Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Millennials and GenZ horribly misidentified
#1
I don't know whether it's because of the authors' scarce reliance on actually good data, or because they ... quite literally are out of touch boomers, but the brackets to put these generations into are nonsense.

As Howe i think himself said these are not astronomical events you can't time them precisely.
And yet they assume generational lengths constant with about 10 years precision and cohort lengths with about 10 years precision as well, and then are remarkably steadfast about these arbitrary lines.

Well i'm here to tell whomever it may interest that at least the two three generations i have direct insight into are horribly misdefined and characterized.

-First and foremost, lumping in people born in 2005 with people born in '82 is about the least sensical and least substantiated decision possible. There is a reason people outside the US and most polling centers within the US use mid 1990's as the cutoff. (and conversely extend the starting years back a bit, so it lasts about 15 years) As a basis it needs to be established that the internet is the most defining thing of human existence nowadays. The most recent US presidential election went the way it did to a large extent because of the internet according to polling data after the fact, and that's just the most powerful country in the world. So the relation to the internet should be a defining factor in determining cohort intervals. With this in mind, millennials generally remember a time before being connected up. This is a defining trait. Millennials all at least had some form of 'being unsupervisable/unreachable', be that on the way to school at camp, etc. Psychologically this is a massively infuential, one might say defining characteristic of this cohort. They *conquered* the internet. They remember a time when the internet wasn't necessarily at home or available to them. They also do remember the actual importance and significance of 9/11.
This all stops after 1996.
People born from 1997 on can only remember the 9/11 event like a bad nightmare "with two burning towers falling down or something" to quote someone from the specified age range. They are thus too young to understand the reasoning behind the following reactionary actions. People after 1997 on average also had the internet available as a dial up as soon as they were old enough (school age/2004) to actually know what it was. There was no time that they could have actually reasonably used the internet but didn't for lack of availability. Most importantly however, cell phones were widely available and widely used by the time they were in any position to be sent alone anywhere. The options for them to be ever truly disconnected from parents are very scarce, especially with overprotective genX parents (soccer mom stereotype). How this makes for a huge impact on the psychological development of people probably doesn't need explaining.
There are also no generational differences in their experience to someone born in 2005 as far as i can tell. Both had cell-phones from the moment they could meaningfully use them - granted the later ones had smartphones.
What were major life affecting things that occurred between 2001(start of meaningful memories of 1997ers) and 2009(start of meaningful memories of 2005ers)? Wars, catastrophes, internet boom, policy changes, economic crash and historic election. All things that wouldn't influence the world of a young child much.
In other words there is nothing 2005ers experienced that 1997s didnt also experience and nothing 1997s experienced that 2005s didn't. This distinction is therefore meaningless. A distinction could possibly be 2003-4 which is the point from which people are too young to remember the crash of 2008.
What would make much more sense is a distinction around 2011 which is the point from which on a lot of people are on social media before they are born, and have access to smart toys and the internet and normal tech before they can completely deal with it, as in "completely growing up with tech." But this is still just a small distinction from 'growing up with tech from the point at which you can comprehend it" which is true from 1997 on.

-Next, identifying genZ as "Homelanders" is .... really really wrong. It's a bit presumptuous to name a generation not based on something they did (GI), or some temporal thing (millennials), but on something their parents/other people were focusing at the time of their birth years. Furthermore while GenX and Millennials were a step into a more global understanding of generations - a great step with human culture itself becoming more global - naming the one gneration whose existence has been most defined by the global village of the internet so far after a local trend is..... puzzling.
I mean it's a nice name, but it really can't be the primary name for the cohort. Millennials would self identify as millennials... i doubt homelanders would self identify as homelanders.
Futhermore GenZ has a sort of finality, a sense of "the world is circling the drain" "everything is depressing but i don't care" "lmao ? just yeet me off this planet?" about it that is incredibly common with people born in the 2000s.

-Additionally the cohort pew and some statistical people from the UK worked with (1997+) actually shows aigns of not fitting the 4 turnings model at all, indicating that the Artist generation is possibly yet to be born.
Millennials clearly fit the hero archetype the best, there can be no question to this. The best description i heard was explaining why the NPC memes affected their target so much "they grew up with everyone telling them that they could and woud be heroes and the protagonists of their stories, independently of upbringing, and this meme cuts at the heart of that, at the generational insecurity that they are allegedly just one in a mass and parroting what the establishment wants without individual agency." This individual agency and capacity being denied because of for example financial crises caused by people other than them is also what has prompted so many to be disillusioned with current society.
Compared to this however GenZ doesn't quiiiite fit the bill neither of the Hero, nor the Artist cohort.
Compared to their Millennial counterparts at the same age GenZ were found to be more fiscally conservative, more improving their behavior, more empathetic, fitting the hero generation more, but also far less politically active, and with less collective confidence, completely influenced by the circumstances of them growing up amidst economic uncertainty and turbulent political times with civil liberties curtailed.
One might argue of course that this is because that cohort is between the generations that are outlined in the 4 turnings theory, but the trend line shows that while the progress towards more and more liberalism has slowed in some aspects, in others it's not even close to peaking, so maybe we haven't even reached the true new Artist generation yet, who are supposed to grow up amidst the peak societal High. Because after all, even counting with 2005 as the starting year we're less than 4 years away from the first of this generation reaching adulthood. And i highly doubt that the conflict will be sufficiently and agreeably resolved within the next election cycle with trump being the only republican option and the democrats being in disarray.

In short: there's no indication or reason that birthyears 1997 and 2005 should be different, there is litle sign that anyone is in line to becoming conformist any time soon (at least not in a single groups and with civil engagement type of thing), not to mention that the current crisis will definitely not have ended when the designated artist generation comes of age,
Reply
#2
(04-28-2019, 09:59 PM)NobodyImportant Wrote: I don't know whether it's because of the authors' scarce reliance on actually good data, or because they ... quite literally are out of touch boomers, but the brackets to put these generations into are nonsense.

As Howe i think himself said these are not astronomical events you can't time them precisely.
And yet they assume generational lengths constant with about 10 years precision and cohort lengths with about 10 years precision as well, and then are remarkably steadfast about these arbitrary lines.

Well i'm here to tell whomever it may interest that at least the two three generations i have direct insight into are horribly misdefined and characterized.

