end. 2010 would be a much more appropriate dividing line if one had to be drawn, as that was when iPads/tablets were introduced to the public and smartphones became widespread among people of all ages, meaning that's when you truly started to see the effects of the Web 2.0 era on someone's childhood. Speaking as someone who experienced their childhood during the Mid 2000s and the Late 2000s, the differences between the two in terms of technology were minimal at best, especially when referring to childhood.

Childhood differences between Gen Y and Z are not too big in my opinion, except for older Y. I made a Neopets account in 1999, Habbo Hotel in 2001, Runescape in 2004. Not that different from kids making Roblox or Minecraft accounts today. I don't see how owning an iPad is all that different from owning a Gameboy (apps like YouTube notwithstanding - but that can be accessed outside an iPad)

Childhood is not all that influential as people like to think. Remembering the old Nickelodean logo and when Justin Bieber had long hair instead of short hair just doesn't matter when you're 40 years old comparing yourself to a 30 year old. Now if you're hesitant about job hopping because you lived through a big recession and prefer computer/text based social media like Facebook/Twitter over smartphone based social media like Snapchat and Instagram, that's an actual observable generational difference.

Childhood is not all that influential as people like to think. Remembering the old Nickelodean logo and when Justin Bieber had long hair instead of short hair just doesn't matter when you're 40 years old comparing yourself to a 30 year old. Now if you're hesitant about job hopping because you lived through a big recession and prefer computer/text based social media like Facebook/Twitter over smartphone based social media like Snapchat and Instagram, that's an actual observable generational difference.

EXACTLY!

Smartphones were already very widespread by 2012 though. Those born in 1996 would’ve been 16 at the time, which is the absolute peak of the teenaged years. It’s reasonable to assume that the vast majority of 1996 borns had smartphones and iPhones in the 2010’s as core teenagers, which is one aspect that makes them more like early 2000’s borns than early 90’s borns.


Did you not read my post before......? The difference is that, while yes, many mid 90s babies did receive smartphones during the second half of their high school years, they also spent a good chunk of their teenaged years without them. That is the difference.

Ask your average person born in 2001 if they ever owned a flip phone or a 'dumb phone' and I'd guarantee most would probably say no. For mid 90s babies, these phones would've been our first phones, not to mention the type of phones that we were still actively using until about 2012 or so. Merely because that was what was viable back then. BBM was our iMessaging back in high school.

I got my first smartphone in the summer of 2012, a crappy Android I might add ;D. Hell, I think Slowpoke even mentioned in another thread (or this one, I'm really starting to lost track) that Facebook mobile apparently didn't launch until 2012. Once again, I don't think you truly understand how different technologically things were in the early 2010s. Yeah smartphones were around, but they truly didn't start to take things over until about 2012/2013 or so, by that point a good chunk of my core teenaged years were already spent prior. Anyways, regardless of what you think the about Early 2010s teens in a technological sense, culturally they most certainly had more in common with Late 2000s teens rather Late 2010s teens. I've already provided those points before.

Did you not read my post before......? The difference is that, while yes, many mid 90s babies did receive smartphones during the second half of their high school years, they also spent a good chunk of their teenaged years without them. That is the difference.

Ask your average person born in 2001 if they ever owned a flip phone or a 'dumb phone' and I'd guarantee most would probably say no. For mid 90s babies, these phones would've been our first phones, not to mention the type of phones that we were still actively using until about 2012 or so. Merely because that was what was viable back then. BBM was our iMessaging back in high school.

I got my first smartphone in the summer of 2012, a crappy Android I might add ;D. Hell, I think Slowpoke even mentioned in another thread (or this one, I'm really starting to lost track) that Facebook mobile apparently didn't launch until 2012. Once again, I don't think you truly understand how different technologically things were in the early 2010s. Yeah smartphones were around, but they truly didn't start to take things over until about 2012/2013 or so, by that point a good chunk of my core teenaged years were already spent prior. Anyways, regardless of what you think the about Early 2010s teens in a technological sense, culturally they most certainly had more in common with Late 2000s teens rather Late 2010s teens. I've already provided those points before.

I did, but how does this make you more like late 80’s and early 90’s babies than early 2000’s babies?

If anything, what you just said is proving my point that you have just as much in common with them as you do with early 2000’s borns. You may have had a flip phone like core millennials, but most people your age also used an iPhone during their core teenaged years later when it became popular. You had a flip phone like the core millennials and a smartphone like the Gen Zers.

You also graduated high school in 2014, when smartphones were everywhere and Vine was at its peak, and when Trap music was climbing up on the billboard charts. I’m not saying you don’t have anything in common with core millennials, it’s just that, in the grand scheme of things, a 1996 borns cultural teen years are closer to say, a 2001 borns cultural teen years than most people on here think.

If we can both agree that the 2010’s were more consistent technology wise than the 2000’s, then how does it make sense to say that a 1996 borns teen years were more like someone born in the early 90’s than someone born in the early 2000’s? Especially considering that early 90’s babies were 2000’s teens, and you and someone born in 2001 are both 2010’s teens that graduated in the same decade? This isn’t me getting mad, I just don’t see how people your age are culturally more like core millennials than early Gen Zers. It doesn’t make much sense to me.

This is where I think your bias is coming into play. People here always say the 2010’s are very different from the 2000’s, and that the early 2010’s aren’t much different from the mid and late 2010’s, until when it comes to defining generations, then suddenly they don’t think a 2000’s teen grew up that differently from an early 2010’s teen.

Didn't smartphones start to takeover in late 2011/early 2012? Because I remember a lot of people had iPhones and Samsung Galaxies throughout that school year.

Didn't smartphones start to takeover in late 2011/early 2012? Because I remember a lot of people had iPhones and Samsung Galaxies throughout that school year.

Yeah, they were already getting common by like 2011. In 2008, it was a lot more rare.

This arbitrary (which it is) 2005 cut-off doesn't make much sense to me. We can't just assume that internet usage rates among kids/tweens suddenly increased immediately after the Web 1.0 era came to an end. 2010 would be a much more appropriate dividing line if one had to be drawn, as that was when iPads/tablets were introduced to the public and smartphones became widespread among people of all ages, meaning that's when you truly started to see the effects of the Web 2.0 era on someone's childhood. Speaking as someone who experienced their childhood during the Mid 2000s and the Late 2000s, the differences between the two in terms of technology were minimal at best, especially when referring to childhood.



Wikipedia article on 'Web 2.0':

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0


Web 2.0 (also known as Participative (or Participatory) and Social Web) refers to websites that emphasize user-generated content, ease of use, participatory culture and interoperability (i.e., compatible with other products, systems, and devices) for end users.

The term was invented by Darcy DiNucci in 1999 and later popularized by Tim O'Reilly and Dale Dougherty at the O'Reilly Media Web 2.0 Conference in late 2004. The Web 2.0 framework specifies only the design and use of websites and does not place any technical demands or specifications on designers. The transition was gradual and, therefore, no precise date for when this change happened has been given.

A Web 2.0 website allows users to interact and collaborate with each other through social media dialogue as creators of user-generated content in a virtual community. This contrasts the first generation of Web 1.0-era websites where people were limited to viewing content in a passive manner. Examples of Web 2.0 features include social networking sites or social media sites (e.g., Facebook), blogs, wikis, folksonomies ("tagging" keywords on websites and links), video sharing sites (e.g., YouTube), hosted services, Web applications ("apps"), collaborative consumption platforms, and mashup applications.

Whether Web 2.0 is substantially different from prior Web technologies has been challenged by World Wide Web inventor Tim Berners-Lee, who describes the term as jargon. His original vision of the Web was "a collaborative medium, a place where we all meet and read and write." On the other hand, the term Semantic Web (sometimes referred to as Web 3.0) was coined by Berners-Lee to refer to a web of content where the meaning can be processed by machines.


These two quotes are important:

The transition was gradual and, therefore, no precise date for when this change happened has been given.

Examples of Web 2.0 features include social networking sites or social media sites (e.g., Facebook), blogs, wikis, folksonomies ("tagging" keywords on websites and links), video sharing sites (e.g., YouTube), hosted services, Web applications ("apps"), collaborative consumption platforms, and mashup applications.

So here it is. There is no official starting date for when Web 2.0, but the general understanding of what differentiated Web 2.0 to Web 1.0 is that Web 1.0; had Static pages instead of dynamic HTML, Pages were built using dated web applications like Common Gateway Interface instead of applications written in a much more nuanced programming language such as Perl, PHP, Python or Ruby, among other traits. That is not to mention the fact that the internet was primarily serviced through (at least here in the States) 56k dial-up connections, AOL being a major distributor.

Web 2.0 on the other hand; had a richer experience utilizing metadata and more dynamic software to allow users to engage with other users and the internet much more critically. Blogging, social media sites, video sharing sites, even the mere ability to make an online profile or post a comment, was how Web 2.0 was able to revolutionize the internet into the modern era. Even though smartphones were still nowhere near the norm, you had many precussor technologies such as Palm, Inc., that "introduced its first web-capable personal digital assistant (supporting Web access with WAP), DiNucci saw the Web "fragmenting" into a future that extended beyond the browser/PC combination it was identified with. She focused on how the basic information structure and hyper-linking mechanism introduced by HTTP would be used by a variety of devices and platforms. As such, her "2.0" designation refers to the next version of the Web that does not directly relate to the term's current use." Essentially, the building blocks were already there, and it is par for the course as to why there was this big boom in technological innovation in the second half of the decade. Just two years after YouTube launched, the iPhone launched, and revolutionized the telephone industry forever.

This is what I mean by having a childhood either in the Web 1.0 era (the case for Millennials) or a childhood in the Web 2.0 era (the case for Gen Z and beyond). It does not mean that kids in the Late 2000s were using or were surrounded by smartphones necessarily, but their relationship to technology at a young age is relatively different even to children that primarily grew up in the early 2000s. When you talk to people born in the early 00s now on their nostalgic memories of the Golden Age of YouTube (2007-2012 or so), they're referring to these experiences as children. Having a video sharing sites millions upon millions of videos at your fingertips, that alone is enough entertainment to suffice for a child (probably not the greatest quality or age appropriate, but I digress). The association of kids spending too much time on the internet, particularly sites like YouTube, is something that started around the Late 2000s as these sites were already massively popular but not as regulated (for better or worse) as they are now.

I pick 2005 as a cutoff year, mainly because;

1 ) DSL usage rates had already surpassed dial-up usage rates by 2005

2 ) MySpace and Facebook had already launched at this point, and both sites would truly start to gain steam in this year

3 ) YouTube officially launches this year

4 ) The iPod is now becoming much more of a success, you had the launch of the iPod Nano later on that year

5 ) Many retailers finally stopped selling VHS tapes in 2005 or so. DVDs were solely all the rage (for a small piece of time)

6 ) Xbox 360 launches late in the year, the first of the Seventh Generation of Video Game Consoles (an era defined by online multiplayer becoming much more engrained in the gaming experience)

So even though the iPhone hadn't launched yet, the building blocks were already there. 2004-2007 was more a transition period in the grand scheme of things, but by Late 2007 we were most certainly within the Web 2.0 era.



I did, but how does this make you more like late 80’s and early 90’s babies than early 2000’s babies?

If anything, what you just said is proving my point that you have just as much in common with them as you do with early 2000’s borns. You may have had a flip phone like core millennials, but most people your age also used an iPhone during their core teenaged years later when it became popular. You had a flip phone like the core millennials and a smartphone like the Gen Zers.


Exactly how though?

You also graduated high school in 2014, when smartphones were everywhere and Vine was at its peak, and when Trap music was climbing up on the billboard charts. I’m not saying you don’t have anything in common with core millennials, it’s just that, in the grand scheme of things, a 1996 borns cultural teen years are closer to say, a 2001 borns cultural teen years than most people on here think.


I'll slightly grant you that though. However though, here is the thing Rainbowz most of my teenaged years were spent prior to all of that you're describing. If I graduated High School in 2016, aka both graduating within and spending most of my core teenaged years within the era you're describing, then you would have a point. But 2010-2013 was a different cultural era. Once again, Rainbows the early 2010s was not Gen Z in any way shape or form. If one spent most of their actual teenhood before Gen Z teen culture became mainstream, and even then, 2014 was not as 'Gen Z as influenced' as people may remember it as (maybe I'll talk about that later), but I digress, then logically what generation is that person going to relate more towards?


If we can both agree that the 2010’s were more consistent technology wise than the 2000’s then how does it make sense to say that a 1996 borns teen years were more like someone born in the early 90’s than someone born in the early 2000’s? Especially considering that early 90’s babies were 2000’s teens, and you and someone born in 2001 are both 2010’s teens that graduated in the same decade? This isn’t me getting mad, I just don’t see how people your age are culturally more like core millennials than early Gen Zers. It doesn’t make much sense to me.

First of all, glad we can finally agree that the 2010s were a rather consistent decade pertaining to technology.

Second of all, because Rainbows...., 96ers were also 2000s teens. Guess what 01ers will be for the time being? 2020s teens. Now you may think that is being pretty petty at that point, perhaps, being 13 in 2009 or being 19 in 2020. But here is the deal, just the mere fact that 1996ers were teenagers in 2009 (not to mention, spending most of their middle school years/early youth period during that era) is the piece that would make 96ers be able to relate more to the teenhood of 91ers, rather than 01ers. 91ers also were primarily Late 2000s teens, were they not? 96ers were primarily Early 2010s teens, were they not? Technically 91ers for a time were technically 2010s teens, were they not? 96ers for a time were 2000s teens, were they not?

Mathematically speaking, the Early 2010s is just simply closer in time to the Late 2000s than it is to the Late 2010s. Not to mention the fact that mid 90s babies are actually born closer in time to most early 90s babies, rather than to most early 00s babies. When I started high school (10 years ago..... wow does time fly :o), the high school seniors when I was freshman at the time would've been born in Late 1992-Mid 1993 (people that are about Slowpoke's age ;D). Meanwhile, I never attended a day of my life high school with anybody born after 1999. So yes, I don't think it's controversial to suggest that 94'-96' borns are closer mathematically, culturally, and technologically, with 91'-93' borns, rather than 01'-03' borns, both from a childhood perspective and a teenhood perspective. Now the statement about us being closer in relation to people born in the Late 80s/Early 90s vs. the Early-Mid 00s, is much more a subjective statement, I will admit. But to suggest that someone born in the mid 90s is not more similar to a person born in the early 90s rather than the early 00s is just ludicrous as that point.


This is where I think your bias is coming into play. People here always say the 2010’s are very different from the 2000’s, until when it comes to defining generations, then suddenly they don’t think a mid-2000’s teen grew up that differently from an early 2010’s teen.

When did I ever say that? We're talking about early 90s babies and mid 90s babies, correct? 91ers-96ers were all in our core teenaged years from 2007-2012 or so. That era goes hand in hand. For Mid 00s teens, I never claimed that my experience was similar, I just said that when compared to the teenaged experience that Mid 00s babies are currently going through, I seem to slightly relate more to the era of Mid 2000s teens rather than Late 2010s/Early 2020s teens.

Slowpoke and Shadowcookie mentioned it before, but one big example as to the disconnect that people in our mid 20s are starting to have with the current youth is technology. Just the thought of having a smartphone as your 'first phone', not to mention when you're barely into puberty, I just can't even imagine having all that information in my fingertips at such a young age. My mom had an iPhone when it first came out in 2007, and it looked and was revolutionary, but not to mention expensive. She had a Palm Pilot in the mid 2000s, so the iPhone was sort of a spiritual successor to that, for her to utilize for business purposes mainly. That's who primarily owned smartphones prior to like 2012/2013, business people or tech heads. A piece of technology that I vividly remember being so revolutionary at the time is something I personally cannot foresee a child owning nonchalantly. But low and behold, and my nieces, nephews, and little cousins born in the Late 2000s all have smartphones now like nobody's business, granted older models, as they were my siblings/cousins' hand-me-downs, but nonetheless that is still a lot for a pre-teen to have at such a young age. That alone is a pretty big generational gap.

This is where I think your bias is coming into play. People here always say the 2010’s are very different from the 2000’s, and that the early 2010’s aren’t much different from the mid and late 2010’s, until when it comes to defining generations, then suddenly they don’t think a 2000’s teen grew up that differently from an early 2010’s teen.


