The joke is on us for buying into the concept of defined generations. The categories and definitions are arbitrary and unrealistic. One individual is born in '46. Another individual is born in '64. They're both Baby Boomers, although the older person could be the parent of the younger person! They definitely don't share the same youth culture and life experience. The same kind of thing holds true for Generation X. The individual born in '65 should not be in the same generational group as the individual born in '81. The oldest X'er has MUCH more in common with the youngest Boomer. In fact, they could have graduated from high school in the same year. They're more Live Aid than Woodstock and more new wave than grunge rock. It's silly to pretend that they're in some group that has absolutely nothing to do with their lives.

I have a new generational scheme (no pun). It's not as cool and fun as the famous ones, but it's based on reality. Say that you're thirty. Roughly, you share a generation with fellow thirty-year-olds, as well as people five years older and five years younger. That model likely holds true for people of all ages. There are exceptions to this rule, but this makes sense to me. What do you really have in common with people who are sixteen years older or younger than you? You have more in common with people around your own age, even if you're not in the same fabricated generation.

It's true. With Baby Boomers it makes demographic sense, because them moving out of the labour force and shrinking it is having an effect on the economy. After that, all the generations are made up.

It's true. With Baby Boomers it makes demographic sense, because them moving out of the labour force and shrinking it is having an effect on the economy. After that, all the generations are made up.


It makes sense with the older Boomers, not the younger ones who are under 60. They're still in the labor force, and they don't have much in common with people who are old enough to be their parents. 1946 and 1964 are extremely different years. The baby boom describes an era with high birth rates more than a generation with the same life experience.

It makes sense with the older Boomers, not the younger ones who are under 60. They're still in the labor force, and they don't have much in common with people who are old enough to be their parents. 1946 and 1964 are extremely different years. The baby boom describes an era with high birth rates more than a generation with the same life experience.


They're still important because they're about to leave the work force, and their size is still very large. If the labour force is shrinking in size, it will have a negative impact on the economy :o But I agree that they don't have much in common. I don't agree with the idea of a 20 year cultural generation that all listen to the same music and stuff.

They're still important because they're about to leave the work force, and their size is still very large. If the labour force is shrinking in size, it will have a negative impact on the economy :o But I agree that they don't have much in common. I don't agree with the idea of a 20 year cultural generation that all listen to the same music and stuff.


It depends on the person. The older Boomers often live their lives in retirement. The middle Boomers are close to retirement. The younger Boomers have ten or more working years left. Of course, there are exceptions to those rules. A lot of individuals work past 65 now. Some people start second or third careers after they leave military service. Some people lose their jobs when they're relatively older.

Enough about all of that.  :) Here's another thought for you. Let's say that there's a second way to label generations, and it's based on the decades in which people graduated. We would combine some of the Baby Boomers and some of the Generation X'ers. For instance, people, who graduated in the '80s would be part of the New Wave Generation while people, who graduated in the '90s, would be part of the Grunge Rock Generation. The Technology Generation could follow that, and the 9/11 Generation could follow THAT. It seems more realistic than the popular generational classifications since it's based more on shared experiences than birth rates. I think that the 9/11 Generation (graduated in the teens) experienced the biggest societal changes (terrorism, endless war, Big Brother, etc.) since the end of World War II.

Actually, generations have been a concept since the 1920s, so they are not as arbitrary as some people believe. Now regarding them, there are many factors we can all use to determine cohorts by looking at events, traits, education etc. which work as clues.

Additionally, birth rates can play a role as well since there are about 75-80 million Millennials and about 50 million Xers. Between the 1960s and 70s, the birth rate decreased and continued until towards the end of the latter era when it began increasing again.

Actually, generations have been a concept since the 1920s, so they are not as arbitrary as some people believe. Now regarding them, there are many factors we can all use to determine cohorts by looking at events, traits, education etc. which work as clues.

Additionally, birth rates can play a role as well since there are about 75-80 million Millennials and about 50 million Xers. Between the 1960s and 70s, the birth rate decreased and continued until towards the end of the latter era when it began increasing again.


I get that. Generations aren't new and novel ideas or concepts. I'm talking about the fact that they aren't perfect indicators of shared experience, and I'm not talking about birthrates. For instance, the youngest so-called Boomers have much in common with the oldest so-called X'ers. The youngest Boomers shouldn't be in the same group as people who are old enough to be their parents. The oldest X'ers shouldn't be in the same group as people who are young enough to be their children. Keep in mind that I'm referring just to shared cultural and developmental experiences. I'm not talking about population fluctuations.