-First and foremost, lumping in people born in 2005 with people born in '82 is about the least sensical and least substantiated decision possible. There is a reason people outside the US and most polling centers within the US use mid 1990's as the cutoff. (and conversely extend the starting years back a bit, so it lasts about 15 years) As a basis it needs to be established that the internet is the most defining thing of human existence nowadays. The most recent US presidential election went the way it did to a large extent because of the internet according to polling data after the fact, and that's just the most powerful country in the world. So the relation to the internet should be a defining factor in determining cohort intervals. With this in mind, millennials generally remember a time before being connected up. This is a defining trait. Millennials all at least had some form of 'being unsupervisable/unreachable', be that on the way to school at camp, etc. Psychologically this is a massively infuential, one might say defining characteristic of this cohort. They *conquered* the internet. They remember a time when the internet wasn't necessarily at home or available to them. They also do remember the actual importance and significance of 9/11.
This all stops after 1996.
People born from 1997 on can only remember the 9/11 event like a bad nightmare "with two burning towers falling down or something" to quote someone from the specified age range. They are thus too young to understand the reasoning behind the following reactionary actions. People after 1997 on average also had the internet available as a dial up as soon as they were old enough (school age/2004) to actually know what it was. There was no time that they could have actually reasonably used the internet but didn't for lack of availability. Most importantly however, cell phones were widely available and widely used by the time they were in any position to be sent alone anywhere. The options for them to be ever truly disconnected from parents are very scarce, especially with overprotective genX parents (soccer mom stereotype). How this makes for a huge impact on the psychological development of people probably doesn't need explaining.
There are also no generational differences in their experience to someone born in 2005 as far as i can tell. Both had cell-phones from the moment they could meaningfully use them - granted the later ones had smartphones.
What were major life affecting things that occurred between 2001(start of meaningful memories of 1997ers) and 2009(start of meaningful memories of 2005ers)? Wars, catastrophes, internet boom, policy changes, economic crash and historic election. All things that wouldn't influence the world of a young child much.
In other words there is nothing 2005ers experienced that 1997s didnt also experience and nothing 1997s experienced that 2005s didn't. This distinction is therefore meaningless. A distinction could possibly be 2003-4 which is the point from which people are too young to remember the crash of 2008.
What would make much more sense is a distinction around 2011 which is the point from which on a lot of people are on social media before they are born, and have access to smart toys and the internet and normal tech before they can completely deal with it, as in "completely growing up with tech." But this is still just a small distinction from 'growing up with tech from the point at which you can comprehend it" which is true from 1997 on.

-Next, identifying genZ as "Homelanders" is .... really really wrong. It's a bit presumptuous to name a generation not based on something they did (GI), or some temporal thing (millennials), but on something their parents/other people were focusing at the time of their birth years. Furthermore while GenX and Millennials were a step into a more global understanding of generations - a great step with human culture itself becoming more global - naming the one gneration whose existence has been most defined by the global village of the internet so far after a local trend is..... puzzling.
I mean it's a nice name, but it really can't be the primary name for the cohort. Millennials would self identify as millennials... i doubt homelanders would self identify as homelanders.
Futhermore GenZ has a sort of finality, a sense of "the world is circling the drain" "everything is depressing but i don't care" "lmao ? just yeet me off this planet?" about it that is incredibly common with people born in the 2000s.

-Additionally the cohort pew and some statistical people from the UK worked with (1997+) actually shows aigns of not fitting the 4 turnings model at all, indicating that the Artist generation is possibly yet to be born.
Millennials clearly fit the hero archetype the best, there can be no question to this. The best description i heard was explaining why the NPC memes affected their target so much "they grew up with everyone telling them that they could and woud be heroes and the protagonists of their stories, independently of upbringing, and this meme cuts at the heart of that, at the generational insecurity that they are allegedly just one in a mass and parroting what the establishment wants without individual agency." This individual agency and capacity being denied because of for example financial crises caused by people other than them is also what has prompted so many to be disillusioned with current society.
Compared to this however GenZ doesn't quiiiite fit the bill neither of the Hero, nor the Artist cohort.
Compared to their Millennial counterparts at the same age GenZ were found to be more fiscally conservative, more improving their behavior, more empathetic, fitting the hero generation more, but also far less politically active, and with less collective confidence, completely influenced by the circumstances of them growing up amidst economic uncertainty and turbulent political times with civil liberties curtailed.
One might argue of course that this is because that cohort is between the generations that are outlined in the 4 turnings theory, but the trend line shows that while the progress towards more and more liberalism has slowed in some aspects, in others it's not even close to peaking, so maybe we haven't even reached the true new Artist generation yet, who are supposed to grow up amidst the peak societal High. Because after all, even counting with 2005 as the starting year we're less than 4 years away from the first of this generation reaching adulthood. And i highly doubt that the conflict will be sufficiently and agreeably resolved within the next election cycle with trump being the only republican option and the democrats being in disarray.

In short: there's no indication or reason that birthyears 1997 and 2005 should be different, there is litle sign that anyone is in line to becoming conformist any time soon (at least not in a single groups and with civil engagement type of thing), not to mention that the current crisis will definitely not have ended when the designated artist generation comes of age,

I'm Millennial with Asperger's and I feel like a hyper individual. I don't relate to the opinions on the social media sites nor care if I fit in with them. I maintain control by refusing to do things I don't want and telling the world to fuck itself. How does that fit into S&H? I feel the social norms are so narrow there's no point in actually trying to meet them so I just do whatever I want and never ask permission for anything. People saying they can't do something because it's socially unacceptable is foreign to me. Everything is socially unacceptable to the peer group now so why care? The only question I have in life is if anyone can physically stop me. I'm very resentful and hostile towards a world forcing me to be the same and fight back. If the new generations will be able to do things I can't I'll be resentful and angry at them for having what I couldn't. The more life goes out of my control the more hostile I get towards the world for deciding to make me its victim and the more disobedient I get towards society. I figure if your actions don't affect your life you may as well do whatever you want and let the cards fall as they may. I learned doing the "right thing" is useless so you do whatever you want instead because nothing is promised. I find myself having a very "nothing to lose" attitude. Also social media "peers" seem distant and their mob of opinions seem too abstract for me to care for. What consequence is it if some random person gives me a thumbs down? I don't see any other than some random internet person I'll never see in the real world not liking it.
Reply
#3
Don't be so dismissive of the world if people don't care you yourself should about your own ideals and rules.