From what I've seen over the years, the mainstream media tends to combine the 80's and 90's together while the 00's and 10's get combined together (although that might change depending on how the 2020's go). Most people believe the 80's and 90's are more related while the 00's and 10's are more related, but this is probably because people focus on the 2nd half of the 00's more when it comes to definitive culture than the first half of the 00's.

It looks like WW3 is going on in this thread ;D.

Anyways, there's no clear consensus on when Gen Y ends and where Gen Z begins. Right now, it's mostly up to your opinion.

I personally think Gen Y/Millennial generation should be 1982-2000 because that just looks the best and makes the most sense. Within that range, there should be a micro-generation called "Zillennials" for those born from 1995/6-2000 because in honesty, we're a mix of both and don't fit neatly into either Gen Y or Gen Z. Depending on the 1995-2000 born, some lean towards Gen Y and others toward Gen Z.

Just like those born from 1977-1981 are called "Xennials" because they don't fit neatly into Gen X or Gen Y. However, at the end of the day, these generation labels don't really matter and I identify myself as a "2000s kid" much more than a "Millennial/Gen Y" or "Gen Z".

It looks like WW3 is going on in this thread ;D.


I don't know why I laughed super hard reading this first sentence up here.  ;D

It looks like WW3 is going on in this thread ;D.

Anyways, there's no clear consensus on when Gen Y ends and where Gen Z begins. Right now, it's mostly up to your opinion.

I personally think Gen Y/Millennial generation should be 1982-2000 because that just looks the best and makes the most sense. Within that range, there should be a micro-generation called "Zillennials" for those born from 1995/6-2000 because in honesty, we're a mix of both and don't fit neatly into either Gen Y or Gen Z. Depending on the 1995-2000 born, some lean towards Gen Y and others toward Gen Z.

Just like those born from 1977-1981 are called "Xennials" because they don't fit neatly into Gen X or Gen Y. However, at the end of the day, these generation labels don't really matter and I identify myself as a "2000s kid" much more than a "Millennial/Gen Y" or "Gen Z".

So, for someone like me that was born in 2000, would I still be considered a Zoomer?

So, for someone like me that was born in 2000, would I still be considered a Zoomer?

1999 and 2000 are unquestionably Gen Z. There’s no way they are millennials, that’s for sure.

It looks like WW3 is going on in this thread ;D.

Anyways, there's no clear consensus on when Gen Y ends and where Gen Z begins. Right now, it's mostly up to your opinion.

I personally think Gen Y/Millennial generation should be 1982-2000 because that just looks the best and makes the most sense. Within that range, there should be a micro-generation called "Zillennials" for those born from 1995/6-2000 because in honesty, we're a mix of both and don't fit neatly into either Gen Y or Gen Z. Depending on the 1995-2000 born, some lean towards Gen Y and others toward Gen Z.

Just like those born from 1977-1981 are called "Xennials" because they don't fit neatly into Gen X or Gen Y. However, at the end of the day, these generation labels don't really matter and I identify myself as a "2000s kid" much more than a "Millennial/Gen Y" or "Gen Z".

No, someone born in 1995 is not mixed with someone born in 1999. Stop saying that. You've said that before and it's annoying and not true. As if 1994 has no relations with them but 1999 does? That is not correct... And that is a very, very odd grouping. I am not related to you more than I am related to someone born in 1991... Stop saying I am.

1999 and 2000 are unquestionably Gen Z. There’s no way they are millennials, that’s for sure.

And that is wrong. 1999 is Gen Y.

Exactly how though?

I thought I already explained it here.
You may have had a flip phone like core millennials, but most people your age also used an iPhone during their core teenaged years later when it became popular. You had a flip phone like the core millennials and a smartphone like the Gen Zers.

I'll slightly grant you that though. However though, here is the thing Rainbowz most of my teenaged years were spent prior to all of that you're describing. If I graduated High School in 2016, aka both graduating within and spending most of my core teenaged years within the era you're describing, then you would have a point. But 2010-2013 was a different cultural era. Once again, Rainbows the early 2010s was not Gen Z in any way shape or form. If one spent most of their actual teenhood before Gen Z teen culture became mainstream, and even then, 2014 was not as 'Gen Z as influenced' as people may remember it as (maybe I'll talk about that later), but I digress, then logically what generation is that person going to relate more towards?
Most of the stuff I mentioned became popular while you were still in high school (AKA one's "peak" teenaged years). Vine got popular in 2013. By then people your age were 17 years old, most likely juniors in high school. Vine's peak was the entire mid-2010's, so technically, Vine was popular for at least half of your high school years (2012-2013 and 2013-2014). It's not unreasonable to assume that 1996 borns would've most likely been using Vine and smartphones during high school, something that virtually nobody born in the late 80's or possibly even the early 90's had during theirs.

Second of all, because Rainbows...., 96ers were also 2000s teens.
But that was only in 2009. The vast majority of 1996 borns teenaged years were in the early 2010's.

Guess what 01ers will be for the time being? 2020s teens.
Both you and a person born in 2001 spent the vast majority of the teenaged years in the 2010's.

But here is the deal, just the mere fact that 1996ers were teenagers in 2009 (not to mention, spending most of their middle school years/early youth period during that era) is the piece that would make 96ers be able to relate more to the teenhood of 91ers, rather than 01ers. 91ers also were primarily Late 2000s teens
I'm confused on this. If I'm understanding correctly, you think that part of your teenaged years were more like a 1991 borns because both of you spent the majority of your middle school years in the 2000’s?
This same logic could also be applied to you and a person born in 2001 both spending the majority of your high school years in the 2010’s. Once again proving my point that you have just as much in common with someone born in 1991 as you do with someone born in 2001.

I don't think it's controversial to suggest that 94'-96' borns are closer mathematically, culturally, and technologically, with 91'-93' borns, rather than 01'-03' borns, both from a childhood perspective and a teenhood perspective
First off, for arguments sake, I'm only specifically talking about people your age. Those born in 1996.
When it comes to a 1996 borns teenaged years, the majority of them most likely would've been using smartphones, since they became widespread already by 2011/2012 (Hell, maybe even a bit earlier, though I'm not sure). Instagram started becoming widespread in 2012, which was when 1996 borns were 16, so it's likely that 1996 borns would've been using Instagram at the time. Compare that to someone born in 1991, who was 16 at the peak of Myspace and when the iPhone just came out.

Now here's the thing. With childhood, I can understand the "more in common with 1990-1993 than 2000-2003". When it comes to the teenaged years, though, especially the peak teen years, I personally think it's slighty more closer to 2000-2003. And I say slightly because I'm not denying that you do have some similarities with those born in the early 90's. But because smartphones and social media like Twitter and Instagram got popular very rapidly in the early 2010's, which was when 1996 borns spent most of their teenaged years, that's the aspect where I believe they are a little more like someone born in 2001 than someone born in 1991.

1999 and 2000 are unquestionably Gen Z. There’s no way they are millennials, that’s for sure.

Um, did you even read what I said lol?

No, someone born in 1995 is not mixed with someone born in 1999. Stop saying that. You've said that before and it's annoying and not true. As if 1994 has no relations with them but 1999 does? That is not correct... And that is a very, very odd grouping. I am not related to you more than I am related to someone born in 1991... Stop saying I am.

Calm down man. Also, I don't know why you think that '95 and '99 borns have little in common. That's just false.

I will say this one more time, people born in 1995-98 are a cusp. They don't share strong Millennial qualities like people born in the mid 80s-early 90s. They also don't share strong Gen Z qualities like early 00s-late 00s borns. They have both qualities that make them lean either way, that's why the term "Zillennial" exists despite being unofficial. Just like Xennials and Generation Jones.

And that is wrong. 1999 is Gen Y.

I could give you like millions of reasons on why they’re Gen Z but I’m way too worn out from typing to do that right now. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I will say this one more time, people born in 1995-98 are a cusp. They don't share strong Millennial qualities like people born in the mid 80s-early 90s. They also don't share strong Gen Z qualities like early 00s-late 00s borns. They have both qualities that make them lean either way, that's why the term "Zillennial" exists despite being unofficial. Just like Xennials and Generation Jones.

Um, why are you leaving out '99ers? ???

'98 and '99 borns are barely any different.

I will say this one more time, people born in 1995-98 are a cusp. They don't share strong Millennial qualities like people born in the mid 80s-early 90s. They also don't share strong Gen Z qualities like early 00s-late 00s borns. They have both qualities that make them lean either way, that's why the term "Zillennial" exists despite being unofficial. Just like Xennials and Generation Jones.

Stop making 1995 the cutoff for everything. I'm sorry it just annoys me people pick 1995 our of all years. Why? Why is 1995 so significant and how is it any different to 1994? Ugh, sorry this shouldn't bother me but it does.

Um, why are you leaving out '99ers? ???

'98 and '99 borns are barely any different.

And a more important question is why everyone keeps starting at 1995 randomly? So annoying.

People act as if someone born in 1994 are like 20 years older than someone born in 1995. It's just nonsense. There's no generational difference at all between the two.

Now here's the thing. With childhood, I can understand the "more in common with 1990-1993 than 2000-2003". When it comes to the teenaged years, though, especially the peak teen years, I personally think it's slighty more closer to 2000-2003. And I say slightly because I'm not denying that you do have some similarities with those born in the early 90's. But because smartphones and social media like Twitter and Instagram got popular very rapidly in the early 2010's, which was when 1996 borns spent most of their teenaged years, that's the aspect where I believe they are a little more like someone born in 2001 than someone born in 1991.


Here's my opinion on this (and this has nothing to do with generations), MySpace, Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, Twitter, Vine, Snapchat, all of it are forms of social media that have defined the social media era. MySpace is early social media but still part of the era IMO. Everybody born in the 90's (even very late 80's) used social media to interact with friends & acquaintances at some point of their high school careers whether it was MySpace, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Vine, or Snapchat. Those born around the early to mid 80's were the last ones to spend their high school years (or majority) without social media or Web 2.0. Now when I think of the peak of the social media era, YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter are the MAJOR 4 and have always been the major 4 IMO. The major 4 have been in full force since 2009/10.

This is what I mean by having a childhood either in the Web 1.0 era (the case for Millennials) or a childhood in the Web 2.0 era (the case for Gen Z and beyond). It does not mean that kids in the Late 2000s were using or were surrounded by smartphones necessarily, but their relationship to technology at a young age is relatively different even to children that primarily grew up in the early 2000s. When you talk to people born in the early 00s now on their nostalgic memories of the Golden Age of YouTube (2007-2012 or so), they're referring to these experiences as children. Having a video sharing sites millions upon millions of videos at your fingertips, that alone is enough entertainment to suffice for a child (probably not the greatest quality or age appropriate, but I digress). The association of kids spending too much time on the internet, particularly sites like YouTube, is something that started around the Late 2000s as these sites were already massively popular but not as regulated (for better or worse) as they are now.

I pick 2005 as a cutoff year, mainly because;

1 ) DSL usage rates had already surpassed dial-up usage rates by 2005

2 ) MySpace and Facebook had already launched at this point, and both sites would truly start to gain steam in this year

3 ) YouTube officially launches this year

4 ) The iPod is now becoming much more of a success, you had the launch of the iPod Nano later on that year

5 ) Many retailers finally stopped selling VHS tapes in 2005 or so. DVDs were solely all the rage (for a small piece of time)

6 ) Xbox 360 launches late in the year, the first of the Seventh Generation of Video Game Consoles (an era defined by online multiplayer becoming much more engrained in the gaming experience)

So even though the iPhone hadn't launched yet, the building blocks were already there. 2004-2007 was more a transition period in the grand scheme of things, but by Late 2007 we were most certainly within the Web 2.0 era.


I'm not denying that it was a significant time for technology, however I think you are over exaggerating the extent to which it changed people's lives (especially that of children). It would be like saying that Late '70s kids had a completely different childhood to the kids of the Early '70s due to the release of the Apple I in 1976. An important milestone in technology, sure, but people's day-to-day lives didn't change overnight. It was a gradual transition, much like how the rise of social media was as well.

https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2015/10/08/social-networking-usage-2005-2015/

Also, I don't know what 2005 you were living in to say that both Myspace and Facebook started to gain steam that year. Even as recently as 2008, just 25% of American adults were using at least one social media site, that's 3/4 quarters of the adult population who still weren't on social media at that time. Things only started to change at the very end of the decade. Social media during the Mid-Late 2000s was primarily a teen phenomenon. I mean, think about it. Part of the reason as to why Myspace was so integral to the popularity of the emo subculture was that it was a safe haven for teens, the majority of adults weren't using it, let alone people who were kids at the time like myself. They didn't have to worry about their parents stumbling across their gloomy, wrist-slitting profile pages.

The only social media site kids were using during the era was YouTube, and even then, it only became the huge cultural phenomenon that it is shortly after "Charlie Bit My Finger" became a viral hit back in 2007. Attitudes towards kids spending time on the internet and social media were different back then. The idea of letting your kid spend hours on the net was still frowned upon, it's not like today where many kids get their first smartphone device when they are just starting primary school. I personally didn't go on YouTube until 2010. Also, you've got to remember too that many people were still on DSL-Broadband or even dial-up during the Mid-Late 2000s, which meant that you only had a set amount of GBs to use each month and going over the maximum amount would result in a higher internet bill. Parents didn't let their kids spend too much time on the internet for that reason alone; maybe 30 minutes to an 1 hour a day at the most.

And a more important question is why everyone keeps starting at 1995 randomly? So annoying.

People act as if someone born in 1994 are like 20 years older than someone born in 1995. It's just nonsense. There's no generational difference at all between the two.

Every cutoff is going to be arbitrary.There's no exact clear-cut answer.

And a more important question is why everyone keeps starting at 1995 randomly? So annoying.

People act as if someone born in 1994 are like 20 years older than someone born in 1995. It's just nonsense. There's no generational difference at all between the two.

Like Zelda said, some people use 1995 because it’s a round number. There’s no logical reason to start Gen Z in 1995 over any other year. Same with 1980 being the start of Gen Y. 1982 would be more logical because they turned 18 in 2000.

But 1997 is the most common starting year for Gen Z as Zelda’s comprehensive list shows, with 1996 being the most common final year of Gen Y.

But 1997 is the most common starting year for Gen Z as Zelda’s comprehensive list shows, with 1996 being the most common final year of Gen Y.

I have always heard 2000 being the most common starting point for Gen Z, but fine whatever I guess if people want to start at '97 that's fine. Is there any logic to it though? I guess it's because they didn't grow up in the early to mid 2000s but mid to late 2000s instead. Still, I don't know if that's significant in determining what generation someone belongs to.

If it's about remembering 9/11, that's always shaky ground because 9/11 is a lot less significant in other places in the world than it is in the United States.

There is no universal consensus on when Gen Y ends and where Gen Z begins. However, it's usually no earlier than '95 and no later than '00.

Only a few exceptions.

Rainbowz, this is the last time that I am going to thoroughly address through all of these points, one by one. I don't mean to sound condescending, but I've literally addressed these points before, extensively in great detail mind you, and you're quite literally not listening to what I have to say, and thus this conversation is honestly becoming pretty annoying.


I thought I already explained it here.Most of the stuff I mentioned became popular while you were still in high school (AKA one's "peak" teenaged years). Vine got popular in 2013. By then people your age were 17 years old, most likely juniors in high school. Vine's peak was the entire mid-2010's, so technically, Vine was popular for at least half of your high school years (2012-2013 and 2013-2014). It's not unreasonable to assume that 1996 borns would've most likely been using Vine and smartphones during high school, something that virtually nobody born in the late 80's or possibly even the early 90's had during theirs


Ok, I will slightly grant you this. But here is the thing though, particularly with the bold, technically Vine didn't really get big until the end of the 2012-2013 school year (right around Spring/Summer of 2013). The entirety of 2013-2014, yes it was pretty popular, but even so that's only about roughly one third of my overall high school experience. The vast majority of it, including most of what was my 'peak' teenaged years (age 16.5 to my 17th birthday) was technically spent just prior. But it was still apart of my core teenaged years, just not the majority of them. That is an important distinction to make.


