Generation Z = / = Homelander?

[Ghost]

Whenever the term "Gen Z" gets thrown around, it usually refers to the group of people born between around 1997 and 2012, or in other words, those that have very little to no memories of 9/11 but were at school when the Parkland shooting happened (except for those born in 1997-1999, who were already out of school when it happened).

However, when terms like "Homelander" or "Homeland Generation" appear, there are usually three different possibilities it can refer to - born after 9/11, born since 2003, or born since 2005. 

You would occasionally hear of people born in the late 90's, and to some extent, 2000 and 2001, get called Generation Z, but I've almost never heard them referred to as "Homelanders".

It sometimes makes me wonder if Gen Z's official name will be "Homelanders" and if the Gen Z label will fade away overtime.

[Eric the Green]

(08-04-2019, 02:43 PM)Ghost Wrote: Whenever the term "Gen Z" gets thrown around, it usually refers to the group of people born between around 1997 and 2012, or in other words, those that have very little to no memories of 9/11 but were at school when the Parkland shooting happened (except for those born in 1997-1999, who were already out of school when it happened).

However, when terms like "Homelander" or "Homeland Generation" appear, there are usually three different possibilities it can refer to - born after 9/11, born since 2003, or born since 2005. 

You would occasionally hear of people born in the late 90's, and to some extent, 2000 and 2001, get called Generation Z, but I've almost never heard them referred to as "Homelanders".

It sometimes makes me wonder if Gen Z's official name will be "Homelanders" and if the Gen Z label will fade away overtime.

I hope the Pew dates fade away. Generations are not 15 years long. 2003 is correct; 2004 is OK. Homelanders is just a name thrown around on this forum; it has no other platform and will fade away. It also implies that this generation is about dealing with the aftermath of 9-11. Gen Z seems like it's catching on. I called them that in my 1997 book.

[Ghost]

(08-05-2019, 03:05 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(08-04-2019, 02:43 PM)Ghost Wrote: Whenever the term "Gen Z" gets thrown around, it usually refers to the group of people born between around 1997 and 2012, or in other words, those that have very little to no memories of 9/11 but were at school when the Parkland shooting happened (except for those born in 1997-1999, who were already out of school when it happened).

However, when terms like "Homelander" or "Homeland Generation" appear, there are usually three different possibilities it can refer to - born after 9/11, born since 2003, or born since 2005. 

You would occasionally hear of people born in the late 90's, and to some extent, 2000 and 2001, get called Generation Z, but I've almost never heard them referred to as "Homelanders".

It sometimes makes me wonder if Gen Z's official name will be "Homelanders" and if the Gen Z label will fade away overtime.

I hope the Pew dates fade away. Generations are not 15 years long. 2003 is correct; 2004 is OK. Homelanders is just a name thrown around on this forum; it has no other platform and will face away. It also implies that this generation is about dealing with the aftermath of 9-11. Gen Z seems like it's catching on. I called them that in my 1997 book.

When the term "Gen Z" is used, the 1981-1996 and 1982-2000 definitions are always the most common definitions for Millennials, even though most will probably agree that 1981 is an X year (I'm pretty sure everyone on here, myself included, thinks that 1981 is a Gen X birthyear).

Now regarding the Gen Z name - the only reason why it is named that is because Gen Xers are called Gen X and Millennials were at one point called Gen Y. It'll probably fade away overtime, but I don't doubt that it'll still start in either 1997 or 2000.

The latest birthyear I have seen lumped as being a "Millennial" though is 2006, which might surprise you.

[Eric the Green]

(08-05-2019, 07:47 PM)Ghost Wrote:

(08-05-2019, 03:05 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(08-04-2019, 02:43 PM)Ghost Wrote: Whenever the term "Gen Z" gets thrown around, it usually refers to the group of people born between around 1997 and 2012, or in other words, those that have very little to no memories of 9/11 but were at school when the Parkland shooting happened (except for those born in 1997-1999, who were already out of school when it happened).

However, when terms like "Homelander" or "Homeland Generation" appear, there are usually three different possibilities it can refer to - born after 9/11, born since 2003, or born since 2005. 

You would occasionally hear of people born in the late 90's, and to some extent, 2000 and 2001, get called Generation Z, but I've almost never heard them referred to as "Homelanders".

It sometimes makes me wonder if Gen Z's official name will be "Homelanders" and if the Gen Z label will fade away overtime.