Also .... what does this have to do with what i wrote .... like at all lol
Reply
#4
(04-29-2019, 01:06 AM)NobodyImportant Wrote: Don't be so dismissive of the world if people don't care you yourself should about your own ideals and rules.

Also .... what does this have to do with what i wrote .... like at all lol

It has to do with what I wrote to show you that two different people born in the same year can have different reactions to the same events. I don't get the shifts in society. Why do people care so much about strangers online giving them thumbs up or down to the point of changing their entire worldviews? I'm dismissive of the world sometimes it makes zero sense to me at all.
Reply
#5
(04-28-2019, 09:59 PM)NobodyImportant Wrote: I don't know whether it's because of the authors' scarce reliance on actually good data, or because they ... quite literally are out of touch boomers, but the brackets to put these generations into are nonsense.
Are you aware that the generations concepts were largely assembled in the 1980's?

Also you are confusing cultural/experiential generations (the sort of things Pew measures) with historical generations (what S&H are talking about). They are different things.

For example, I compiled a composite of people observations of generational change to give these approximate dates for cultural/experiential generations.

1946-1962 Boom (Prophet)
1963-1980 GenX (Nomad)
1981-1994 Millennial (Rogue)
1995-XXXX GenZ (Civic?)

Historical generations are a categorization used by historians to characterize like-aged people who were forged into one or another mode of thinking because of their shared experience of living through history at particular times.  Dating for such generations can only be finalized after the vast majority of the generation is either dead or senescent. We have final dating for the GIs, but not for any generations after that. The reason for this is that generations often play roles during elderhood that, along with the roles they played when younger, serve to define the generation. Two members of the Silent generation are running for president and the Speaker of the House is still a Silent. This generation is not yet finished.
Reply
#6
(04-29-2019, 07:44 PM)Mikebert Wrote: ... you are confusing cultural/experiential generations (the sort of things Pew measures) with historical generations (what S&H are talking about). They are different things...

This issue seems engrained in the arguments both here and on Facebook (where I've chosen to demur). Yours is a good guide to separate one way of thinking from the other, but I'm certain the issue is a zombie that will continue to shamble along forever.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
#7
Not until after World War II did the 1924/1925 divide between the GI and Silent generation become clear. The men who participated in the most heroic battles and got to make rank during the war would be the GIs and the men who got no such chance became the Silent.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#8
(04-29-2019, 07:44 PM)Mikebert Wrote: For example, I compiled a composite of people observations of generational change to give these approximate dates for cultural/experiential generations.
1946-1962 Boom (Prophet)
1963-1980 GenX (Nomad)
1981-1994 Millennial (Rogue)
1995-XXXX GenZ (Civic?)

If we were to go back in time eighty or so years to the 1930s, when the Interbellum Generation/Early G.I.s (born between 1901-13) were equivalent in age to the Millennials of our current decade, is it possible that they would have seemed like a 'rogue' generation back then? I've heard there were comments in the day about the youth of the Roaring Twenties and how pathetic they were that seemed similar to the stuff said about Millennials during the 2010s.
Reply
#9
(05-01-2019, 11:22 AM)michael_k Wrote:
(04-29-2019, 07:44 PM)Mikebert Wrote: For example, I compiled a composite of people observations of generational change to give these approximate dates for cultural/experiential generations.
1946-1962 Boom (Prophet)
1963-1980 GenX (Nomad)
1981-1994 Millennial (Rogue)
1995-XXXX GenZ (Civic?)

If we were to go back in time eighty or so years to the 1930s, when the Interbellum Generation/Early G.I.s (born between 1901-13) were equivalent in age to the Millennials of our current decade, is it possible that they would have seemed like a 'rogue' generation back then? I've heard there were comments in the day about the youth of the Roaring Twenties and how pathetic they were that seemed similar to the stuff said about Millennials during the 2010s.

It was the Lost Generation that seemingly had the mindless fun of the 1920s. Early-wave GIs apparently did little of the 'roar' in the Roaring twenties. I asked my late grandfather (1912-1999) what he thought of the Roaring Twenties. Sure, he was a farm kid -- but he seemed to have completely missed even knowledge that there was a 'roar'. He could tell me what the bootlegger highways were.

The first wave of the GI generation was too young to have lost much in the 1929 Crash as did the Lost, and harsh as the Depression was, it created some good habits that would pay off well in the postwar boom. First-wave GI adults were often in leadership positions at the time of the Pearl Harbor attack, and if they got to the war and survived it, they could make rank quickly.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#10
I very much agree with the cut off date of the millennial generation at about 2003-05. There is no reason to call people born after 1997 Generation Z. They are not. They act and think like millennials, and were all calling themselves that before Pew intervened. The 1996 cut off date made by Pew is made by a demographer. They are only looking at superficial demographic physical traits, not at the traits of a generation. Generations theorists look at the traits and values of a generation. They are shaped by the turnings they grew up in, and shape them in turn.

9-11 did not indicate any change to the 3rd turning. It went on and continued. No national emergency or total war followed; the people were told to go shopping. The Bush response to 9-11 was phony business as usual, including starting an unnecessary war, and also not pursuing the criminals who attacked us on 9-11 anyway. They did not properly invade Afghanistan and did not capture bin laden. That is not a 4T response. And the Bush policy did not establish a new defense policy. Their policy of starting preemptive wars to advance American imperialism was not continued after Bush. No, the preemptive war policy was business as usual; it was just another Vietnam invasion that also was not justified.

The great recession affected the whole world, and we have only recently recovered from it, while still leaving many on the edge of economic ruin. That was the start of the 4T, which means the next adaptive Generation Z started 2003-2005. I understand the inpulse for speculation about the theory, but it is working fine, and all predictions based on it have come true. Why not just relax and watch the events happen as they were predicted, as has been happening all along?

There has been virtually no worthwhile pop culture in the USA since the early 1980s. Why base anything or any dates upon it?
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#11
(05-01-2019, 12:41 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:
(05-01-2019, 11:22 AM)michael_k Wrote:
(04-29-2019, 07:44 PM)Mikebert Wrote: For example, I compiled a composite of people observations of generational change to give these approximate dates for cultural/experiential generations.
1946-1962 Boom (Prophet)
1963-1980 GenX (Nomad)
1981-1994 Millennial (Rogue)
1995-XXXX GenZ (Civic?)