But that was only in 2009. The vast majority of 1996 borns teenaged years were in the early 2010's.
Both you and a person born in 2001 spent the vast majority of the teenaged years in the 2010's.
I'm confused on this. If I'm understanding correctly, you think that part of your teenaged years were more like a 1991 borns because both of you spent the majority of your middle school years in the 2000’s?
This same logic could also be applied to you and a person born in 2001 both spending the majority of your high school years in the 2010’s. Once again proving my point that you have just as much in common with someone born in 1991 as you do with someone born in 2001.
First off, for arguments sake, I'm only specifically talking about people your age. Those born in 1996.


I don't think you understood the point of my little exercise. The point I was trying to illustrate was not that 1996 borns were core 2000s teens, I was just eluding to the fact that we still were teens when the 2000s decade was over. Now take that for what you will, but that is just an inconvenient truth for your prevailing argument. 2001ers are still teens now (and depending on when they were born, may still be teens close to another 2 years). Once again, I am not saying that 2001ers are core 2020s teens. What I am just trying to explain is that the mere fact that 1996ers were teens in the 2000s, even for a relatively short period of time, and were never teens in the 2020s, is evidenced in itself that they lean both mathematically and culturally towards most Late 2000s teens rather than to most Late 2010s teens.

And yes, I understand that 96ers spent the vast majority of their actual teenaged years in the 2010s. But they spent most of their 'core' teenaged years in the early 2010s, 2012 being around when they peaked, and we already established how 2012 was culturally closer to the 2007/2008-2009 electropop era, which continued in earnest until 2012/2013 or so. The core 2010s picked up after, around mid 2013 or so, which would ultimately end in about 2018 or so. Culturally, while subjective in some way, most agree that 2007-2012 is one era. Mathematically speaking, it is no denying that we are mathematically closer in age to someone like your average early 90s born teen versus your average early 00s born teen.

2012 was 3 years after 2009, 4 years after 2008, and 5 years after 2007.

2012 was 7 years before 2019, 6 years before 2018, and 5 years before 2017.

Let's just look simply at who I am closer in age with, your average early 90s baby vs. your average early 00s baby. I was born in the first half of 1996. If we go with a conservative birth year definition for early 90s babies as January of 1990 to December of 1992, a total of 36 months, the halfway point (18 months into the early 90s) would be at about June of 1991. This same logic applies for early 00s babies, January of 2000 to December of 2002, June of 2001 being the halfway point. Someone born in June of 1991 is 4 years and 9 months older than myself, while I am older than the person born in June of 2001 by 5 years and 3 months. And this is the conservative estimate for calculating early 90s/00s babies.

If you extend this range more moderately, to say, April of 93'/03' respectively, it becomes a range of 40 months. The 20 month mark, aka the halfway point, would be August of 91'/01' respectively. The Aug 91' baby is only older than me by 4 years and 7 months, while I am older than the Aug 01' baby by 5 years and 5 months.

Finally, if you do the most generous range for early 90s/early 00s babies, to about Dec. of 93'/03' respectively, it becomes a range of 48 months in total, with the 24th month being the halfway point, with those being born in Dec. of 91' vs. Dec. of 01'. At that point it is not even a question; The Dec. of 91' person is only older than me by 4 years and 3 months, that is practically just a 4 year age difference in the grand scheme of things. While a person born in Dec. of 01' is younger than me by 5 years and 9 months, practically close to 6 years younger than myself. Even if I never attended high school with neither groups, the relationship between the former is stronger due to the roughly 4 year age difference vs. the roughly 6 year age difference for the other person. I would only be 1 year removed from attending high school with the former group, while I would be 3 years removed from attending high school with the latter group.


In all three of these examples, I lean closer in age to early 90s babies 100% of the time. So mathematically speaking, if I want to say that my teenhood was closer in relation to an early 90s baby's teenhood, that wouldn't necessarily be a controversial thing to say. Now here is the other kicker, not only were we closer in relation to early 90s baby's teenhood mathematically or culturally, but also technologically as well.


When it comes to a 1996 borns teenaged years, the majority of them most likely would've been using smartphones, since they became widespread already by 2011/2012 (Hell, maybe even a bit earlier, though I'm not sure). Instagram started becoming widespread in 2012, which was when 1996 borns were 16, so it's likely that 1996 borns would've been using Instagram at the time. Compare that to someone born in 1991, who was 16 at the peak of Myspace and when the iPhone just came out.

Once again, I don't mean to sound condescending, but you weren't around back then, so your specifics are off. Smartphones were not widespread in 2011, in 2012 sure (somewhat), but even so that was really more Late 2012. The second half of my high school experience was with smartphones, I am not discarding that, but the mere fact that the first half of my high school experience was spent without smartphones being common, allows people my age to be able to relate to early 90s baby teens a little bit more. Not to mention the fact, which I keep having to explain to you, but I digress, is that most 96ers 'first phones' were either flip phones, 'brick' phones, or (if from a wealthy background) those embellished 'feature'/'dumb phones'. And many 96ers used these type of phones (LG Chocolates, T-Mobile sidekicks, Blackberries, etc. etc.) as our main phones of choice (and quite frankly, necessity) until about 2012 or so, as smartphones were becoming more viable around that point.

Some kids I remember did get iPhones in 2011, particularly the kids from wealthier families. While others, like myself, from more working-class backgrounds, did not get 'proper' smartphones until 2013 or so (I had an off-market Android in 2012 that was slow as hell and could only run certain applications. It was really more of an over-glorified 'feature phone' if anything). Most did get 'proper' smartphones by 2012, particularly the later half, but that doesn't annul the experience of different cell phones that 96ers had gone through prior. At the end of the day, everybody and their grandmother currently uses a smartphone. Early 90s babies of course eventually got smartphones as well. And yes, perhaps you have a point about 91ers never having the access to smartphones in their core teenaged years like 96ers and 01ers did, I'll slightly grant you that. However though, the mere fact that 96ers also experienced the 'growing pains' of cell phone technology in much of the 2000s and early 2010s, along with most other early 90s babies, makes them able to relate slightly more with early 90s babies, as such, in that category. Once again, most people born in the 2000s didn't really have those same types of experiences, getting an iPhone as your 'first phone' was already an expectation. That is also not to mention that you guys really don't have much experiences or memories (if any) of a world prior to smartphones/social media becoming an integral part of daily life to begin with. That is just a different relationship to technology, something that most 90s babies just simply cannot relate to.


Now here's the thing. With childhood, I can understand the "more in common with 1990-1993 than 2000-2003". When it comes to the teenaged years, though, especially the peak teen years, I personally think it's slighty more closer to 2000-2003. And I say slightly because I'm not denying that you do have some similarities with those born in the early 90's. But because smartphones and social media like Twitter and Instagram got popular very rapidly in the early 2010's, which was when 1996 borns spent most of their teenaged years, that's the aspect where I believe they are a little more like someone born in 2001 than someone born in 1991.

So Rainbowz, I just went through all of these points, one after another. Mathematically, culturally, and yes even technologically, most 96ers are a lot closer in relation to 91ers rather than 01ers. I guess to be more specific, as perhaps this is why this conversation has been so controversial to you, but particularly the High School Class of 2014, aka those born from Late 1995 to Mid 1996 thereabouts, are closer to early 90s born teens in general. Those born in the second half of 1996, or members of the High School Class of 2015, may actually be technically closer to early 00s born teens rather than early 90s born teens. So if that puts you at some ease, you can just say that those in the C/O 15' (which includes some 96' babies) are closer to Late 2010s teens, while the C/O 14' (which includes most 96' babies) are closer to Late 2000s teens.

I'm done having this conversation. If you disagree, you can always PM me. But at this rate, and it's something that I genuinely hate, but this thread is turning into just pure 'generationology'.

There is no universal consensus on when Gen Y ends and where Gen Z begins. However, it's usually no earlier than '95 and no later than '00.

Only a few exceptions.



https://media1.tenor.com/images/6def7f0ebb37b767c36fafbbccc01a98/tenor.gif?itemid=5735889

It looks like WW3 is going on in this thread ;D.

Anyways, there's no clear consensus on when Gen Y ends and where Gen Z begins. Right now, it's mostly up to your opinion.

I personally think Gen Y/Millennial generation should be 1982-2000 because that just looks the best and makes the most sense. Within that range, there should be a micro-generation called "Zillennials" for those born from 1995/6-2000 because in honesty, we're a mix of both and don't fit neatly into either Gen Y or Gen Z. Depending on the 1995-2000 born, some lean towards Gen Y and others toward Gen Z.

Just like those born from 1977-1981 are called "Xennials" because they don't fit neatly into Gen X or Gen Y. However, at the end of the day, these generation labels don't really matter and I identify myself as a "2000s kid" much more than a "Millennial/Gen Y" or "Gen Z".


This is my favorite definition too. Sorry if this triggers some people, but yes Millennials, aka 'Echo Boomers' (because we're primarily the offspring of Baby Boomers), is a huge generation. So as such, if BB are 18 years long, so are Millennials. And please don't give me the "18 years is TOO LONG FOR A GENERATION!!!! >:(!!!!!" spiel, because any 18 year age gap is going to be quite big. Do you genuinely believe that someone born in 1946 had a similar life experience to someone born in 1964? That's exactly my point, but that doesn't annul the fact that demographically and sociologically speaking, they're both still Boomers. 1945 is objectively not a Boomer birth year, due to them being born during the war effort, and 1965 is also objectively not a Boomer birth year, due to being born when the actual 'Post War Boom' ended.

1982ers were the first to graduate high school in the 'new Millennium' (the symbolic 'new millennium', mind you), while also being in their peak youth (1998/1999) during the start of pure Millennial youth culture. 2000ers were the last to be born in the 20th century, the last to spend most of their core childhood prior to the Great Recession, and spend most of their core youth prior to Trump's presidency. It also correlates well with the Chinese Zodiac, and perfectly with election years; (2004, 2008, 2012, and 2016 were generational defining election years for Millennials in the same way that the elections of 1968, 1972, 1976, and 1980 were generational defining election years for Baby Boomers).

1982-2000 also just rolls off the tongue much better. This will remain my personal favorite generational birth range, and arguably the least controversial, but unfortunately you cannot even guarantee that anymore ;D.

This is my favorite definition too. Sorry if this triggers some people, but yes Millennials, aka 'Echo Boomers' (because we're primarily the offspring of Baby Boomers), is a huge generation. So as such, if BB are 18 years long, so are Millennials. And please don't give me the "18 years is TOO LONG FOR A GENERATION!!!! >:(!!!!!" spiel, because any 18 year age gap is going to be quite big. Do you genuinely believe that someone born in 1946 had a similar life experience to someone born in 1964? That's exactly my point, but that doesn't annul the fact that demographically and sociologically speaking, they're both still Boomers. 1945 is objectively not a Boomer birth year, due to them being born during the war effort, and 1965 is also objectively not a Boomer birth year, due to being born when the actual 'Post War Boom' ended.

1982ers were the first to graduate high school in the 'new Millennium' (the symbolic 'new millennium', mind you), while also being in their peak youth (1998/1999) during the start of pure Millennial youth culture. 2000ers were the last to be born in the 20th century, the last to spend most of their core childhood prior to the Great Recession, and spend most of their core youth prior to Trump's presidency. It also correlates well with the Chinese Zodiac, and perfectly with election years; (2004, 2008, 2012, and 2016 were generational defining election years for Millennials in the same way that the elections of 1968, 1972, 1976, and 1980 were generational defining election years for Baby Boomers).

1982-2000 also just rolls off the tongue much better. This will remain my personal favorite generational birth range, and arguably the least controversial, but unfortunately you cannot even guarantee that anymore ;D.


It's only least controversial in terms of least hurt feelings. But I feel like 2000 is waay too young to be millennial. I mean, we're talking about kids whose parents probably made a Facebook profile for them, and uploaded their pictures there without their permission. I think they were slightly late to the party. :o

It's only least controversial in terms of least hurt feelings. But I feel like 2000 is waay too young to be millennial. I mean, we're talking about kids whose parents probably made a Facebook profile for them, and uploaded their pictures there without their permission. I think they were slightly late to the party. :o

Generations have to end somewhere. 1964/5 borns don't have much in common with 1946/7 borns yet both are considered to be "Baby Boomers". 1976 borns don't have much in common with 1966 borns yet both are considers to be "Gen Xers".

On the contrary, I've seen a few sources actually extend it past 2000 and some, but this is very rare (not to mention wrong), make Gen Z start in 1993.

Generations have to end somewhere. 1964/5 borns don't have much in common with 1946/7 borns yet both are considered to be "Baby Boomers". 1976 borns don't have much in common with 1966 borns yet both are considers to be "Gen Xers".


Why would 1966 borns not have much in common with 1976 borns?  ???

Baby Boomers are usually split into two, regular Boomers and Gen Jones. Still though I do see the link between 1946 and 1963 borns, the important thing is to remember the 1960s (including 1970/1971) transforming into the 1970s. Someone born just a few years later wouldn't remember the changes of the '60s at all, the '70s would be their "normal". A very Gen X perspective.

2000 is very Gen Z. Their parents probably got Facebook and smartphones before they did. Their first phone in 2013 would most likely be a smartphone.  I don't see how they're all that different from my sisters born 2005, they also got their first smartphones at 13.

Why would 1966 borns not have much in common with 1976 borns?  ???

Baby Boomers are usually split into two, regular Boomers and Gen Jones. Still though I do see the link between 1946 and 1963 borns, the important thing is to remember the 1960s (including 1970/1971) transforming into the 1970s. Someone born just a few years later wouldn't remember the changes of the '60s at all, the '70s would be their "normal". A very Gen X perspective.

2000 is very Gen Z. Their parents probably got Facebook and smartphones before they did. Their first phone in 2013 would most likely be a smartphone.  I don't see how they're all that different from my sisters born 2005, they also got their first smartphones at 13.

I can confirm. I had my first smartphone around the 2014-2015 school year, which was a Samsung Galaxy S4; it was pretty much slower than iPhones, but I still enjoyed it. Then I had a cheaper Samsung phone in 2017 for Christmas, and now I have an S8 (yeah, my family's lower middle class  :-\\).

Why would 1966 borns not have much in common with 1976 borns?  ???

Baby Boomers are usually split into two, regular Boomers and Gen Jones. Still though I do see the link between 1946 and 1963 borns, the important thing is to remember the 1960s (including 1970/1971) transforming into the 1970s. Someone born just a few years later wouldn't remember the changes of the '60s at all, the '70s would be their "normal". A very Gen X perspective.

2000 is very Gen Z. Their parents probably got Facebook and smartphones before they did. Their first phone in 2013 would most likely be a smartphone.  I don't see how they're all that different from my sisters born 2005, they also got their first smartphones at 13.

1966 borns grew up in the '70s and 1976 borns grew up in the '80s. That's 2 completely different decades of growing up in. C'mon dude.
Also, at turn of the century, '76 borns were still essentially college aged. Meanwhile, '66 borns were fully fledged adults in their mid '30s. Do you really think of Janet Jackson (1966 born) and Ja Rule (1976 born) of being in the same generation, for example? I really don't.

Anyways, most 2005 borns didn't get a smartphones at age 13. Are you kidding me? 2005 borns just turned 13 in 2018. You really think that's when most 2005 borns got smartphones? Yeah right lol. Additionally, I'm not even talking about personal smartphones. 2005 borns were using smartphones and tablets during the core of their childhood (ages 5-10, 2010 to 2015). Their parents or older siblings gave it to them to use and using smartphones as a little kid in the core of your childhood is different than using smartphones when you're an adolescent which is when most 2000 borns starting using smartphones and tablets.

2000 borns didn't grow up with smartphones unlike 2005 borns did. 2000 borns can remember a time when smartphones didn't exist. most 2005 borns can't.

1966 borns grew up in the '70s and 1976 borns grew up in the '80s. That's 2 completely different decades of growing up in. C'mon dude.
Also, at turn of the century, '76 borns were still essentially college aged. Meanwhile, '66 borns were fully fledged adults in their mid '30s. Do you really think of Janet Jackson (1966 born) and Ja Rule (1976 born) of being in the same generation, for example? I really don't.