I hope the Pew dates fade away. Generations are not 15 years long. 2003 is correct; 2004 is OK. Homelanders is just a name thrown around on this forum; it has no other platform and will face away. It also implies that this generation is about dealing with the aftermath of 9-11. Gen Z seems like it's catching on. I called them that in my 1997 book.

When the term "Gen Z" is used, the 1981-1996 and 1982-2000 definitions are always the most common definitions for Millennials, even though most will probably agree that 1981 is an X year (I'm pretty sure everyone on here, myself included, thinks that 1981 is a Gen X birthyear).

Now regarding the Gen Z name - the only reason why it is named that is because Gen Xers are called Gen X and Millennials were at one point called Gen Y. It'll probably fade away overtime, but I don't doubt that it'll still start in either 1997 or 2000.

The latest birthyear I have seen lumped as being a "Millennial" though is 2006, which might surprise you.

I regard 1981 as a Gen X year, but it's on the cusp; I do accept the idea of cusps; it's just common sense. Nothing is so strictly bordered in the living world.

The most-common definitions and dating of the last millennial year are given by Pew Research, which is not a study of generational traits, but only demographics. It's like saying Boomers began in 1946 because that's when the baby boom started.

Gen Z will eventually be regarded as starting in 2003, at least among those who study generations and not demographics. And Gen Z will go all the way to 2024, because the 1T is not going to start until 2028 or 2029. Mr. Howe still says Gen Z starts in 2004, and we here should use that date or close to it, and not 1997 or 2000.

Gen Z is the name that has caught on so far. But if there's another name that comes along that describes them, and it catches on, the name could change. There's no such name yet, although people on T4T forums have speculated about it and offered names. That's always fun to do, but it doesn't mean that what we say here will catch on in the media zeitgeist. Mr. Howe adopted a name that someone here suggested, years ago now (Homelanders), but that name has not caught on because it doesn't fit. Since letters are used now for generations, as I suggested in my 1997 book, I suspect every generation will have a letter from now on, even if that's not the primary name. Not because I said so though, of course

The next prophets, yet to be born, are already being called Generation Alpha, or the Alpha Wave Generation. I think that's a cool name.

[AspieMillennial]

(08-06-2019, 10:56 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(08-05-2019, 07:47 PM)Ghost Wrote:

(08-05-2019, 03:05 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(08-04-2019, 02:43 PM)Ghost Wrote: Whenever the term "Gen Z" gets thrown around, it usually refers to the group of people born between around 1997 and 2012, or in other words, those that have very little to no memories of 9/11 but were at school when the Parkland shooting happened (except for those born in 1997-1999, who were already out of school when it happened).

However, when terms like "Homelander" or "Homeland Generation" appear, there are usually three different possibilities it can refer to - born after 9/11, born since 2003, or born since 2005. 

You would occasionally hear of people born in the late 90's, and to some extent, 2000 and 2001, get called Generation Z, but I've almost never heard them referred to as "Homelanders".

It sometimes makes me wonder if Gen Z's official name will be "Homelanders" and if the Gen Z label will fade away overtime.

I hope the Pew dates fade away. Generations are not 15 years long. 2003 is correct; 2004 is OK. Homelanders is just a name thrown around on this forum; it has no other platform and will face away. It also implies that this generation is about dealing with the aftermath of 9-11. Gen Z seems like it's catching on. I called them that in my 1997 book.

When the term "Gen Z" is used, the 1981-1996 and 1982-2000 definitions are always the most common definitions for Millennials, even though most will probably agree that 1981 is an X year (I'm pretty sure everyone on here, myself included, thinks that 1981 is a Gen X birthyear).

Now regarding the Gen Z name - the only reason why it is named that is because Gen Xers are called Gen X and Millennials were at one point called Gen Y. It'll probably fade away overtime, but I don't doubt that it'll still start in either 1997 or 2000.

The latest birthyear I have seen lumped as being a "Millennial" though is 2006, which might surprise you.

I regard 1981 as a Gen X year, but it's on the cusp; I do accept the idea of cusps; it's just common sense. Nothing is so strictly bordered in the living world.

The most-common definitions and dating of the last millennial year are given by Pew Research, which is not a study of generational traits, but only demographics. It's like saying Boomers began in 1946 because that's when the baby boom started.

Gen Z will eventually be regarded as starting in 2003, at least among those who study generations and not demographics. And Gen Z will go all the way to 2024, because the 1T is not going to start until 2028 or 2029. Mr. Howe still says Gen Z starts in 2004, and we here should use that date or close to it, and not 1997 or 2000.