If we were to go back in time eighty or so years to the 1930s, when the Interbellum Generation/Early G.I.s (born between 1901-13) were equivalent in age to the Millennials of our current decade, is it possible that they would have seemed like a 'rogue' generation back then? I've heard there were comments in the day about the youth of the Roaring Twenties and how pathetic they were that seemed similar to the stuff said about Millennials during the 2010s.

It was the Lost Generation that seemingly had the mindless fun of the 1920s. Early-wave GIs apparently did little of the 'roar' in the Roaring twenties. I asked my late grandfather (1912-1999) what he thought of the Roaring Twenties. Sure, he was a farm kid -- but he seemed to have completely missed even knowledge that there was a 'roar'. He could tell me what the bootlegger highways were.

The first wave of the GI generation was too young to have lost much in the 1929 Crash as did the Lost, and harsh as the Depression was, it created some good habits that would pay off well in the postwar boom. First-wave GI adults were often in leadership positions at the time of the Pearl Harbor attack, and if they got to the war and survived it, they could make rank quickly.

The first wave of GI were prepared for an entirely different world that vanished before their eyes. Imagine being born in 1907 and graduating from college in 1929. They were prepared for adulthood then the crash came on them and made all their preparation meaningless. People born before that were at least entrenched somewhere and people born after that had time to prepare for a depression mindset.
Reply
#12
(05-01-2019, 04:29 PM)AspieMillennial Wrote: The first wave of GI were prepared for an entirely different world that vanished before their eyes. Imagine being born in 1907 and graduating from college in 1929. They were prepared for adulthood then the crash came on them and made all their preparation meaningless. People born before that were at least entrenched somewhere and people born after that had time to prepare for a depression mindset.

My parents were born in 1914, and graduated from high school in 1932 -- the depth of the Depression. For my mother, it was the end of nursing school, and further education in general. My father was a musician, and he was less affected, but still wary. He put down his horn, and got a civil service job as a fireman. Both squeezed every dime before it was spent, planning for their retirements. Neither made it.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
#13
(05-02-2019, 01:11 PM)David Horn Wrote:
(05-01-2019, 04:29 PM)AspieMillennial Wrote: The first wave of GI were prepared for an entirely different world that vanished before their eyes. Imagine being born in 1907 and graduating from college in 1929. They were prepared for adulthood then the crash came on them and made all their preparation meaningless. People born before that were at least entrenched somewhere and people born after that had time to prepare for a depression mindset.

My parents were born in 1914, and graduated from high school in 1932 -- the depth of the Depression. For my mother, it was the end of nursing school, and further education in general. My father was a musician, and he was less affected, but still wary. He put down his horn, and got a civil service job as a fireman. Both squeezed every dime before it was spent, planning for their retirements. Neither made it.

This shows that sometimes failing the marshmallow test, where if you don't eat the marshmallow now then you're promised a bunch more later is the wise thing to do. If the future is uncertain, take what you can now no matter how unwise it seems. Don't listen to the promise of a future marshmallow you don't know is there. You never know if the now may crash and that's what this era taught me. Have fun before your bones rot and ache. I don't care if the world sees me as a failure or not.
Reply
#14
(05-01-2019, 01:35 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: They act and think like millennials, and were all calling themselves that before Pew intervened. The 1996 cut off date made by Pew is made by a demographer.
This is the exact opposite of true.
I don't know what sort of people you've been talking to, but i know people from all these age ranges. And the pew research additionally confirms that there are absolutely significant differences between the millennial average and people born after 96.
I have also explained to you in detail why it's precisely the opposite of what you say. People after 97 have little in common in their psychological development, read: traits, with anyone before that and to say that there was a significant change in people after 2005 trait wise is completely nonsensical as i explicitly addressed that there were no sociopolitical developments at that time significant enough to cause that.
It's like you've literally not read any of my post.

"It went on and continued. No national emergency or total war followed;"
Are you insane?
Literally nothing about life past 9/11 is the same as before.
The idea of an oil war got pushed into public knowledge, travel by air or public transport has changed forever and will possibly never be the same again.
If you showed someone from the 90s the way we are living right now the most shocking thing would be the absolute loss of any sort of privacy. The NSA violating the constitution, the CIA violating human rights, the army committing warcrimes, this all came after 2001, and was never an issue like this. In fact the most animosity towards the political elite from both sides of the political aisle is exclusively due to what sort of liberties were taken after that point in time. Businesses are allowed to do a lot more compared to private persons after this, because they did not have their rights curtailed because they are needed for the economy but regular people had. The economic crash might have made things more dire, but the "screw regular folk, what matters is state and economic interests" which causes the current anti system climate, started exactly after 9/11.
There were invasions and military action in afghanistan and iraq.
And the policy of "if someone tries to put US personnel on trial for warcrimes the standing order is to invade denHaag" is i would say a pretty fucking huge policy change along with torture now being a totally fine thing to do, and constitutional violations in spying on your own citizens directly and with the help of corporations being commonplace.
It's exactly the sort of thing that leads to the old system showing that it is unfit to function at least as much as the new generations are concerned.
The vietnam war happened because there was a clear opponent. Iraq had not much directly to do with 9/11 which prompted it since it was the war on terror.
As a matter of fact from a more historical and less sociological point of view the "war on terror" is considered a new historical epoch on earth as a whole.

The great recession meant that less people have a stable economic background. it has more longterm consequences but is less directly immediately painful than the 29 crash.
And it most definitely is not something that could be noticed by people who were young at that time.
Additionally i have no idea about what sort of true predictions you are talking about since we only have data concerning the people 1997-2004. And any other predictions would also work with 911 being the start. There isn't a single person in the world who is unaware of global terrorism at this point. This started in 2001.
And last not least the economic crisis wasn't a sudden crash. The future prospects of people were already shit, with the entire middle class being pushed into wage slavery since way before, and millennials already having bad prospects for the futur with overly expensive but absoutely necessary university degrees. The only thing 2008 changed was that the job crisis became a bit more dire, which affected the already disenfranchised millennials disproportionately.

Overall the one thing to keep in mind is: Occupy Wallstreet was perhaps the most millennial thing in history.
You are saying that people born in 2004 who were SEVEN at that time are in the same cohort, and could totaly feel that.
I'm saying that the youngest you could be to get and in any way empathize with that crowning millennial event is 14-15. Which with '11-'12 means '97.