Anyways, most 2005 borns didn't get a smartphones at age 13. Are you kidding me? 2005 borns just turned 13 in 2018. You really think that's when most 2005 borns got smartphones? Yeah right lol. Additionally, I'm not even talking about personal smartphones. 2005 borns were using smartphones and tablets during the core of their childhood (ages 5-10, 2010 to 2015). Their parents or older siblings gave it to them to use and using smartphones as a little kid in the core of your childhood is different than using smartphones when you're an adolescent which is when most 2000 borns starting using smartphones and tablets.

2000 borns didn't grow up with smartphones unlike 2005 borns did. 2000 borns can remember a time when smartphones didn't exist. most 2005 borns can't.


I know plenty of 1975/1976 borns in real life and my mom is born 1966, I don't need to think about Ja Rule ;D They grew up similarly to 1966 borns; they were already adults before cellphones and Internet came into the picture, grew up during the Cold War and are both of the MTV generation.

2000 don't really know life without smartphones. Sure they might remember other adults not having a smartphone, but they were never in that position themselves. It would be like me saying I remember life before cellphones and Internet. Sure I might have memories of it, but would I be able to live like that myself? No. That's what makes me and 1983 borns millennials. If you took the Internet away from us we'd be lost puppies, because we don't know how to live without it.  If you took 2000 borns' smartphones away, they would similarly be lost. And most 2005 borns didn't have cellphones as kids, you're gonna need to bring the receipts on that because I doubt that's true. 2010-2015 was still early days for smartphones, even a lot of adults didn't have them then let alone kids.

I know plenty of 1975/1976 borns in real life and my mom is born 1966, I don't need to think about Ja Rule ;D They grew up similarly to 1966 borns; they were already adults before cellphones and Internet came into the picture, grew up during the Cold War and are both of the MTV generation.

2000 don't really know life without smartphones. Sure they might remember other adults not having a smartphone, but they were never in that position themselves. It would be like me saying I remember life before cellphones and Internet. Sure I might have memories of it, but would I be able to live like that myself? No. That's what makes me and 1983 borns millennials. If you took the Internet away from us we'd be lost puppies, because we don't know how to live without it.  If you took 2000 borns' smartphones away, they would similarly be lost. And most 2005 borns didn't have cellphones as kids, you're gonna need to bring the receipts on that because I doubt that's true. Even today in 2020 most kids don't have cellphones, even if a sizeable amount do.

I disagree with you on everything.

Also, if you take away smartphones from people born 1990-1995 it would be the same result "they don't know how to live without" either. I don't see your point.

I disagree with you on everything.

Also, if you take away smartphones from people born 1990-1995 it would be the same result "they don't know how to live without" either. I don't see your point.


We wouldn't? What makes you say that? ??? I didn't have a smartphone in high school and a lot of my friends didn't have one in my first two years of uni either and we did quite well. It was actually really nice.

We wouldn't? What makes you say that? ??? I didn't have a smartphone in high school and a lot of my friends didn't have one in my first two years of uni either and we did quite well. It was actually really nice.

I had a supervisor that was born in 1993 and she lived on her phone (when she wasn't working). I had other co-workers born around 1992-1995 and they also lived on their phones.

When they weren't "working", they were on their phones. Also, I'm pretty sure that the age group that popularized the selfie craze was born in the late '80s and early '90s. It wasn't mid-late '90s borns.

I had a supervisor that was born in 1993 and she lived on her phone (when she wasn't working). I had other co-workers born around 1992-1995 and they also lived on their phones.

When they weren't "working", they were on their phones. Also, I'm pretty sure that the age group that popularized the selfie craze was born in the late '80s and early '90s. It wasn't mid-late '90s borns.


I think 1992-1996 can be "Zillennials". We're like 1977-1980 borns in that we grew up Gen Y but can still relate to Gen Z.

We wouldn't? What makes you say that? ??? I didn't have a smartphone in high school and a lot of my friends didn't have one in my first two years of uni either and we did quite well. It was actually really nice.


THIS. I survived all of middle school and most of high school without a smartphone, even as I was technically going through secondary school in a post 2007/iPhone world. 'Proper' smartphones like 4th generation+ iPhones and 4th generation+Androids didn't really get big until 2012 or so, and even then I was slightly behind the curb with my anemic 2nd generation Android (which at best could've surfed the web, but rather slowly).

But at the same time, I do get where BlackPanther is coming from with 2000 borns vs. 2005 borns. 2000 borns are Late 90s babies, just not in name. They spent most of their core childhoods prior to the 2008 crash and before smartphones were both common & a necessity. Hell, they were already 10 when iPads came out and in middle school during the time I was talking about before when smartphones truly began to take off (Late 12'/Early 13'). Now yes, they were much younger during these changes when compared to early-mid 90s babies, but if we can all agree (on some level) that Late 90s babies were the last generation to grow up primarily before the rise of smartphones, I don't think you'd have to suspend too much disbelief in 2000 babies vividly remembering a world prior to smartphones as well. That is regardless of the fact if they can live without the aforementioned technology or not, in today's context. I know several 90s, 80s babies, and yes even some Baby Boomers, that certainly wouldn't be able to live without their smartphones ;D. Yes, of course it's less likely the older someone is, and thus the more experience they have a world prior to the technology becoming the norm, but it's not necessarily impossible to find either.

I think 1992-1996 can be "Zillennials". We're like 1977-1980 borns in that we grew up Gen Y but can still relate to Gen Z.

No. 1995-2000 borns are "Zillennials".

But at the same time, I do get where BlackPanther is coming from with 2000 borns vs. 2005 borns. 2000 borns are Late 90s babies, just not in name. They spent most of their core childhoods prior to the 2008 crash and before smartphones were both common & a necessity. Hell, they were already 10 when iPads came out and in middle school during the time I was talking about before when smartphones truly began to take off (Late 12'/Early 13'). Now yes, they were much younger during these changes when compared to early-mid 90s babies, but if we can all agree (on some level) that Late 90s babies were the last generation to grow up primarily before the rise of smartphones, I don't think you'd have to suspend too much disbelief in 2000 babies vividly remembering a world prior to smartphones as well. That is regardless of the fact if they can live without the aforementioned technology or not, in today's context. I know several 90s, 80s babies, and yes even some Baby Boomers, that certainly wouldn't be able to live without their smartphones ;D. Yes, of course it's less likely the older someone is, and thus the more experience they have a world prior to the technology becoming the norm, but it's not necessarily impossible to find either.

Yeah, this is pretty much exactly my point.

No. 1995-2000 borns are "Zillennials".

Nope. I agree with Slowpoke.

THIS. I survived all of middle school and most of high school without a smartphone, even as I was technically going through secondary school in a post 2007/iPhone world. 'Proper' smartphones like 4th generation+ iPhones and 4th generation+Androids didn't really get big until 2012 or so, and even then I was slightly behind the curb with my anemic 2nd generation Android (which at best could've surfed the web, but rather slowly).

But at the same time, I do get where BlackPanther is coming from with 2000 borns vs. 2005 borns. 2000 borns are Late 90s babies, just not in name. They spent most of their core childhoods prior to the 2008 crash and before smartphones were both common & a necessity. Hell, they were already 10 when iPads came out and in middle school during the time I was talking about before when smartphones truly began to take off (Late 12'/Early 13'). Now yes, they were much younger during these changes when compared to early-mid 90s babies, but if we can all agree (on some level) that Late 90s babies were the last generation to grow up primarily before the rise of smartphones, I don't think you'd have to suspend too much disbelief in 2000 babies vividly remembering a world prior to smartphones as well. That is regardless of the fact if they can live without the aforementioned technology or not, in today's context. I know several 90s, 80s babies, and yes even some Baby Boomers, that certainly wouldn't be able to live without their smartphones ;D. Yes, of course it's less likely the older someone is, and thus the more experience they have a world prior to the technology becoming the norm, but it's not necessarily impossible to find either.


I don't know where you live but smartphones took off in late 2011 and early 2012 at least in my area. I went to a school full of people who are in the upper middle class, I have never seen people with that many iPhones and Samsung in my life throughout that school year. This is the graph of iPhone sales, if you take a look at Q1 2012, Apple always represents Q1 as October-December. The iPhone sales grew massively in late 2011, so the true smartphone age started at that time imo.

https://www.statista.com/graphic/1/263401/global-apple-iphone-sales-since-3rd-quarter-2007.jpg

THIS. I survived all of middle school and most of high school without a smartphone, even as I was technically going through secondary school in a post 2007/iPhone world. 'Proper' smartphones like 4th generation+ iPhones and 4th generation+Androids didn't really get big until 2012 or so, and even then I was slightly behind the curb with my anemic 2nd generation Android (which at best could've surfed the web, but rather slowly).

But at the same time, I do get where BlackPanther is coming from with 2000 borns vs. 2005 borns. 2000 borns are Late 90s babies, just not in name. They spent most of their core childhoods prior to the 2008 crash and before smartphones were both common & a necessity. Hell, they were already 10 when iPads came out and in middle school during the time I was talking about before when smartphones truly began to take off (Late 12'/Early 13'). Now yes, they were much younger during these changes when compared to early-mid 90s babies, but if we can all agree (on some level) that Late 90s babies were the last generation to grow up primarily before the rise of smartphones, I don't think you'd have to suspend too much disbelief in 2000 babies vividly remembering a world prior to smartphones as well. That is regardless of the fact if they can live without the aforementioned technology or not, in today's context. I know several 90s, 80s babies, and yes even some Baby Boomers, that certainly wouldn't be able to live without their smartphones ;D. Yes, of course it's less likely the older someone is, and thus the more experience they have a world prior to the technology becoming the norm, but it's not necessarily impossible to find either.


I don't think because you're on your smartphone means you don't know how to live without your smartphone. My mom born 1966 is on her smartphone all day but before that she was on her regular cellphone all day and before that she was on the home phone all day. It's just a force of habit. She could definitely go without it, she would just go back to the way things were in the 90s.

To me even late 90s babies are not Gen Y (that's not to say I can't relate to them, I can relate even to my 2005 born sister just fine).  Pew starts it at 1997, they describe it as the generation that grew up after smartphones and 24/7 connectivity. I thought it was really succinct. Childhood is not that important in my opinion. I remember 1999 but it's not like I still use a Walkman and play movies on VHS, I use Spotify and Netflix just like Gen Z does. That's because in my teen years digital downloads were already big and that's what everyone was using.

Nope. I agree with Slowpoke.

As do I. 2000 is just straight-up Z to me.

I don't know where you live but smartphones took off in late 2011 and early 2012 at least in my area. I went to a school full of people who are in the upper middle class, I have never seen people with that many iPhones and Samsung in my life throughout that school year. This is the graph of iPhone sales, if you take a look at Q1 2012, Apple always represents Q1 as October-December. The iPhone sales grew massively in late 2011, so the true smartphone age started at that time imo.

https://www.statista.com/graphic/1/263401/global-apple-iphone-sales-since-3rd-quarter-2007.jpg

Key term here is: "upper middle class". Most people aren't upper middle class.

Also, even still getting/using a smartphone at 12-14 years old is much different than getting/using a smartphone at 4-6 years old.

I don't know where you live but smartphones took off in late 2011 and early 2012 at least in my area. I went to a school full of people who are in the upper middle class, I have never seen people with that many iPhones and Samsung in my life throughout that school year. This is the graph of iPhone sales, if you take a look at Q1 2012, Apple always represents Q1 as October-December. The iPhone sales grew massively in late 2011, so the true smartphone age started at that time imo.

https://www.statista.com/graphic/1/263401/global-apple-iphone-sales-since-3rd-quarter-2007.jpg


That only shows growth of sales though, not necessarily the percentage of people that owned them. And I already briefly said that I acknowledged (based on empirical data and personal experience) that around Late 2011/Early 2012 were when the earliest traces of smartphones started to become more viable. It was when I noticed some of the kids my age from more upper-middle class/wealthier households began getting iPhones and other 'proper' smartphones. Most kids my age though, didn't really jump on the bandwagon until about Late 2012/Early 2013.


https://www.textrequest.com/media/2321/mobile-phone-ownership-over-time.png


As this graph shows, most Americans didn't start to own smartphones en masse, as in when the threshold hit 50%, until sometime between 2012 and 2014. It looks like one could deduce that it was sometime in or around the Late 2012/Early 2013 time period, which correlates well to my anecdotal experience of when I started to see more smartphones in my personal life amongst my peers. And keep in mind, the area I grew up in was a relatively upper-middle class/wealthy suburb of NYC, about an hour outside of it, so it may as well had been a little bit slower of a transition in even some more relatively working class towns across the USA, not to mention in regions of the country that are not geographically close to the permeating influence of what is considered the 'economic capital of the world'.

It’s also worth pointing out that young adults, especially the 25-34 demographic, were the earliest smartphone adopters, not teenagers. Teenager smartphone ownership rates were more or less identical to the general population in the early 2010s, maybe even a bit lower. Compare that to now where the rate is higher than the general population for 13-18 year olds.

Childhood is very important. Smartphones didn't become more mainstream at the end of my middle school years and then exploded in popularity during the beginning of my high school years.

How is that comparable to someone who has no or little memories of a time before smartphones? ???

Just because us '99 borns use smartphones now just as much as everyone else doesn't mean that we are "100% Gen Z". Same goes for 2000 borns. I'm fine with late '90s borns being considered to be "early Gen Z" but being early Gen Z is not the same as being a core-late Gen Zer (2003-2009 borns).


It’s also worth pointing out that young adults, especially the 25-34 demographic, were the earliest smartphone adopters, not teenagers. Teenager smartphone ownership rates were more or less identical to the general population in the early 2010s, maybe even a bit lower. Compare that to now where the rate is higher than the general population for 13-18 year olds.

Exactly! O0

That only shows growth of sales though, not necessarily the percentage of people that owned them. And I already briefly said that I acknowledged (based on empirical data and personal experience) that around Late 2011/Early 2012 were when the earliest traces of smartphones started to become more viable. It was when I noticed some of the kids my age from more upper-middle class/wealthier households began getting iPhones and other 'proper' smartphones. Most kids my age though, didn't really jump on the bandwagon until about Late 2012/Early 2013.


https://www.textrequest.com/media/2321/mobile-phone-ownership-over-time.png


As this graph shows, most Americans didn't start to own smartphones en masse, as in when the threshold hit 50%, until sometime between 2012 and 2014. It looks like one could deduce that it was sometime in or around the Late 2012/Early 2013 time period, which correlates well to my anecdotal experience of when I started to see more smartphones in my personal life amongst my peers. And keep in mind, the area I grew up in was a relatively upper-middle class/wealthy suburb of NYC, about an hour outside of it, so it may as well had been a little bit slower of a transition in even some more relatively working class towns across the USA, not to mention in regions of the country that are not geographically close to the permeating influence of what is considered the 'economic capital of the world'.


Yeah, it all depends on where you live, the smartphone age would've started in late 2013 and early 2014 at schools in rural areas while the smartphone age started in late 2011 and early 2012 at schools in California, particularly Orange County and the Bay Area.

Key term here is: "upper middle class". Most people aren't upper middle class.

Also, even still getting/using a smartphone at 12-14 years old is much different than getting/using a smartphone at 4-6 years old.


Sorry but who is getting smartphones at five or four? That's not even a Gen Alpha trait. At that age they're just bigger toddlers :o

2005 borns didn't grow up as high tech as you think. My parents didn't get a smartphone until 2013, so they do remember flip phones. Spotify didn't launch in Canada (or get popular in the US) until 2015 so they did preorder Ariana Grande and Justin Bieber CDs and play them in the car. They bought their favourite movies on DVD before Netflix. They didn't get their first smartphone until they were 13 which is very normal despite what you think, they never asked for a phone before that. You're talking like people born 2005 had their ultrasound pics on Instagram.

Yeah, it all depends on where you live, the smartphone age would've started in late 2013 and early 2014 at schools in rural areas while the smartphone age started in late 2011 and early 2012 at schools in California, particularly Orange County and the Bay Area.

Smartphones were already pretty popular even by 2011 tbh, at least here in New Jersey. I remember my older sister had one by 2011.

Smartphones were already pretty popular even by 2011 tbh, at least here in New Jersey. I remember my older sister had one by 2011.

In the end, 2011 is the year when Smartphones STARTED to become viable and making some sort of impact. I know most people didn’t own smartphones but the demand for it was huge. I even saw some smartphones during the 2010-2011 school year but only during the 2011 portion semester.

As do I. 2000 is just straight-up Z to me.

I don't think because you're on your smartphone means you don't know how to live without your smartphone. My mom born 1966 is on her smartphone all day but before that she was on her regular cellphone all day and before that she was on the home phone all day. It's just a force of habit. She could definitely go without it, she would just go back to the way things were in the 90s.

To me even late 90s babies are not Gen Y (that's not to say I can't relate to them, I can relate even to my 2005 born sister just fine).  Pew starts it at 1997, they describe it as the generation that grew up after smartphones and 24/7 connectivity. I thought it was really succinct. Childhood is not that important in my opinion. I remember 1999 but it's not like I still use a Walkman and play movies on VHS, I use Spotify and Netflix just like Gen Z does. That's because in my teen years digital downloads were already big and that's what everyone was using.


Culturally, perhaps you guys have a point. Demographically and sociologically speaking though, I would still comfortably say that anybody born upto about 2000 is safely a Millennial. When I speak demographically, I also say this in the relation to 'lifestyle'. The difference between a 2000 born whom spent most of their childhoods/teenhoods in a primarily Millennial centric culture/environment can at least have a clear conception of Millennial ideals, even if ever faint to some eyes, is considerably a different experience to even someone just a few years younger to a 2000 born. Hence why I consider 2000 borns 'Late 90s babies, just not in name'.

The difference between a 2000 born and 2005 born seems more staggering to me than the difference between a 1995 born and a 2000 born, despite both being rather big 5 year age gaps from a cultural perspective. Hence why I am not discarding the fact how, in the grand scheme of things, a 2000 born may be more like Z from that perspective, especially by being so 'borderline' on the and being young enough to truly immerse themselves into newer generation's culture. However, even so, it's just that the latter 5 year age difference just simply suggests a difference in sub generational categories, with an 95' born being much more solidly Y/Millennial, but with some minute Z traits, while the 00' born just being on the opposite side of that cultural spectrum. While with the latter category, an 05' born is just straight up full blown Generation Z, no questions asked, which suggests both a relative sub-generational difference (which any 5 year gap would display) and an actual sociological generational difference that permeates in actual lifestyle.

You can make the same observation with anybody born from 1959-1964, the epitome of 'Generation Jones', aka too young to remember JFK's assassination but old enough to remember the Apollo Moon landings and the end of the 1960s, and spend most of their childhoods in the 'cultural 1960s' (prior to 1973, the cultural start of the 70s). But culturally speaking, 1964 in the grand scheme of things is so borderline to Generation X, that from a cultural perspective, they might as well be 'X'. However, the memories that a 64er has in relation, to say, a 69er, even with the 5 year age difference is pretty staggering. All the 69er knows from their earliest memories is a world that is definitively 1970s, not to mention a post Apollo Moon Landing/Counter-Cultural world. The 64er at least has a conception of the 1960s, even if much of their concrete existence was spent after. But funnily enough, while they still give off Xer like vibes in their cultural affinities, they still seemed to be noticeably a bit more 'Boomer' than fellow mid-late 60s babies. You can arguably say that those born in 63'-64' were probably the last true 'Yuppies' in many respects, as they would've been the last to have a significant amount of their workforce experiences, not to mention their professional workforce experiences, in the 1980s, as most would've graduated from undergraduate education in 1986, a little more than year prior to the infamous 1987 stock market crash. Someone born even just a few years after, like a 67' born, just has a completely different relationship with the 80s, as they didn't graduate from undergraduate schooling until 1989, post 87' crash no less, so it's not surprising that there may have already been many 'Slackers' in that particular cohort that rebelled against the up-tight 'Yuppy zeitgeist' of the 1980s.

I think in the grand scheme of things, the 64er would probably just relate more to the Xer due to the Xer cultural influence that they grew up very close to, but lifestyle wise it's also crazy how different a 3-4 age difference could make, which resulted in most 64ers ironically getting the bigger end of the stick relative to most 67ers, even if they quite frankly do not notice it or try to 'save face' and deny it. This fueled, unbeknownst to them, what would be a much more noticeable sense of angst felt among many Late 60's borns. That's a potentially similar dynamic with 2000 borns when compared to the rest of their 2000s born decade brethren. Culturally they are not that far apart from 2003 borns (arguably closer to them than to 97' borns), but demographically speaking, they might as well be in separate sociological generations. But that is assuming if the 1982-2000 definition is an accurate way in defining Millennials and if history repeats itself, with similar dynamics, then that much would hold true. 2016 was in many ways was a 'neo' 1980 (and I'm not just talking about the election, but the economic, sociological, and cultural elements to that year as well). Perhaps if things continue in the trajectory that we began fastly heading towards since 2016 that this generational theory could continue to hold true, or it may not, we'd have to see. But this is utilizing the Chinese Zodiac mainly, not to mention elements of Howe/Strauss's 'Four Turnings' theory on predicting events based on historical data and trends, particularly demographic trends and how it related to society, so take it for what you will.

Sorry but who is getting smartphones at five or four? That's not even a Gen Alpha trait. At that age they're just bigger toddlers :o

2005 borns didn't grow up as high tech as you think. My parents didn't get a smartphone until 2013, so they do remember flip phones. Spotify didn't launch in Canada (or get popular in the US) until 2015 so they did preorder Ariana Grande and Justin Bieber CDs and play them in the car. They bought their favourite movies on DVD before Netflix. They didn't get their first smartphone until they were 13 which is very normal despite what you think, they never asked for a phone before that. You're talking like people born 2005 had their ultrasound pics on Instagram.

What I mean is that people born in in the mid-late 2000s have very little or no memories of a time before smartphones.

For example, when I was 6 (in 2005), if I was bored I had to either play outside, play with my toys or watch TV (and it wasn't an HD TV). When a 2007 born was 6 (in 2013), if they were bored, their parent or older sibling would just give them a smartphone or tablet (like an iPad) to play with. Smartphones and tablets have become the "toys" or "playing outside" for kids that grew up in the 2010s.

Childhood is very important. Smartphones didn't become more mainstream at the end of my middle school years and then exploded in popularity during the beginning of my high school years.

How is that comparable to someone who has no or little memories of a time before smartphones? ???

Just because us '99 borns use smartphones now just as much as everyone else doesn't mean that we are "100% Gen Z". Same goes for 2000 borns. I'm fine with late '90s borns being considered to be "early Gen Z" but being early Gen Z is not the same as being a core-late Gen Zer (2003-2009 borns).
Exactly! O0

It’s also worth pointing out that young adults, especially the 25-34 demographic, were the earliest smartphone adopters, not teenagers. Teenager smartphone ownership rates were more or less identical to the general population in the early 2010s, maybe even a bit lower. Compare that to now where the rate is higher than the general population for 13-18 year olds.


I agree with both of you.



Smartphones were already pretty popular even by 2011 tbh, at least here in New Jersey. I remember my older sister had one by 2011.


Once again, I find that hard to believe. Not the part about your sister, but with the bolded. I am also from New Jersey, Northern/Central Jersey to be exact (within the NYC Metro area), and smartphones were noticeably becoming more accessible to people in 2011, but they weren't the norm yet. That was more Late 2012, at the earliest. And like Shadowcookie said, even if many adults had smartphones in the early 2010s (particularly 'tech heads' or business people), that didn't reflect much on the actual percentage of most other American adults, not to mention teenagers (especially from normal/middle class backgrounds). Heck, the town I lived in was an upper-middle class suburb of NYC, and while some kids had iPhones in 2011, even then they were few and far between. If anything, I remember more kids my age using Blackberries back then and promoting their BBM pins on Facebook ;D, then iPhones being that popular.

During my university orientation week in late 2011, I think the smartphone to non-smartphone split (I'm counting BlackBerry as a non-smartphone) was 60% to 40%. But like shadowcookie said, young adults were more likely to own smartphones than teens because we could pay for them with student loans money from our jobs.

Yeah, it all depends on where you live, the smartphone age would've started in late 2013 and early 2014 at schools in rural areas while the smartphone age started in late 2011 and early 2012 at schools in California, particularly Orange County and the Bay Area.


I agree. Perhaps you're right about the SoCal area, I just find it rather strange that SoCal would've apparently jumped on that bandwagon earlier than NY ???. The Tri-State Area and the SoCal area are rather comparable socioeconomically, L.A. and NYC as the two biggest cities in the country and also being 'global cities'. My area was more 'new money', so maybe people were just a tad bit modest where I lived. I'd imagine in truly wealthy towns (like 'old money' wealth) in deep Northern New Jersey or the Hudson Valley region, smartphones probably being pretty common amongst adults and their families of all ages by that point.

But yeah, in rest of the country, the transition would've been more by 2013, not even 2012. I can imagine in some 'small towns' taking until potentially 2014. Hence why, in the graph, it showed the threshold hit 50% between 2012 and 2014.

I agree with both of you.


Once again, I find that hard to believe. Not the part about your sister, but with the bolded. I am also from New Jersey, Northern/Central Jersey to be exact (within the NYC Metro area), and smartphones were noticeably becoming more accessible to people in 2011, but they weren't the norm yet. That was more Late 2012, at the earliest. And like Shadowcookie said, even if many adults had smartphones in the early 2010s (particularly 'tech heads' or business people), that didn't reflect much on the actual percentage of most other American adults, not to mention teenagers (especially from normal/middle class backgrounds). Heck, the town I lived in was an upper-middle class suburb of NYC, and while some kids had iPhones in 2011, even then they were few and far between. If anything, I remember more kids my age using Blackberries back then and promoting their BBM pins on Facebook ;D, then iPhones being that popular.

I even saw some smartphones during the 2010-2011 school year but that was only in the 2011 semester part of that year. It was mostly Blackberries and Slider phones during that time. I went to a school in Orlando Florida, it’s a city where people have enough money to spend on a lot of the things.

I even saw some smartphones during the 2010-2011 school year but that was only in the 2011 semester part of that year. It was mostly Blackberries and Slider phones during that time. I went to a school in Orlando Florida, it’s a city where people have enough money to spend on a lot of the things.


In my school, in 2008-09 school year, there were 2 kids in my grade of ~400 with an iPhone. So at the time they were still next to nonexistent. When the iPhone 3GS came out in late 2009 it did generate a lot of buzz. I think by the time I graduated in spring 2010, around 10-15% had a smartphone. Or in other words, in a class of 20 kids, 2 or 3 would have a smartphone.

I didn't know about smartphones until I was in the 7th grade (2011-12 school year). Even then, I didn't really know what they were. I just saw a couple kids (like 5 out of over 300 kids) using them and I was curious as to what they were.

It wasn't until 2013-14 (when I started high school), that I really became aware of what smartphones were and that's also the time when smartphones started to become ubiquitous.

I always have to keep in mind my situation was quite different and peculiar compared to most people around my age and that's why I sometimes feel like I'm a little older than I actually am. The people I was around with were often always older than me firstly. And the crazy thing is, I did not even have a cell phone in high school in 2010 when I was 15 ! Not only did I not have a smartphone, I didn't even have a cell phone in general. I will never forget that day when the principle was talking during the first day orientation about the rules and saying "For the 99% of you who have cell phones". I felt so embarrassed lol. I guess it's a mixture of not feeling like I needed one, and my parents not feeling like it was necessary too. I've just always been the kid to entertain myself in other ways. But in 2011 for my 16th birthday, I finally got a cell phone but it was a cheap Samsung Intensity slider phone. And then nearly 2 years later I switched to a smartphone, the Samsung Galaxy S3 in November of 2012 when I was 17. I think 2011 is when smartphones really started to take off though so I was a bit late to that as well especially given my age.

Basically if someone would ask me in the future what was it like being a teen in the late 2000s and early 2010s, I would tell them to ask someone else because I was not a good representation of the average teen during that era. I have always felt older my whole life and more mature than my peers. Don't take it the wrong way I'm not calling myself special or something, it's just the reality of how things were.

I always have to keep in mind my situation was quite different and peculiar to most other people around my age that's why I sometimes feel like I'm a little older than I actually am givien the people I was around with were always older than me. And the crazy thing is, I did not even have a cell phone in high school in 2010 when I was 15 ! Not only did I not have a smartphone, I didn't even have a cell phone. I will never forget that day when the principle was talking during the first day orientation about the rules and saying "For the 99% of you who have cell phones". I felt so embarrassed lol. I guess it's a mixture of not feeling like I needed one, and my parents not feeling like it was necessary too. But in 2011 for my 16th birthday, I finally got a cell phone but it was a cheap Samsung Intensity slider phone. And then nearly 2 years later I switched to a smartphone, the Samsung Galaxy S3 in November of 2012 when I was 17.


In the late 2000s it was very normal to not have a cellphone. My parents forced a phone on me when I was 14 (because they wanted to know where I was all the time), but I didn't use it. I kept it in a drawer at home uncharged and never took it with me. In my 2008 literacy test (in Ontario you have to pass a literacy test to graduate) the essay question was "Do you think cellphones are a necessity these days?" and I argued against it. ;D

Smartphones though had a very nerdy Silicon Valley appeal. As a nerd I had to get one. I got mine in September 2010, the Samsung Galaxy S. :D

All this talk about smartphones and "starting points" aside, the fact that people born in 2000 spent the majority of their high school years during the middle of the 2010s should be a reason within itself for them not to be considered straight-up Gen Z. Similarly, Late '90s babies graduated either just before or right at the time stereotypical Gen Z things such as tide pods, Fortnite and mumble rap were becoming popular. They were already out of school by the time the Parkland shooting took place. So not only did people in the Late '90s/very Early '00s experience their childhoods in a Milennial-driven era, but they even experienced their teens when Millennial culture (e.g hipsters, EDM) was still very much relevant.

In the late 2000s it was very normal to not have a cellphone. My parents forced a phone on me when I was 14 (because they wanted to know where I was all the time), but I didn't use it. I kept it in a drawer at home uncharged and never took it with me. In my 2008 literacy test (in Ontario you have to pass a literacy test to graduate) the essay question was "Do you think cellphones are a necessity these days?" and I argued against it. ;D

Smartphones though had a very nerdy Silicon Valley appeal. As a nerd I had to get one. I got mine in 2010, the Samsung Galaxy S. :D

Then your situation must have been similar to mine. I think in the late 2000s and early 2010s it was very common and normal to have some kind of cell phone especially for people around our age. I know I felt pretty embarrassed when my high school principle made that comment lol.

All this talk about smartphones and "starting points" aside, the fact that people born in 2000 spent the majority of their high school years during the middle of the 2010s should be a reason within itself for them not to be considered straight-up Gen Z. Similarly, Late '90s babies graduated either just before or right at the time stereotypical Gen Z things such as tide pods, Fortnite and mumble rap were becoming popular. They were already out of school by the time the Parkland shooting took place. So not only did people in the Late '90s/very Early '00s experience their childhoods in a Milennial-driven era, but they even experienced their teens when Millennial culture (e.g hipsters, EDM) was still very much relevant.

I haven't seen you in a long time. What's up bro? :D

All this talk about smartphones and "starting points" aside, the fact that people born in 2000 spent the majority of their high school years during the middle of the 2010s should be a reason within itself for them not to be considered straight-up Gen Z. Similarly, Late '90s babies graduated either just before or right at the time stereotypical Gen Z things such as tide pods, Fortnite and mumble rap were becoming popular. They were already out of school by the time the Parkland shooting took place. So not only did people in the Late '90s/very Early '00s experience their childhoods in a Milennial-driven era, but they even experienced their teens when Millennial culture (e.g hipsters, EDM) was still very much relevant.


I think most of us want to move on from this topic now but I have a correction to make. 2000 borns were in high school when the Parkland shooting happened, Fortnite got popular, and during Tide Pod Challenge (early 2018).  Although the latter to me is not that important, it's just a meme lol.

Yeah, we should move on from this topic. It's turned into a generationology thread.

Maybe, there should be a specific sub-section for generationology? :P

Yeah, we should move on from this topic. It's turned into a generationology thread.