I urge you to reconsider because i couldn't find a singe thing among the stuff you said that was actually provably right.
Reply
#15
(05-02-2019, 08:02 PM)NobodyImportant Wrote:
(05-01-2019, 01:35 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: They act and think like millennials, and were all calling themselves that before Pew intervened. The 1996 cut off date made by Pew is made by a demographer.
This is the exact opposite.
I don't know what sort of people you've been talking to. And the pew research additionally confirms that there are absolutely significant differences between the millennial average and people born after 96

What's the difference between the conservative minority among Millennials such as Ben Shapiro, Steven Crowder, or Lauren Southern compared to people born after 1996?
Reply
#16
(05-02-2019, 08:02 PM)NobodyImportant Wrote:
(05-01-2019, 01:35 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: They act and think like millennials, and were all calling themselves that before Pew intervened. The 1996 cut off date made by Pew is made by a demographer.
This is the exact opposite of true.
I don't know what sort of people you've been talking to, but i know people from all these age ranges. And the pew research additionally confirms that there are absolutely significant differences between the millennial average and people born after 96.
I have also explained to you in detail why it's precisely the opposite of what you say. People after 97 have little in common in their psychological development, read: traits, with anyone before that and to say that there was a significant change in people after 2005 trait wise is completely nonsensical as i explicitly addressed that there were no sociopolitical developments at that time significant enough to cause that.
It's like you've literally not read any of my post.

"It went on and continued. No national emergency or total war followed;"
Are you insane?
Literally nothing about life past 9/11 is the same as before.
The idea of an oil war got pushed into public knowledge, travel by air or public transport has changed forever and will possibly never be the same again.
If you showed someone from the 90s the way we are living right now the most shocking thing would be the absolute loss of any sort of privacy. The NSA violating the constitution, the CIA violating human rights, the army committing warcrimes, this all came after 2001, and was never an issue like this. In fact the most animosity towards the political elite from both sides of the political aisle is exclusively due to what sort of liberties were taken after that point in time. Businesses are allowed to do a lot more compared to private persons after this, because they did not have their rights curtailed because they are needed for the economy but regular people had. The economic crash might have made things more dire, but the "screw regular folk, what matters is state and economic interests" which causes the current anti system climate, started exactly after 9/11.
There were invasions and military action in afghanistan and iraq.
And the policy of "if someone tries to put US personnel on trial for warcrimes the standing order is to invade denHaag" is i would say a pretty fucking huge policy change along with torture now being a totally fine thing to do, and constitutional violations in spying on your own citizens directly and with the help of corporations being commonplace.
It's exactly the sort of thing that leads to the old system showing that it is unfit to function at least as much as the new generations are concerned.
The vietnam war happened because there was a clear opponent. Iraq had not much directly to do with 9/11 which prompted it since it was the war on terror.
As a matter of fact from a more historical and less sociological point of view the "war on terror" is considered a new historical epoch on earth as a whole.

The great recession meant that less people have a stable economic background. it has more longterm consequences but is less directly immediately painful than the 29 crash.
And it most definitely is not something that could be noticed by people who were young at that time.
Additionally i have no idea about what sort of true predictions you are talking about since we only have data concerning the people 1997-2004. And any other predictions would also work with 911 being the start. There isn't a single person in the world who is unaware of global terrorism at this point. This started in 2001.
And last not least the economic crisis wasn't a sudden crash. The future prospects of people were already shit, with the entire middle class being pushed into wage slavery since way before, and millennials already having bad prospects for the futur with overly expensive but absoutely necessary university degrees. The only thing 2008 changed was that the job crisis became a bit more dire, which affected the already disenfranchised millennials disproportionately.

Overall the one thing to keep in mind is: Occupy Wallstreet was perhaps the most millennial thing in history.
You are saying that people born in 2004 who were SEVEN at that time are in the same cohort, and could totaly feel that.
I'm saying that the youngest you could be to get and in any way empathize with that crowning millennial event is 14-15. Which with '11-'12 means '97.

I urge you to reconsider because i couldn't find a singe thing among the stuff you said that was actually provably right.

I very much and totally disagree. But all opinions are welcome on the site.

The millennial 2000 cohorts heroically demonstrated for freedom from our deadly insane obsession with guns. If you saw that rally, you can't doubt their civic archetype. And they helped produce the best midterm election turnout in decades. Those same cohorts of young people and even younger are now demonstrating loudly about the greatest crisis of our time, climate change, which started to come into focus in about 2007, and especially in 2010 with the big oil spill that Dumpty Trumpty is now covering up and ignoring. The civics are starting to learn to be civics. That means more than occupying a street. It means participating in civic affairs. It means voting for starters. I agree Occupy was led by millennials, but when it ended, that by no means ended civic actions by millennials, including by younger cohorts than those who Occupied-- but didn't follow through with making their concerns politically effective and partisan, and thus had no civic effect to speak of. And that means Occupy was definitely NOT the most millennial thing in history, and not the crowning event of anything. It was mostly a lot of sound and fury, signifying virtually nothing. It is not civic unless it leads directly to political action within the system as well as outside it. The labor protesters of the 1930s led directly to real power for unions. That was civic. Occupy 2011 was OK, it got some people talking, but not so much as far as real change is concerned. BY the way, I participated in Occupy too so I know all about it.

The 2008 recession was definitely a sudden crash, in September of that year. Look back at the record of wall street then. If not for lessons learned and timely intervention by the government, we would have fallen into the worst depression EVER. Imagine millions of million-dollar mortgages evaporating. That was a huge disaster. Global terrorism means nothing to the average person; it's far away, and so were the stupid wars. Nor do I think the NSA violating privacy, etc, bad policy as it was, had any real impact on most Americans. Having your life savings and your home wiped out, did. Losing your job did. Lower income did. And this crisis continues today, because Trump is a total liar and a total creep. His claims are bogus. Most people have not recovered from the crash, and that most certainly includes 1997-2004 cohorts, who are entering an economy in debt and with everything unaffordable.

The old system was to wage unnecessary wars like Vietnam, which did NOT have a legitimate opponent, but was an unprovoked US invasion, and that policy was simply continued in Iraq. It was ZERO as far as anything new is concerned. If we don't agree on that, we live in alternate universes.

I read your post. I would agree with pushing the Gen Z start back to 2003, according to descriptions I've heard and seen about children at that age, but not to 1997. That implies that 2001 was the start of the 4th Turning. That is an event I predicted. And it is absolutely NOT the start of a 4T. I would never agree with that. You are out of touch with recent history. I doubt you lived through that time.