Maybe, there should be a specific sub-section for generationology? :P


If there was a whole sub board for it would be even worse.

Keep generationology in this cursed WW3 thread ;D

All this talk about smartphones and "starting points" aside, the fact that people born in 2000 spent the majority of their high school years during the middle of the 2010s should be a reason within itself for them not to be considered straight-up Gen Z. Similarly, Late '90s babies graduated either just before or right at the time stereotypical Gen Z things such as tide pods, Fortnite and mumble rap were becoming popular. They were already out of school by the time the Parkland shooting took place. So not only did people in the Late '90s/very Early '00s experience their childhoods in a Milennial-driven era, but they even experienced their teens when Millennial culture (e.g hipsters, EDM) was still very much relevant.

I can also confirm this. My teenage years felt very transformative with the ever-changing society from the hipster wave to the social justice wave and the evolution of internet memes, social media, and the usage of smartphones.

Gen Z is either 1995-2009 or 1997-2012. Those are the two most common definitions I see being used and it sounds accurate to me.

All this talk about smartphones and "starting points" aside, the fact that people born in 2000 spent the majority of their high school years during the middle of the 2010s should be a reason within itself for them not to be considered straight-up Gen Z. Similarly, Late '90s babies graduated either just before or right at the time stereotypical Gen Z things such as tide pods, Fortnite and mumble rap were becoming popular. They were already out of school by the time the Parkland shooting took place. So not only did people in the Late '90s/very Early '00s experience their childhoods in a Milennial-driven era, but they even experienced their teens when Millennial culture (e.g hipsters, EDM) was still very much relevant.


I agree with everything except the bold. Specifically just Late 90s babies and 2000 born babies. 2001 babies too, to some extent, MAYBE (as long as if born prior to 9/11). The rest of the early 2000s borns are unapologetically culturally, demographically, and sociologically ‘Z’ in every way, shape, and form.

All this talk about smartphones and "starting points" aside, the fact that people born in 2000 spent the majority of their high school years during the middle of the 2010s should be a reason within itself for them not to be considered straight-up Gen Z. Similarly, Late '90s babies graduated either just before or right at the time stereotypical Gen Z things such as tide pods, Fortnite and mumble rap were becoming popular. They were already out of school by the time the Parkland shooting took place. So not only did people in the Late '90s/very Early '00s experience their childhoods in a Milennial-driven era, but they even experienced their teens when Millennial culture (e.g hipsters, EDM) was still very much relevant.

Late 90's and early 2000's babies weren't the target audience for the millennial cultural era that was popular while they were in their childhood. Kid culture of the late 2000's and early 2010's was already Gen Z.

I agree with everything except the bold. Specifically just Late 90s babies and 2000 born babies. 2001 babies too, to some extent, MAYBE (as long as if born prior to 9/11). The rest of the early 2000s borns are unapologetically culturally, demographically, and sociologically ‘Z’ in every way, shape, and form.

Other than being born after 9/11 and coming of age in the ‘20s, albeit very early ‘20s, which are almost identical to the 2010s, what makes those born in 02’ and even 03’ absolutely 100% Generation Z, especially if they had most of their youth and growing up experience in the 2010s and childhood in the 2000s like all Zillennials did?  I understand that we are definitely leaning Z, but I kinda see later early 2000s more like 90ish percent Z with a minor trace of Y. I think it starts to get definitively Gen Z with mid 00s borns.

Late 90's and early 2000's babies weren't the target audience for the millennial cultural era that was popular while they were in their childhood. Kid culture of the late 2000's and early 2010's was already Gen Z.

So who was the target lol? ;D

Childhood is very important. Smartphones didn't become more mainstream at the end of my middle school years and then exploded in popularity during the beginning of my high school years.

How is that comparable to someone who has no or little memories of a time before smartphones? ???

Just because us '99 borns use smartphones now just as much as everyone else doesn't mean that we are "100% Gen Z". Same goes for 2000 borns. I'm fine with late '90s borns being considered to be "early Gen Z" but being early Gen Z is not the same as being a core-late Gen Zer (2003-2009 borns).
Exactly! O0


I agree. My one and only real concern is how addicted Gen Z is to their phones. I don't mean this in a troglodyte, old man yells at the clouds kind of way. I have friends who are parents and teachers of Gen Zers and a lot of Gen Zers legit think taking their phone is the ultimate sign of disrespect. If threatening or even harming your parents and teachers because they took your phone is a rational thing to you, something is very very wrong.   

I haven't seen you in a long time. What's up bro? :D


Yep, it's been a while! Not much, back at work for the year now and not looking forward to my 21st next month. :P How have you been?


I agree with everything except the bold. Specifically just Late 90s babies and 2000 born babies. 2001 babies too, to some extent, MAYBE (as long as if born prior to 9/11). The rest of the early 2000s borns are unapologetically culturally, demographically, and sociologically ‘Z’ in every way, shape, and form.


That's the people who I was referring to when I mentioned people born in the very Early '00s. ;)


Late 90's and early 2000's babies weren't the target audience for the millennial cultural era that was popular while they were in their childhood. Kid culture of the late 2000's and early 2010's was already Gen Z.


I agree, but that wasn't the point I was making. What I meant was that because people born in the Late '90s experienced both their childhood and teens during a time when Millennial culture was at full-force, someone could argue that they are Millennials just on that basis alone. It makes sense. I mean, the hipster sub-culture was huge during the time that I was in high school between 2012-2017 and who are the primary consumers of current pop culture? Teenagers.

I agree, but that wasn't the point I was making. What I meant was that because people born in the Late '90s experienced both their childhood and teens during a time when Millennial culture was at full-force, someone could argue that they are Millennials just on that basis alone. It makes sense. I mean, the hipster sub-culture was huge during the time that I was in high school between 2012-2017 and who are the primary consumers of current pop culture? Teenagers.

.....But you still weren't the target audience for that millennial culture. Millennials were. I experienced my childhood when millennial culture was popular but that doesn't mean I'm not Gen Z.

who are the primary consumers of current pop culture? Teenagers.

Nope, it's mostly mid-late 90's babies to mid-2000's babies. So not just teenagers.


Other than being born after 9/11 and coming of age in the ‘20s, albeit very early ‘20s, which are almost identical to the 2010s, what makes those born in 02’ and even 03’ absolutely 100% Generation Z, especially if they had most of their youth and growing up experience in the 2010s and childhood in the 2000s like all Zillennials did?  I understand that we are definitely leaning Z, but I kinda see later early 2000s more like 90ish percent Z with a minor trace of Y. I think it starts to get definitively Gen Z with mid 00s borns.

I'd even go as far to say those born in 2000 and 2001 are 100% Gen Z, since they spent their teenaged years when TikTok was popular, smartphones exploded, have no memory of 9/11, and graduated when Trump was president. They were also in high school when Fortnite became big.

.....But you still weren't the target audience for that millennial culture. Millennials were. I experienced my childhood when millennial culture was popular but that doesn't mean I'm not Gen Z.
Nope, it's mostly mid-late 90's babies to mid-2000's babies. So not just teenagers.
I'd even go as far to say those born in 2000 and 2001 are 100% Gen Z, since they spent their teenaged years when TikTok was popular, smartphones exploded, have no memory of 9/11, and graduated when Trump was president. They were also in high school when Fortnite became big.

I think I can relate to both late Millenials and Gen Z since my teenage years (13-17) were a mixture of both generational qualities.

Then your situation must have been similar to mine. I think in the late 2000s and early 2010s it was very common and normal to have some kind of cell phone especially for people around our age. I know I felt pretty embarrassed when my high school principle made that comment lol.

It was normal in the UK too, but I would say smartphones didn’t become the norm for teens until 2013 here. For people my sister’s age (born in 1986), they were somewhat common before then (she got a smartphone in 2011 when she was 24, almost 25). Late 70s/80s babies really pioneered smartphone adoption. For people my age, our parents were overwhelmingly born in the 60s and they were much slower on the uptake.

Yep, it's been a while! Not much, back at work for the year now and not looking forward to my 21st next month. :P How have you been?

I've doing OK. My life has been a little bit hectic but I'm pushing through. I can't wait for my 21st birthday coming up in July, it should be a lot of fun ;).

Anyways, the one thing, most of us agree on is that 1993-2001 borns are '00s kids :D.

I'll just say one thing. Even if smartphones took off later, say 2013, you can't really deny that social media was already big in the early 2010's and it was a lot of the same stuff that is used by teens today. Twitter was big for teenagers in the early 2010's and still is today. Instagram started getting big during 2012 and basically was the norm by 2013/2014. Facebook was used by teenagers back then and still is today (although a lot less teens use it today, it's mostly an old people website at this point)

It's like asking if 2012 had more in common with 2007 or 2017. The vast majority of people would pick 2017, because smartphones and social media like Twitter and Instagram were popular during both of those years, while in 2007, it was still mostly Myspace and the iPhone was basically a luxury. 16 year olds in 2012 were more like 16 year olds in 2017 than 16 year olds in 2007. I'm not saying they are exactly the same, but just that the things they had as teenagers were a little more similar.

And don't get me wrong, I still believe the 2010's were very transitional. 2010 is like another world compared to today. But I can also accept that while knowing that the transitions of the 2000's were a lot bigger. 2012 and 2017 were very different from each other, and I do believe their differences are underestimated, but 2007 and 2012 were like worlds apart, especially when it comes to technology and social media.

I don't understand why 90's babies and especially late 90's babies always try to distance themselves from Gen Z. Nobody is grouping y'all in with late 2000's babies. Nobody is saying you're exactly like a 2001 baby. I'm seeing some of y'all go great lengths to prove that you're culturally more like early 90's babies so much that you'll literally try and do it mathematically. Relax.

I'll just say one thing. Even if smartphones took off later, say 2013, you can't really deny that social media was already big in the early 2010's and it was a lot of the same stuff that is used by teens today. Twitter was big for teenagers in the early 2010's and still is today. Instagram started getting big during 2012 and basically was the norm by 2013/2014. Facebook was used by teenagers back then and still is today (although a lot less teens use it today, it's mostly an old people website at this point)

It's like asking if 2012 had more in common with 2007 or 2017. The vast majority of people would pick 2017, because smartphones and social media like Twitter and Instagram were popular during both of those years, while in 2007, it was still mostly Myspace and the iPhone was basically a luxury. 16 year olds in 2012 were more like 16 year olds in 2017 than 16 year olds in 2007. I'm not saying they are exactly the same, but just that the things they had as teenagers were a little more similar.

And don't get me wrong, I still believe the 2010's were very transitional. 2010 is like another world compared to today. But I can also accept that while knowing that the transitions of the 2000's were a lot bigger. 2012 and 2017 were very different from each other, and I do believe their differences are underestimated, but 2007 and 2012 were like worlds apart, especially when it comes to technology and social media.

I don't understand why 90's babies and especially late 90's babies always try to distance themselves from Gen Z. Nobody is grouping y'all in with late 2000's babies. Nobody is saying you're exactly like a 2001 baby. I'm seeing some of y'all go great lengths to prove that you're culturally more like early 90's babies so much that you'll literally try and do it mathematically. Relax.

Even 2011 has more in common with 2015 than 2007 just because of people owning more smartphones than before and MySpace no longer popular. Not just technology but the music, movies, fashion trends(There were people who still dressed like in the late 2000s so they don't count). I don't mind being called an EARLY Gen Z'er, I'm actually cool with early 2000s babies, just not with late 2000s borns lol.

Social media has been big since 2006 so that’s not really a convincing argument, and if you were just a little kid in 2007 you probably won’t realise or understand that. 16 year olds in 2007 were still obsessing over people’s top 8 friends on their MySpace page. By 2011 that had just changed to Facebook (and Twitter to a lesser extent), and by 2017 Facebook had already fallen out of favour for Instagram and Snapchat. I would say people born in the late 80s but more so 1988/89 were the first social media teens.

And the reason we distance ourselves from Gen Z is because we just don’t see 2000s babies as being the same generation as us. You don’t have to take it personally, it’s nothing against 2000s babies, but I don’t look at 16 or 17 year olds and think they’re part of my generation. Nothing more, nothing less.

Late '90s borns are not necessarily trying to distance ourselves from Gen Z. We're just saying that we don't fit equally into either Gen Y or Gen Z.

For example, if you're a research group or whatever and you're going to define Gen Z as 1997-2012, then put a citation or something that says 1997-2000 borns "did not grow up with smartphones and some have Late Gen Y traits"...something along those lines. Same thing, if that research group defines Gen Z as 1995-2010 or any definition.

Social media has been big since 2006 so that’s not really a convincing argument

I'm talking about the specific type of social media that was present in 2007 vs. 2012. If you were a 2000's teen, you most likely used Myspace at some point while it was at its peak. For most late 90's babies, that was probably Facebook and Twitter.

And the reason we distance ourselves from Gen Z is because we just don’t see 2000s babies as being the same generation as us. You don’t have to take it personally, it’s nothing against 2000s babies, but I don’t look at 16 or 17 year olds and think they’re part of my generation. Nothing more, nothing less.
Why is that? I'm starting to get the impression that you don't want to be labeled as Gen Z because of stereotypes (tide pod eating, addicted to smartphones, Fortnite, TikTok) but not all of Gen Z is like this. There's nothing wrong with being an early Gen Zer. Hell, we might even just end up doing better than the millennials, and people will want to be us.  ;D

Late '90s borns are not necessarily trying to distance ourselves from Gen Z. We're just saying that we don't fit equally into either Gen Y or Gen Z.

For example, if you're a research group or whatever and you're going to define Gen Z as 1997-2012, then put a citation or something that says 1997-2000 borns "did not grow up with smartphones and some have Late Gen Y traits"...something along those lines. Same thing, if that research group defines Gen Z as 1995-2010 or any definition.

Well the important thing to remember is that "growing up" means both childhood and teenaged years. So when sources say that "Gen Z grew up with smartphones" it's not always limited to childhood. They're also talking about our core teen years (AKA high school years, but you could probably add in middle school too). I think not having smartphones at childhood but having them as teens would make you early Z, but that's just my opinion.

Well the important thing to remember is that "growing up" means both childhood and teenaged years. So when sources say that "Gen Z grew up with smartphones" it's not always limited to childhood. They're also talking about our core teen years (AKA high school years, but you could probably add in middle school too). I think not having smartphones at childhood but having them as teens would make you early Z, but that's just my opinion.

I agree with the part that I bolded. Growing up is actually both childhood and adolescence. I would say the full span is ages 3-20, which starts at the beginning of childhood and ends when someone is fully an adult at age 21. But I would just narrow it down to just K-12 school years. Generally, since smartphones were becoming popular in the late 2000s and in the early 2010s, it’s safe to say that the individuals who were not yet in elementary school during the smartphone revolution of the late “aughts”, is most definitely safely Z. Those who were in high school/college is safely Y, but the kids and preteens that were in elementary and middle school would probably be in-between Y and Z, with middle schoolers leaning Y since they would have had all or most of their childhoods prior to that and the elementary schoolers probably lean Z since they would spend a lot of their formative years afterwards. But really anybody born as early as the early 90s grew up alongside smartphones, even if they probably didn’t use one till late high school/early college.

I'm talking about the specific type of social media that was present in 2007 vs. 2012. If you were a 2000's teen, you most likely used Myspace at some point while it was at its peak. For most late 90's babies, that was probably Facebook and Twitter.
Why is that? I'm starting to get the impression that you don't want to be labeled as Gen Z because of stereotypes (tide pod eating, addicted to smartphones, Fortnite, TikTok) but not all of Gen Z is like this. There's nothing wrong with being an early Gen Zer. Hell, we might even just end up doing better than the millennials, and people will want to be us.  ;D

MySpace was arguably beyond its peak in 2007 - still bigger than Facebook but Facebook was rising in popularity pretty fast by that point. MySpace was mostly a core Y thing, while Facebook was more popular with late Y. I don’t think many people would associate Facebook with Gen Z at all because it was pretty much becoming irrelevant to teenagers by the time most of Gen Z started entering high school. Instagram, Snapchat and TikTok would be Gen Z.

There are plenty of negative Millennial stereotypes too. If anything I’d say Gen Y is the most negatively stereotyped generation of all. I just feel closer to early 90s babies. I was never in school with any 2000s babies either. Don’t get me wrong, there are still similarities, I just think the differences are greater.

Like I said, I think the early 2010s were the last teen years of Gen Y.

I've doing OK. My life has been a little bit hectic but I'm pushing through. I can't wait for my 21st birthday coming up in July, it should be a lot of fun ;).


At least your 21st is in the middle of summer :D. On the night of my 21st, it was brick cold out, single digits (wind chills in the negative range) it was certainly not as fun as I would've wanted it 8-P.



I'll just say one thing. Even if smartphones took off later, say 2013, you can't really deny that social media was already big in the early 2010's and it was a lot of the same stuff that is used by teens today. Twitter was big for teenagers in the early 2010's and still is today. Instagram started getting big during 2012 and basically was the norm by 2013/2014. Facebook was used by teenagers back then and still is today (although a lot less teens use it today, it's mostly an old people website at this point)

It's like asking if 2012 had more in common with 2007 or 2017. The vast majority of people would pick 2017, because smartphones and social media like Twitter and Instagram were popular during both of those years, while in 2007, it was still mostly Myspace and the iPhone was basically a luxury. 16 year olds in 2012 were more like 16 year olds in 2017 than 16 year olds in 2007. I'm not saying they are exactly the same, but just that the things they had as teenagers were a little more similar.

And don't get me wrong, I still believe the 2010's were very transitional. 2010 is like another world compared to today. But I can also accept that while knowing that the transitions of the 2000's were a lot bigger. 2012 and 2017 were very different from each other, and I do believe their differences are underestimated, but 2007 and 2012 were like worlds apart, especially when it comes to technology and social media.

I don't understand why 90's babies and especially late 90's babies always try to distance themselves from Gen Z. Nobody is grouping y'all in with late 2000's babies. Nobody is saying you're exactly like a 2001 baby. I'm seeing some of y'all go great lengths to prove that you're culturally more like early 90's babies so much that you'll literally try and do it mathematically. Relax.



https://media.tenor.com/images/7f0508ab7d5b50e6f93c2b5439b4eb5a/tenor.gif



I'll just say one thing. Even if smartphones took off later, say 2013, you can't really deny that social media was already big in the early 2010's and it was a lot of the same stuff that is used by teens today. Twitter was big for teenagers in the early 2010's and still is today. Instagram started getting big during 2012 and basically was the norm by 2013/2014. Facebook was used by teenagers back then and still is today (although a lot less teens use it today, it's mostly an old people website at this point)


Social media was also big in the Late 2000s. Guess what sites were already moderately popular back then? Facebook and (to a lesser extent) Twitter. This was especially the case by 2009. Once again, Instagram became popular in Late 2012, most of 2012 I don't even remember anybody even using it and I was unaware of the existence of it. And you even just admitted that with Facebook "it's mostly an old people website at this point", back in the early 2010s it was something that both teens/young adults used unironically. Once again, culturally and technologically speaking, 2012 is more connected to 2007 than to 2017. The social media sites that were actually popular in 2012 would be evidenced of that. Not to mention that 2012 was also apart of the Golden Age of YouTube, which defined an entire generation of teenagers and college aged kids, whom are now in their 20s and early 30s, in the same way that the Golden Age for MTV was for many Gen Xers and was the 'wild wild west' for music video content. This was the case with the Golden Age YouTube for many Millennials.


It's like asking if 2012 had more in common with 2007 or 2017. The vast majority of people would pick 2017, because smartphones and social media like Twitter and Instagram were popular during both of those years, while in 2007, it was still mostly Myspace and the iPhone was basically a luxury. 16 year olds in 2012 were more like 16 year olds in 2017 than 16 year olds in 2007. I'm not saying they are exactly the same, but just that the things they had as teenagers were a little more similar.

Well I would like to actually meet these people you are referring to ;D. You keep bringing up smartphones and Twitter/Instagram, I already told you that those trends, while not necessarily insignificant, were nowhere near as prominent as they would become in even just a couple of years after. And what do I have to keep reiterating to you, culturally speaking 2012 is closer to 2007 than to 2017, merely of the fact that both 2007 & 2012 are solidly within the Millennial era of pop culture, while 2017, while in the transition of Millennial/Z culture, leans heavily on the Z side of things.

I'll make this easier for you; if we were comparing between years 1997 & 2002 vs. 1997 & 1992, I would say that the former grouping is culturally linked closer together merely because 97' culturally began to lean towards Millennial pop culture and 2002 was full blown Millennial culture, while 1992 was full blown Gen X pop culture. If we're comparing between the years 1978 and 1983 vs. 1978 and 1973, I would say that the latter grouping is culturally more linked together because they constitute the peak of '2nd wave' Baby Boomer/Generation Jones pop culture (the cultural 1970s), while 1983 is when culture began to heavily lean towards Gen X's favor (the cultural 1980s).

If you're still going to make the argument that 2012 is closer in time to 2017, rather than to 2007, culturally speaking, then you are objectively wrong. It's not my opinion and I am not being subjective about it. It's just when you look at the popular trends that were around back then, 2012 just doesn't have that same connection to the latter 2010s years. Just the mere fact that 2012 (along with 2010 and 2011) are pop culturally in the shadow of 2009, and 2009 in turn in many ways (culturally, technologically, and especially economically, politically speaking) is linked to 2007, 2012 is not that far removed. While starting in Late 2013, there began a pop cultural transition away from Millennial pop culture transitioning into Gen Z pop culture, but of course it did not happen overnight. However, this began in around Mid-Late 2013, with the transition being complete by mid 2018. Heck, are we seriously going to ignore one of the most pivotal years, that also happened in between this cultural transition, which just so happened had to have be an election year? 2016? (you know, the year of Brexit and Trump?) That was the 2010s version of 2008. 2017 was only a year after 2016, when people's memories of that changeful year were still fresh in our minds. In 2012, the only reference to a changeful year of a magnitude that big was 2008, and like I said before, 2012 was still in the shadow of the 2008/2009 era, so much so that Obama was technically still in his First Term as President and was blessed to go up against an out of touch prune of a billionaire in the 2012 election, that being Mitt Romney (remember his infamous '47% of the country just depend on handouts' comment?, 2012's election and 2016's election are simply night and day).


2012
HxRQm-3bzf0

2016
rfq0Yw2sMq0


So that alone puts it solidly closer to the Late 2000s category. If you simply do not understand that, then at this point there is nothing else I could really do to inform you otherwise. You'd kind of had to have been there, old enough to understand these changes, for you to have any idea of what we are talking about.


And don't get me wrong, I still believe the 2010's were very transitional. 2010 is like another world compared to today. But I can also accept that while knowing that the transitions of the 2000's were a lot bigger. 2012 and 2017 were very different from each other, and I do believe their differences are underestimated, but 2007 and 2012 were like worlds apart, especially when it comes to technology and social media.

Well every decade is transitional, even decades with more consistent changes, I don't think anybody is discarding that. I will say this though, when comparing the differences between 2002 and 2007 vs. 2012 and 2017, the latter is less changeful from mainly a technological, political, and economical perspective. While the former is less changeful from a cultural perspective. So the 2000s were objectively much more of a transformative decade compared to the 2010s, in most aspects, except for pop culture (particularly youth pop culture, although it was still say that the 2000s alone were quite changeful objectively); as an example is that Rap/Hip Hop, Rock, and Pop were the definitive music genres of that decade (even with varying artists becoming big and declining throughout). 2012 is a lot closer to the music world of 2007/2008 than it is to the music world of 2016/2017. Once again, you may be a little too young to understand, so it's not worth my time trying to explain otherwise.

2007
MxPuqjrhuFg8IQdVHj6HrA


2012
stTbSOgNfxgxURlPGAXr_s


2017
SOfQ231ZFfQl7Zt5pj8BF8


Now let's set the record straight, any 5 year difference is going to be pretty noticeable. So when I say that 2012 is culturally closer to 2007 than 2017, I mean that in the grand scheme of things that the differences are not as noticeable as the differences between 2012 & 2017. I am not on the record saying that my teenaged experience was exactly the same as a 91er, but I am also saying, especially given the fact that I was old enough to be apart of some of the trends 91ers engaged and also objectively also being a teenager in the 2000s, that my teenaged experience was closer culturally (and even technologically in many senses as well) to a 91er than a 01er. And even so, many trends that began in 2007/2008, continued strong through 2012/2013. There were some core 2010s trends that debuted in 2012, but the vast majority of them were in the pop cultural shadow of the Late 2000s (2007 & 2008) and especially the 'Electropop era' (which started in 2009).

If you're being honest with yourself Rainbowz, and now you have videos that I linked above to reference these changes, does 2012 have more in common with 2017 or with 2007?



Social media has been big since 2006 so that’s not really a convincing argument, and if you were just a little kid in 2007 you probably won’t realise or understand that. 16 year olds in 2007 were still obsessing over people’s top 8 friends on their MySpace page. By 2011 that had just changed to Facebook (and Twitter to a lesser extent), and by 2017 Facebook had already fallen out of favour for Instagram and Snapchat. I would say people born in the late 80s but more so 1988/89 were the first social media teens.

And the reason we distance ourselves from Gen Z is because we just don’t see 2000s babies as being the same generation as us. You don’t have to take it personally, it’s nothing against 2000s babies, but I don’t look at 16 or 17 year olds and think they’re part of my generation. Nothing more, nothing less.

Late '90s borns are not necessarily trying to distance ourselves from Gen Z. We're just saying that we don't fit equally into either Gen Y or Gen Z.

For example, if you're a research group or whatever and you're going to define Gen Z as 1997-2012, then put a citation or something that says 1997-2000 borns "did not grow up with smartphones and some have Late Gen Y traits"...something along those lines. Same thing, if that research group defines Gen Z as 1995-2010 or any definition.


THIS. I don't understand why these guys cannot understand this basic concept. Mid 90s babies are solidly Millennial/Y, Late 90s babies are in the middle (some lean Y, some lean Z), and Early 00s babies are solidly Zoomer/Z. I don't understand why this is such a controversial topic ;D. Is it because they want to be seen with the 'cool' older kids or something? Would including people born in like 1995 in their little generation give them validation or something? Do they really know that many 90s babies in real life? Besides family members, I'd probably reckon no, which makes sense. I don't know that many 2000s babies in real life outside of family members myself, so I don't try to act like I'm some kind of expert on Gen Z pop culture or whatever. It's just that from I observed and the interactions I've had with some of them, I realize that they are just not apart of my generation, it's that simple. I don't know why this conversation has become so damn monotonous...

https://media.tenor.com/images/7f0508ab7d5b50e6f93c2b5439b4eb5a/tenor.gif


Social media was also big in the Late 2000s. Guess what sites were already moderately popular back then? Facebook and (to a lesser extent) Twitter. This was especially the case by 2009. Once again, Instagram became popular in Late 2012, most of 2012 I don't even remember anybody even using it and I was unaware of the existence of it. And you even just admitted that with Facebook "it's mostly an old people website at this point", back in the early 2010s it was something that both teens/young adults used unironically. Once again, culturally and technologically speaking, 2012 is more connected to 2007 than to 2017. The social media sites that were actually popular in 2012 would be evidenced of that. Not to mention that 2012 was also apart of the Golden Age of YouTube, which defined an entire generation of teenagers and college aged kids, whom are now in their 20s and early 30s, in the same way that the Golden Age for MTV was for many Gen Xers and was the 'wild wild west' for music video content. This was the case with the Golden Age YouTube for many Millennials.


Well I would like to actually meet these people you are referring to ;D. You keep bringing up smartphones and Twitter/Instagram, I already told you that those trends, while not necessarily insignificant, were nowhere near as prominent as they would become in even just a couple of years after. And what do I have to keep reiterating to you, culturally speaking 2012 is closer to 2007 than to 2017, merely of the fact that both 2007 & 2012 are solidly within the Millennial era of pop culture, while 2017, while in the transition of Millennial/Z culture, leans heavily on the Z side of things.

I'll make this easier for you; if we were comparing between years 1997 & 2002 vs. 1997 & 1992, I would say that the former grouping is culturally linked closer together merely because 97' culturally began to lean towards Millennial pop culture and 2002 was full blown Millennial culture, while 1992 was full blown Gen X pop culture. If we're comparing between the years 1978 and 1983 vs. 1978 and 1973, I would say that the latter grouping is culturally more linked together because they constitute the peak of '2nd wave' Baby Boomer/Generation Jones pop culture (the cultural 1970s), while 1983 is when culture began to heavily lean towards Gen X's favor (the cultural 1980s).

If you're still going to make the argument that 2012 is closer in time to 2017, rather than to 2007, culturally speaking, then you are objectively wrong. It's not my opinion and I am not being subjective about it. It's just when you look at the popular trends that were around back then, 2012 just doesn't have that same connection to the latter 2010s years. Just the mere fact that 2012 (along with 2010 and 2011) are pop culturally in the shadow of 2009, and 2009 in turn in many ways (culturally, technologically, and especially economically, politically speaking) is linked to 2007, 2012 is not that far removed. While starting in Late 2013, there began a pop cultural transition away from Millennial pop culture transitioning into Gen Z pop culture, but of course it did not happen overnight. However, this began in around Mid-Late 2013, with the transition being complete by mid 2018. Heck, are we seriously going to ignore one of the most pivotal years, that also happened in between this cultural transition, which just so happened had to have be an election year? 2016? (you know, the year of Brexit and Trump?) That was the 2010s version of 2008. 2017 was only a year after 2016, when people's memories of that changeful year were still fresh in our minds. In 2012, the only reference to a changeful year of a magnitude that big was 2008, and like I said before, 2012 was still in the shadow of the 2008/2009 era, so much so that Obama was technically still in his First Term as President and was blessed to go up against an out of touch prune of a billionaire in the 2012 election, that being Mitt Romney (remember his infamous '47% of the country just depend on handouts' comment?, 2012's election and 2016's election are simply night and day).


2012
HxRQm-3bzf0

2016
rfq0Yw2sMq0


So that alone puts it solidly closer to the Late 2000s category. If you simply do not understand that, then at this point there is nothing else I could really do to inform you otherwise. You'd kind of had to have been there, old enough to understand these changes, for you to have any idea of what we are talking about.


Well every decade is transitional, even decades with more consistent changes, I don't think anybody is discarding that. I will say this though, when comparing the differences between 2002 and 2007 vs. 2012 and 2017, the latter is less changeful from mainly a technological, political, and economical perspective. While the former is less changeful from a cultural perspective. So the 2000s were objectively much more of a transformative decade compared to the 2010s, in most aspects, except for pop culture (particularly youth pop culture, although it was still say that the 2000s alone were quite changeful objectively); as an example is that Rap/Hip Hop, Rock, and Pop were the definitive music genres of that decade (even with varying artists becoming big and declining throughout). 2012 is a lot closer to the music world of 2007/2008 than it is to the music world of 2016/2017. Once again, you may be a little too young to understand, so it's not worth my time trying to explain otherwise.

2007
MxPuqjrhuFg8IQdVHj6HrA


2012
stTbSOgNfxgxURlPGAXr_s


2017
SOfQ231ZFfQl7Zt5pj8BF8


Now let's set the record straight, any 5 year difference is going to be pretty noticeable. So when I say that 2012 is culturally closer to 2007 than 2017, I mean that in the grand scheme of things that the differences are not as noticeable as the differences between 2012 & 2017. I am not on the record saying that my teenaged experience was exactly the same as a 91er, but I am also saying, especially given the fact that I was old enough to be apart of some of the trends 91ers engaged and also objectively also being a teenager in the 2000s, that my teenaged experience was closer culturally (and even technologically in many senses as well) to a 91er than a 01er. And even so, many trends that began in 2007/2008, continued strong through 2012/2013. There were some core 2010s trends that debuted in 2012, but the vast majority of them were in the pop cultural shadow of the Late 2000s (2007 & 2008) and especially the 'Electropop era' (which started in 2009).

If you're being honest with yourself Rainbowz, and now you have videos that I linked above to reference these changes, does 2012 have more in common with 2017 or with 2007?