You wait and see. This 4T will end in 2028 and 2029. 4Ts do not last close to 30 years.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#17
(05-02-2019, 11:14 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(05-02-2019, 08:02 PM)NobodyImportant Wrote:
(05-01-2019, 01:35 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: They act and think like millennials, and were all calling themselves that before Pew intervened. The 1996 cut off date made by Pew is made by a demographer.
This is the exact opposite of true.
I don't know what sort of people you've been talking to, but i know people from all these age ranges. And the pew research additionally confirms that there are absolutely significant differences between the millennial average and people born after 96.
I have also explained to you in detail why it's precisely the opposite of what you say. People after 97 have little in common in their psychological development, read: traits, with anyone before that and to say that there was a significant change in people after 2005 trait wise is completely nonsensical as i explicitly addressed that there were no sociopolitical developments at that time significant enough to cause that.
It's like you've literally not read any of my post.

"It went on and continued. No national emergency or total war followed;"
Are you insane?
Literally nothing about life past 9/11 is the same as before.
The idea of an oil war got pushed into public knowledge, travel by air or public transport has changed forever and will possibly never be the same again.
If you showed someone from the 90s the way we are living right now the most shocking thing would be the absolute loss of any sort of privacy. The NSA violating the constitution, the CIA violating human rights, the army committing warcrimes, this all came after 2001, and was never an issue like this. In fact the most animosity towards the political elite from both sides of the political aisle is exclusively due to what sort of liberties were taken after that point in time. Businesses are allowed to do a lot more compared to private persons after this, because they did not have their rights curtailed because they are needed for the economy but regular people had. The economic crash might have made things more dire, but the "screw regular folk, what matters is state and economic interests" which causes the current anti system climate, started exactly after 9/11.
There were invasions and military action in afghanistan and iraq.
And the policy of "if someone tries to put US personnel on trial for warcrimes the standing order is to invade denHaag" is i would say a pretty fucking huge policy change along with torture now being a totally fine thing to do, and constitutional violations in spying on your own citizens directly and with the help of corporations being commonplace.
It's exactly the sort of thing that leads to the old system showing that it is unfit to function at least as much as the new generations are concerned.
The vietnam war happened because there was a clear opponent. Iraq had not much directly to do with 9/11 which prompted it since it was the war on terror.
As a matter of fact from a more historical and less sociological point of view the "war on terror" is considered a new historical epoch on earth as a whole.

The great recession meant that less people have a stable economic background. it has more longterm consequences but is less directly immediately painful than the 29 crash.
And it most definitely is not something that could be noticed by people who were young at that time.
Additionally i have no idea about what sort of true predictions you are talking about since we only have data concerning the people 1997-2004. And any other predictions would also work with 911 being the start. There isn't a single person in the world who is unaware of global terrorism at this point. This started in 2001.
And last not least the economic crisis wasn't a sudden crash. The future prospects of people were already shit, with the entire middle class being pushed into wage slavery since way before, and millennials already having bad prospects for the futur with overly expensive but absoutely necessary university degrees. The only thing 2008 changed was that the job crisis became a bit more dire, which affected the already disenfranchised millennials disproportionately.

Overall the one thing to keep in mind is: Occupy Wallstreet was perhaps the most millennial thing in history.
You are saying that people born in 2004 who were SEVEN at that time are in the same cohort, and could totaly feel that.
I'm saying that the youngest you could be to get and in any way empathize with that crowning millennial event is 14-15. Which with '11-'12 means '97.

I urge you to reconsider because i couldn't find a singe thing among the stuff you said that was actually provably right.

I very much and totally disagree. But all opinions are welcome on the site.

The millennial 2000 cohorts heroically demonstrated for freedom from our deadly insane obsession with guns. If you saw that rally, you can't doubt their civic archetype. And they helped produce the best midterm election turnout in decades. Those same cohorts of young people and even younger are now demonstrating loudly about the greatest crisis of our time, climate change, which started to come into focus in about 2007, and especially in 2010 with the big oil spill that Dumpty Trumpty is now covering up and ignoring. The civics are starting to learn to be civics. That means more than occupying a street. It means participating in civic affairs. It means voting for starters. I agree Occupy was led by millennials, but when it ended, that by no means ended civic actions by millennials, including by younger cohorts than those who Occupied-- but didn't follow through with making their concerns politically effective and partisan, and thus had no civic effect to speak of. And that means Occupy was definitely NOT the most millennial thing in history, and not the crowning event of anything. It was mostly a lot of sound and fury, signifying virtually nothing. It is not civic unless it leads directly to political action within the system as well as outside it. The labor protesters of the 1930s led directly to real power for unions. That was civic. Occupy 2011 was OK, it got some people talking, but not so much as far as real change is concerned. BY the way, I participated in Occupy too so I know all about it.

The 2008 recession was definitely a sudden crash, in September of that year. Look back at the record of wall street then. If not for lessons learned and timely intervention by the government, we would have fallen into the worst depression EVER. Imagine millions of million-dollar mortgages evaporating. That was a huge disaster. Global terrorism means nothing to the average person; it's far away, and so were the stupid wars. Nor do I think the NSA violating privacy, etc, bad policy as it was, had any real impact on most Americans. Having your life savings and your home wiped out, did. Losing your job did. Lower income did. And this crisis continues today, because Trump is a total liar and a total creep. His claims are bogus. Most people have not recovered from the crash, and that most certainly includes 1997-2004 cohorts, who are entering an economy in debt and with everything unaffordable.

The old system was to wage unnecessary wars like Vietnam, which did NOT have a legitimate opponent, but was an unprovoked US invasion, and that policy was simply continued in Iraq. It was ZERO as far as anything new is concerned. If we don't agree on that, we live in alternate universes.

I read your post. I would agree with pushing the Gen Z start back to 2003, according to descriptions I've heard and seen about children at that age, but not to 1997. That implies that 2001 was the start of the 4th Turning. That is an event I predicted. And it is absolutely NOT the start of a 4T. I would never agree with that. You are out of touch with recent history. I doubt you lived through that time.

You wait and see. This 4T will end in 2028 and 2029. 4Ts do not last close to 30 years.