THIS. I don't understand why these guys cannot understand this basic concept. Mid 90s babies are solidly Millennial/Y, Late 90s babies are in the middle (some lean Y, some lean Z), and Early 00s babies are solidly Zoomer/Z. I don't understand why this is such a controversial topic ;D. Is it because they want to be seen with the 'cool' older kids or something? Would including people born in like 1995 in their little generation give them validation or something? Do they really know that many 90s babies in real life? Besides family members, I'd probably reckon no, which makes sense. I don't know that many 2000s babies in real life outside of family members myself, so I don't try to act like I'm some kind of expert on Gen Z pop culture or whatever. It's just that from I observed and the interactions I've had with some of them, I realize that they are just not apart of my generation, it's that simple. I don't know why this conversation has become so damn monotonous...

https://hips.hearstapps.com/hmg-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/images/766/images/1001-ss-hesaidshesaid-09-1509108481.jpg

https://hips.hearstapps.com/hmg-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/images/766/images/1001-ss-hesaidshesaid-09-1509108481.jpg


If that is your response, then I yield my time. Take time to actually read through it, or not, my job here is done.

2012 is way way closer to 2017 than it is to 2007 in my humble opinion. I remember 2007 got dated really quick. In 2012, everyone agreed 2007 was quite dated thanks to the massive shift of 2008. In 2017, 2012 was nowhere near as dated as 2007 was. I think it had a lot more differences.

But this may be going into the direction of decadeology. This thread already went into generationalogy.

Speaking as a person who had 3 major milestones in 2007, 2012 and 2017, I felt like 2012 was more like 2007 than 2017.

In 2007, I turned 8 and was at the peak of my childhood.
In 2012, I finally became a teenager (age 13).
In 2017, I finally graduated from high school and became a legal adult (age 18).

Now, of course, each year was vastly different from each other but the politics and geopolitical factors of 2012 was closer to 2007. The music of 2012 was closer to 2007 music. The sports world and TV world of 2012 was closer to 2007. The online humor and memes of 2012 are closer to 2007 online humor and memes than 2017. Smartphones started to become mainstream in 2012 but in 2017, smartphones were ubiquitous and smartphone culture was in full effect. In 2012, the 8th gen video game consoles (Xbox One & PS4) hadn't even come out yet. The Wii U did come out in 2012 but it was a failure and didn't catch on. Video games in 2012 were definitely closer to 2007 than 2017. In 2012, VR tech was not widely available to the public unlike in 2017.

For these and many other reasons, 2012 was closer to 2007 than 2017.

:D

Speaking as a person who had 3 major milestones in 2007, 2012 and 2017, I felt like 2012 was more like 2007 than 2017.

In 2007, I turned 8 and was at the peak of my childhood.
In 2012, I finally became a teenager (age 13).
In 2017, I finally graduated from high school and became a legal adult (age 18).

Now, of course, each year was vastly different from each other but the politics and geopolitical factors of 2012 was closer to 2007. The music of 2012 was closer to 2007 music. The sports world and TV world of 2012 was closer to 2007. The online humor and memes of 2012 are closer to 2007 online humor and memes than 2017. Smartphones started to become mainstream in 2012 but in 2017, smartphones were ubiquitous and smartphone culture was in full effect. In 2012, the 8th gen video game consoles (Xbox One & PS4) hadn't even come out yet. The Wii U did come out in 2012 but it was a failure and didn't catch on. Video games in 2012 were definitely closer to 2007 than 2017. In 2012, VR tech was not widely available to the public unlike in 2017.

For these and many other reasons, 2012 was closer to 2007 than 2017.

I made a thread about this on Popedia cause I'm interested in hearing people's different perspectives on this. I thought it'd make an interesting discussion.

http://popedia.boards.net/thread/3260/2012-culturally-more-2007-2017

I made a thread about this on Popedia cause I'm interested in hearing people's different perspectives on this. I thought it'd make an interesting discussion.

http://popedia.boards.net/thread/3260/2012-culturally-more-2007-2017


I'd like for them to be redirected to the convo we had here, as it provides context to the counter-view.

Also, hope y'all had a fun Superbowl!

I agree with a lot of ZeldaFan’s points. His reasoning is very grounded imo.

I see the “first year” of Gen Z as not a starting year, but a threshold where Gen Z traits become overwhelming apparent. I like to think it that way because it acknowledges that generations can be fluid. In my opinion, the threshold (starting point) for Gen Z is around the mid/late 90s. The main reason is late 90s babies aren’t exactly “echo-boomers” from a demographic standpoint.

A typical millennial has Baby Boomers for parents, but according to the National Vital Statistics Report, the average mother of a 97-00 baby was born in the early/mid 70s. For 2nd/3rd births, it’s late 60s/early 70s. For 2001-05 it’s mid/late 70s.

Anecdotally, most people I know who is of my immediate age (20-23) have Gen X parents, although a few have boomer parents and one of my colleagues who’s older than me has a millennial mom. But for the majority of us (Especially POC and lower income folk) our parents are relatively young. Gen X had a analog childhood but by the time they entered the workforce, the internet was already mainstream. They adapted relatively quickly, which probably carried on to their parenting styles.

Also, when we look back into what Gen Z was as a generation in their youth, we’ll think of them as teens who were always on their phone; teens of the 2010s. Gen Z will associate Snapchat/Spotify/Instagram much more with their teens than they do with their 20s. I think Millennials definitely associate those apps more with their 20s or even 30s.

Fun fact, by the time I turn 30, Snapchat will be old enough to be in college.

When it comes to generations, it makes sense that with Mid 90s babies, they are predominantly Millennial and with Early 00s babies, they are predominantly Zoomer, by the traits they have, the way they grew up, and the way they act. Definite Millennials born in the Mid-Late 80s and Early 90s are obviously different from definite Gen Zers born in the mid-late 00s. But those born from the Mid-Late 90s and Early 00s are not completely one generation and can relate to both cohorts in some ways with varying degrees of both gens.

For good reason, clear-cut Millennials would be 90s kids (1983-1992), although 1983 & 1984 babies are very Early Y, having some X or Xennial traits, like spending a good chunk of childhood in the 1980s, growing up entirely in the 1990s, experiencing almost all coming-of-age moments (16-25 years old) in the 2000s, having most of their youth pre-9/11 and having basically all of their college years before social media blew up. It doesn’t truly get Millennial until 85’ borns, whose youthful peaks were in the 2001-2002 school year, right after 9/11, started elementary in the 90s, had all their teen years in Millennial-driven culture and while they were the last to enter high school during the 90s, it was post-Columbine. But 1985-1987 borns are in-between early and core Y, with a very slight influence from Gen X, as they are the very last to have any memory of the 80s and the Cold War, entered high school pre-9/11, and spent all high school years before MySpace took over in late 2005.
The high schoolers of the mid 00s who first experienced the social media world before adulthood and grew up in the 90s and 2000s (1988-1990 babies) are the absolute core Millennials. While 91ers are definitely Y and are one of the last true Millennials, along with 92’ babies, they are probably the first that are not complete stereotypical Gen Yers, and are like a cusp of core and late Y, because they were mostly late 2000s teens, when social media was rising with MySpace (a core millennial site) and Facebook (a late millennial site), could not vote for Obama in 2008, when core Y were able to vote, but however were the last to actually be in the workforce during the peak of the recession and be affected by it, making them the last of the true Yers. 1993 and 1994 babies are sort of more very Late Y with minor Z or Zillennial traits, because they were the first to have most of their childhood fall within the 2000s decade (which was a very transformative decade, technologically, economically, generational-y, etc.), not have been able  to work during the peak of the recession,  and had a significant amount of their teen years in the 2010s. The Zillennial cusp would really span from 1995-2000 and are probably the last branch of Y, due to the fact their childhoods transitioning from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0, they were born in the Clinton administration, could remember the early 00s, had most of their core-childhoods post-9/11 but pre-Recession, and they were born in the 20th century. 2001ers are sort of cuspy, but they were born in the 21st century, had most of their core childhood after the Great Recession in late 2007, youth period peaked after Trump was inaugurated as president, started kindergarten when kid culture started to clearly lean Z, and they don’t have early 00s memories.

So, to end this long speech off, The YZ transition ends with 2001 & 2002 born’s who are very Early Z for the reason that they will be able to vote for Trump in the 2020 election this year, the last to have most of their childhoods in the 2000s, even though basically all Y remnants in kid culture officially died when their childhoods peaked, they spent high school when Obama was still our president, which was when liberal SJW culture was still very popular, at least have concrete memories of the mid 00s, and while some were born after 9/11, they were all born prior to the establishment of the Homeland Security, going into the Iraq War, truly ushering in the post-9/11 mood and atmosphere, which is why I think Z truly begins in 2003 for those reasons. 2003 and 2004 babies share a lot of similarities in growing up experiences to other early 00s and even late 90s babies, so I consider them cusps of early and core Z and would have a bit of a Y influence, but can never be millennials. However you take all of this, I know this was pretty subjective in a lot of ways but not completely non-credible as it does have some objectivity here. I’m done here.

When it comes to generations, it makes sense that with Mid 90s babies, they are predominantly Millennial and with Early 00s babies, they are predominantly Zoomer, by the traits they have, the way they grew up, and the way they act. Definite Millennials born in the Mid-Late 80s and Early 90s are obviously different from definite Gen Zers born in the mid-late 00s. But those born from the Mid-Late 90s and Early 00s are not completely one generation and can relate to both cohorts in some ways with varying degrees of both gens.

For good reason, clear-cut Millennials would be 90s kids (1983-1992), although 1983 & 1984 babies are very Early Y, having some X or Xennial traits, like spending a good chunk of childhood in the 1980s, growing up entirely in the 1990s, experiencing almost all coming-of-age moments (16-25 years old) in the 2000s, having most of their youth pre-9/11 and having basically all of their college years before social media blew up. It doesn’t truly get Millennial until 85’ borns, whose youthful peaks were in the 2001-2002 school year, right after 9/11, started elementary in the 90s, had all their teen years in Millennial-driven culture and while they were the last to enter high school during the 90s, it was post-Columbine. But 1985-1987 borns are in-between early and core Y, with a very slight influence from Gen X, as they are the very last to have any memory of the 80s and the Cold War, entered high school pre-9/11, and spent all high school years before MySpace took over in late 2005.
The high schoolers of the mid 00s who first experienced the social media world before adulthood and grew up in the 90s and 2000s (1988-1990 babies) are the absolute core Millennials. While 91ers are definitely Y and are one of the last true Millennials, along with 92’ babies, they are probably the first that are not complete stereotypical Gen Yers, and are like a cusp of core and late Y, because they were mostly late 2000s teens, when social media was rising with MySpace (a core millennial site) and Facebook (a late millennial site), could not vote for Obama in 2008, when core Y were able to vote, but however were the last to actually be in the workforce during the peak of the recession and be affected by it, making them the last of the true Yers. 1993 and 1994 babies are sort of more very Late Y with minor Z or Zillennial traits, because they were the first to have most of their childhood fall within the 2000s decade (which was a very transformative decade, technologically, economically, generational-y, etc.), not have been able  to work during the peak of the recession,  and had a significant amount of their teen years in the 2010s. The Zillennial cusp would really span from 1995-2000 and are probably the last branch of Y, due to the fact their childhoods transitioning from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0, they were born in the Clinton administration, could remember the early 00s, had most of their core-childhoods post-9/11 but pre-Recession, and they were born in the 20th century. 2001ers are sort of cuspy, but they were born in the 21st century, had most of their core childhood after the Great Recession in late 2007, youth period peaked after Trump was inaugurated as president, started kindergarten when kid culture started to clearly lean Z, and they don’t have early 00s memories.

So, to end this long speech off, The YZ transition ends with 2001 & 2002 born’s who are very Early Z for the reason that they will be able to vote for Trump in the 2020 election this year, the last to have most of their childhoods in the 2000s, even though basically all Y remnants in kid culture officially died when their childhoods peaked, they spent high school when Obama was still our president, which was when liberal SJW culture was still very popular, at least have concrete memories of the mid 00s, and while some were born after 9/11, they were all born prior to the establishment of the Homeland Security, going into the Iraq War, truly ushering in the post-9/11 mood and atmosphere, which is why I think Z truly begins in 2003 for those reasons. 2003 and 2004 babies share a lot of similarities in growing up experiences to other early 00s and even late 90s babies, so I consider them cusps of early and core Z and would have a bit of a Y influence, but can never be millennials. However you take all of this, I know this was pretty subjective in a lot of ways but not completely non-credible as it does have some objectivity here. I’m done here.

I can agree with this.

When it comes to generations, it makes sense that with Mid 90s babies, they are predominantly Millennial and with Early 00s babies, they are predominantly Zoomer, by the traits they have, the way they grew up, and the way they act. Definite Millennials born in the Mid-Late 80s and Early 90s are obviously different from definite Gen Zers born in the mid-late 00s. But those born from the Mid-Late 90s and Early 00s are not completely one generation and can relate to both cohorts in some ways with varying degrees of both gens.

For good reason, clear-cut Millennials would be 90s kids (1983-1992), although 1983 & 1984 babies are very Early Y, having some X or Xennial traits, like spending a good chunk of childhood in the 1980s, growing up entirely in the 1990s, experiencing almost all coming-of-age moments (16-25 years old) in the 2000s, having most of their youth pre-9/11 and having basically all of their college years before social media blew up. It doesn’t truly get Millennial until 85’ borns, whose youthful peaks were in the 2001-2002 school year, right after 9/11, started elementary in the 90s, had all their teen years in Millennial-driven culture and while they were the last to enter high school during the 90s, it was post-Columbine. But 1985-1987 borns are in-between early and core Y, with a very slight influence from Gen X, as they are the very last to have any memory of the 80s and the Cold War, entered high school pre-9/11, and spent all high school years before MySpace took over in late 2005.
The high schoolers of the mid 00s who first experienced the social media world before adulthood and grew up in the 90s and 2000s (1988-1990 babies) are the absolute core Millennials. While 91ers are definitely Y and are one of the last true Millennials, along with 92’ babies, they are probably the first that are not complete stereotypical Gen Yers, and are like a cusp of core and late Y, because they were mostly late 2000s teens, when social media was rising with MySpace (a core millennial site) and Facebook (a late millennial site), could not vote for Obama in 2008, when core Y were able to vote, but however were the last to actually be in the workforce during the peak of the recession and be affected by it, making them the last of the true Yers. 1993 and 1994 babies are sort of more very Late Y with minor Z or Zillennial traits, because they were the first to have most of their childhood fall within the 2000s decade (which was a very transformative decade, technologically, economically, generational-y, etc.), not have been able  to work during the peak of the recession,  and had a significant amount of their teen years in the 2010s. The Zillennial cusp would really span from 1995-2000 and are probably the last branch of Y, due to the fact their childhoods transitioning from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0, they were born in the Clinton administration, could remember the early 00s, had most of their core-childhoods post-9/11 but pre-Recession, and they were born in the 20th century. 2001ers are sort of cuspy, but they were born in the 21st century, had most of their core childhood after the Great Recession in late 2007, youth period peaked after Trump was inaugurated as president, started kindergarten when kid culture started to clearly lean Z, and they don’t have early 00s memories.

So, to end this long speech off, The YZ transition ends with 2001 & 2002 born’s who are very Early Z for the reason that they will be able to vote for Trump in the 2020 election this year, the last to have most of their childhoods in the 2000s, even though basically all Y remnants in kid culture officially died when their childhoods peaked, they spent high school when Obama was still our president, which was when liberal SJW culture was still very popular, at least have concrete memories of the mid 00s, and while some were born after 9/11, they were all born prior to the establishment of the Homeland Security, going into the Iraq War, truly ushering in the post-9/11 mood and atmosphere, which is why I think Z truly begins in 2003 for those reasons. 2003 and 2004 babies share a lot of similarities in growing up experiences to other early 00s and even late 90s babies, so I consider them cusps of early and core Z and would have a bit of a Y influence, but can never be millennials. However you take all of this, I know this was pretty subjective in a lot of ways but not completely non-credible as it does have some objectivity here. I’m done here.

That has to be one of the best short subjective analyses I've ever seen on this thread, and there are a DOZEN of them.