Speak for yourself. I'm Millennial and roll my eyes all the time because mass shootings are overplayed in the media as a tactic to make us feel unsafe. The media is just a 24/7 news agency based on making profits off our fears. If anything they create more mass shootings because people want the fame. Then idiot protestors want no more guns.
Reply
#18
(05-01-2019, 04:29 PM)AspieMillennial Wrote:
(05-01-2019, 12:41 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:
(05-01-2019, 11:22 AM)michael_k Wrote:
(04-29-2019, 07:44 PM)Mikebert Wrote: For example, I compiled a composite of people observations of generational change to give these approximate dates for cultural/experiential generations.
1946-1962 Boom (Prophet)
1963-1980 GenX (Nomad)
1981-1994 Millennial (Rogue)
1995-XXXX GenZ (Civic?)

If we were to go back in time eighty or so years to the 1930s, when the Interbellum Generation/Early G.I.s (born between 1901-13) were equivalent in age to the Millennials of our current decade, is it possible that they would have seemed like a 'rogue' generation back then? I've heard there were comments in the day about the youth of the Roaring Twenties and how pathetic they were that seemed similar to the stuff said about Millennials during the 2010s.

It was the Lost Generation that seemingly had the mindless fun of the 1920s. Early-wave GIs apparently did little of the 'roar' in the Roaring twenties. I asked my late grandfather (1912-1999) what he thought of the Roaring Twenties. Sure, he was a farm kid -- but he seemed to have completely missed even knowledge that there was a 'roar'. He could tell me what the bootlegger highways were.

The first wave of the GI generation was too young to have lost much in the 1929 Crash as did the Lost, and harsh as the Depression was, it created some good habits that would pay off well in the postwar boom. First-wave GI adults were often in leadership positions at the time of the Pearl Harbor attack, and if they got to the war and survived it, they could make rank quickly.

The first wave of GI were prepared for an entirely different world that vanished before their eyes. Imagine being born in 1907 and graduating from college in 1929. They were prepared for adulthood then the crash came on them and made all their preparation meaningless. People born before that were at least entrenched somewhere and people born after that had time to prepare for a depression mindset.

First of all, even graduating from high school was something of an elite achievement in 1929. Completion of high school became much more commonplace in the 1930s, when the government started to encourage teenagers to stay in school rather than join the workforce -- in part to reduce the downward pressure on wages that marginal workers (teenagers and the elderly in the workforce) brought about. A college education was a rarity in the late 1920s, and it in itself generally indicated elite status. As late as the 1920s, lower-middle-class men were proud of their 'solid eighth-grade educations'.

The divide between the Lost and the GI generations took shape during the Great Depression. The Lost had more of a stake in the world before the Depression, and the first wave of GI adults of the time had far less to lose because they had not been able to save the capital for investing in the stock bubble or in real estate, both of which imploded. The fun of the Roaring Twenties came to an abrupt end as "Wall Street Lays an Egg", as said a famous headline in Variety Magazine. First-wage GI adults were more likely to offer solutions  out of the box that violated the Social-Darwinist strictures of America that had not been challenged since the Gilded Age.

Let us also remember that most of the Great Depression was a recovery -- a slow and painful one, but a recovery nonetheless. Living standards generally rose from the middle to late 1930s, and by 1939 most measures of economic conditions (including per capita possession of cars, appliances, and radios, and real wages) were higher than in the supposed good year of 1928. If the Lost no longer had any traces of youth and could not easily start over despite needing to start over, the GI Generation was in better position for doing so. The mindless hedonism of the Roaring Twenties would never revive while the Lost were around.

Practically all of us remember the GI Generation after World War II -- but not during or before World War II. A GI childhood was typically hardscrabble in contrast to life after WWII. But -- the GI Generation made much of the world that we now know -- suburbia, television, electronic gadgets, the modern welfare state, college education as a normal expectation for capable youth, and the rise of ethnic minorities from destitution.  (Howe and Strauss understate the role of the GI generation in the Civil Rights struggle, but GI blacks had big parts to play and with few exceptions played those parts well).

As the GI generation has almost entirely faded into memory, the world that they created erodes to an extent. America is a much nastier place than it was when GI influence was strong in economic and political life. Economic inequality has intensified as Corporate America finds the economic machine that GI adults largely built a tool for sweating workers and enriching shareholders and executives at the expense of everyone else. Although institutional racism has effectively died, social inequality in America is now as severe as in the pre-Depression era of the 1920s. That happens when economic elites see their rapacious greed and corruption as virtues and tolerate no challenges to such. Donald Trump exemplifies that, but he is more a symptom than a cause. The American political system now consists of a Democratic Party that still has some decency, but seems to get 49% of the representation in a winner-take-all system, Republican pols who try to look gracious and friendly as the face of plutocracy, and powerful front groups that hammer anyone  who does not believe in a pure plutocracy in which most people are heavily in debt and compelled to rely upon monopolized economics for survival.

Yes, much of American life is odious, and except for the sophistication of our electronic gadgets and the quality of our entertainment, many of us would feel more comfortable with the economic norms of the 1950s. The oldest posters here may remember the 1950s or have seen relics of the ways of the time and related to them -- but we are closer to the more collegial and congenial ways of the next American High than to the last one. Much must go -- especially the pay-to-play reality of contemporary life, government by lobbyist, and a culture of narcissism. We may need to rebuild some aspects of economic life from scratch after a meltdown that lasts as long as that of 1929-1932, unlike the last one that simply looked as if it could go just as bad. Americans may have to give up on Big Business in favor of small business of lesser efficiency but more capacity to give us what we need and convince us that we like what we get.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#19
(05-03-2019, 10:25 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:
(05-01-2019, 04:29 PM)AspieMillennial Wrote:
(05-01-2019, 12:41 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:
(05-01-2019, 11:22 AM)michael_k Wrote:
(04-29-2019, 07:44 PM)Mikebert Wrote: For example, I compiled a composite of people observations of generational change to give these approximate dates for cultural/experiential generations.
1946-1962 Boom (Prophet)
1963-1980 GenX (Nomad)
1981-1994 Millennial (Rogue)
1995-XXXX GenZ (Civic?)

If we were to go back in time eighty or so years to the 1930s, when the Interbellum Generation/Early G.I.s (born between 1901-13) were equivalent in age to the Millennials of our current decade, is it possible that they would have seemed like a 'rogue' generation back then? I've heard there were comments in the day about the youth of the Roaring Twenties and how pathetic they were that seemed similar to the stuff said about Millennials during the 2010s.

It was the Lost Generation that seemingly had the mindless fun of the 1920s. Early-wave GIs apparently did little of the 'roar' in the Roaring twenties. I asked my late grandfather (1912-1999) what he thought of the Roaring Twenties. Sure, he was a farm kid -- but he seemed to have completely missed even knowledge that there was a 'roar'. He could tell me what the bootlegger highways were.

The first wave of the GI generation was too young to have lost much in the 1929 Crash as did the Lost, and harsh as the Depression was, it created some good habits that would pay off well in the postwar boom. First-wave GI adults were often in leadership positions at the time of the Pearl Harbor attack, and if they got to the war and survived it, they could make rank quickly.

The first wave of GI were prepared for an entirely different world that vanished before their eyes. Imagine being born in 1907 and graduating from college in 1929. They were prepared for adulthood then the crash came on them and made all their preparation meaningless. People born before that were at least entrenched somewhere and people born after that had time to prepare for a depression mindset.

First of all, even graduating from high school was something of an elite achievement in 1929. Completion of high school became much more commonplace in the 1930s, when the government started to encourage teenagers to stay in school rather than join the workforce -- in part to reduce the downward pressure on wages that marginal workers (teenagers and the elderly in the workforce) brought about. A college education was a rarity in the late 1920s, and it in itself generally indicated elite status. As late as the 1920s, lower-middle-class men were proud of their 'solid eighth-grade educations'.

The divide between the Lost and the GI generations took shape during the Great Depression. The Lost had more of a stake in the world before the Depression, and the first wave of GI adults of the time had far less to lose because they had not been able to save the capital for investing in the stock bubble or in real estate, both of which imploded. The fun of the Roaring Twenties came to an abrupt end as "Wall Street Lays an Egg", as said a famous headline in Variety Magazine. First-wage GI adults were more likely to offer solutions  out of the box that violated the Social-Darwinist strictures of America that had not been challenged since the Gilded Age.

Let us also remember that most of the Great Depression was a recovery -- a slow and painful one, but a recovery nonetheless. Living standards generally rose from the middle to late 1930s, and by 1939 most measures of economic conditions (including per capita possession of cars, appliances, and radios, and real wages) were higher than in the supposed good year of 1928. If the Lost no longer had any traces of youth and could not easily start over despite needing to start over, the GI Generation was in better position for doing so. The mindless hedonism of the Roaring Twenties would never revive while the Lost were around.

Practically all of us remember the GI Generation after World War II -- but not during or before World War II. A GI childhood was typically hardscrabble in contrast to life after WWII. But -- the GI Generation made much of the world that we now know -- suburbia, television, electronic gadgets, the modern welfare state, college education as a normal expectation for capable youth, and the rise of ethnic minorities from destitution.  (Howe and Strauss understate the role of the GI generation in the Civil Rights struggle, but GI blacks had big parts to play and with few exceptions played those parts well).

As the GI generation has almost entirely faded into memory, the world that they created erodes to an extent. America is a much nastier place than it was when GI influence was strong in economic and political life. Economic inequality has intensified as Corporate America finds the economic machine that GI adults largely built a tool for sweating workers and enriching shareholders and executives at the expense of everyone else. Although institutional racism has effectively died, social inequality in America is now as severe as in the pre-Depression era of the 1920s. That happens when economic elites see their rapacious greed and corruption as virtues and tolerate no challenges to such. Donald Trump exemplifies that, but he is more a symptom than a cause. The American political system now consists of a Democratic Party that still has some decency, but seems to get 49% of the representation in a winner-take-all system, Republican pols who try to look gracious and friendly as the face of plutocracy, and powerful front groups that hammer anyone  who does not believe in a pure plutocracy in which most people are heavily in debt and compelled to rely upon monopolized economics for survival.

Yes, much of American life is odious, and except for the sophistication of our electronic gadgets and the quality of our entertainment, many of us would feel more comfortable with the economic norms of the 1950s. The oldest posters here may remember the 1950s or have seen relics of the ways of the time and related to them -- but we are closer to the more collegial and congenial ways of the next American High than to the last one. Much must go -- especially the pay-to-play reality of contemporary life, government by lobbyist, and a culture of narcissism. We may need to rebuild some aspects of economic life from scratch after a meltdown that lasts as long as that of 1929-1932, unlike the last one that simply looked as if it could go just as bad. Americans may have to give up on Big Business in favor of small business of lesser efficiency but more capacity to give us what we need and convince us that we like what we get.

But will I have time to start over? If you look at this realistically, by the time the 4T ends I'll be in my early 40s. That means half my life is already over with. In the Great Depression, there were tent cities and extremely high unemployment rates. Bread lines and lots of extreme poverty. The 1930s were hard times for people. How did the GI Generation keep themselves from having a nothing to lose attitude in the 1930s? Because this is what I think about a 4T, if the returns are the same no matter how hard I work I've got nothing to lose and can do whatever I want.
Reply
#20
I agree with Eric here. 9/11 was not *that* important. Obviously it was a nightmare for people who died and for their families. It was a shock for everyone. But I remember a New Yorker (my cousin's friend) saying in retrospect it was less devastating than hurricane Sandy in 2012. The financial recession of 2008 was definitely more important for people's daily lives. As for the Internet, there is colossal difference between early and late 2000s. I was born in '86, so I remember the websites of 2001. When MySpace went mainstream in 2006, it made a huge difference. It was like Youtube and Facebook combined. For this reason, I regard late 2000s as more culturally similar to 2010s than early 2000s.

Coming of age doesn't really mean 18, in the modern context extended adolescence is the norm, so people are more likely to start living an adult life around the age of 22. Using age 22 as a proxy for coming of age, we get dates very close to beginnings of turnings:
1968 for boomers
1986 for Xers
2006 for millennials
2025 for new Artists born in 2003

Bush's war on Saddam was really the last major war waged in name of liberal intervention (a concept invented by the missionary generation). It marks the end of an era, not a beginning of something new. And it was in 2006 that it started to be seen as a failure, cos a civil war broke out in Iraq.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Boomers and Millennials: Oops! Anthony '58 44 598 12-02-2019, 09:53 PM
Last Post: taramarie
  Biggest share of whites in U.S. are Boomers, but for minority groups it’s Millennials Dan '82 2 2,135 07-08-2016, 11:17 AM
Last Post: The Wonkette

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)