Gen Z is the name that has caught on so far. But if there's another name that comes along that describes them, and it catches on, the name could change. There's no such name yet, although people on T4T forums have speculated about it and offered names. That's always fun to do, but it doesn't mean that what we say here will catch on in the media zeitgeist. Mr. Howe adopted a name that someone here suggested, years ago now (Homelanders), but that name has not caught on because it doesn't fit. Since letters are used now for generations, as I suggested in my 1997 book, I suspect every generation will have a letter from now on, even if that's not the primary name. Not because I said so though, of course

The next prophets, yet to be born, are already being called Generation Alpha, or the Alpha Wave Generation. I think that's a cool name.

1981 is late X. I don't accept the idea of cusps because I'm born outside the XY cusp yet have done many of the things in childhood and teens that pure Millennials supposedly have not done. Since it says I haven't done these things because I was born outside of the range it means the cusp is garbage. If I have experienced these things that "core Millennials" supposedly haven't then what makes me different from this supposed cusp range? I read an article on the cusp and experienced those very same things. This means the category is arbitrary and artificial.

[David Horn]

(08-06-2019, 11:57 AM)AspieMillennial Wrote: 1981 is late X. I don't accept the idea of cusps because I'm born outside the XY cusp yet have done many of the things in childhood and teens that pure Millennials supposedly have not done. Since it says I haven't done these things because I was born outside of the range it means the cusp is garbage. If I have experienced these things that "core Millennials" supposedly haven't then what makes me different from this supposed cusp range? I read an article on the cusp and experienced those very same things. This means the category is arbitrary and artificial.

All T4T categories are general, not all-inclusive. Many people experience life events that don't fit the mold of the time or be non-conforming to the defined archetype of their generation. That's not unusual. If that applied to all, or even most people in a generation, then you really would have a case for arbitrary behavior.

[Ghost]

(08-06-2019, 11:57 AM)AspieMillennial Wrote:

(08-06-2019, 10:56 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(08-05-2019, 07:47 PM)Ghost Wrote:

(08-05-2019, 03:05 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(08-04-2019, 02:43 PM)Ghost Wrote: Whenever the term "Gen Z" gets thrown around, it usually refers to the group of people born between around 1997 and 2012, or in other words, those that have very little to no memories of 9/11 but were at school when the Parkland shooting happened (except for those born in 1997-1999, who were already out of school when it happened).

However, when terms like "Homelander" or "Homeland Generation" appear, there are usually three different possibilities it can refer to - born after 9/11, born since 2003, or born since 2005. 

You would occasionally hear of people born in the late 90's, and to some extent, 2000 and 2001, get called Generation Z, but I've almost never heard them referred to as "Homelanders".

It sometimes makes me wonder if Gen Z's official name will be "Homelanders" and if the Gen Z label will fade away overtime.

I hope the Pew dates fade away. Generations are not 15 years long. 2003 is correct; 2004 is OK. Homelanders is just a name thrown around on this forum; it has no other platform and will face away. It also implies that this generation is about dealing with the aftermath of 9-11. Gen Z seems like it's catching on. I called them that in my 1997 book.

When the term "Gen Z" is used, the 1981-1996 and 1982-2000 definitions are always the most common definitions for Millennials, even though most will probably agree that 1981 is an X year (I'm pretty sure everyone on here, myself included, thinks that 1981 is a Gen X birthyear).

Now regarding the Gen Z name - the only reason why it is named that is because Gen Xers are called Gen X and Millennials were at one point called Gen Y. It'll probably fade away overtime, but I don't doubt that it'll still start in either 1997 or 2000.

The latest birthyear I have seen lumped as being a "Millennial" though is 2006, which might surprise you.

I regard 1981 as a Gen X year, but it's on the cusp; I do accept the idea of cusps; it's just common sense. Nothing is so strictly bordered in the living world.

The most-common definitions and dating of the last millennial year are given by Pew Research, which is not a study of generational traits, but only demographics. It's like saying Boomers began in 1946 because that's when the baby boom started.

Gen Z will eventually be regarded as starting in 2003, at least among those who study generations and not demographics. And Gen Z will go all the way to 2024, because the 1T is not going to start until 2028 or 2029. Mr. Howe still says Gen Z starts in 2004, and we here should use that date or close to it, and not 1997 or 2000.

Gen Z is the name that has caught on so far. But if there's another name that comes along that describes them, and it catches on, the name could change. There's no such name yet, although people on T4T forums have speculated about it and offered names. That's always fun to do, but it doesn't mean that what we say here will catch on in the media zeitgeist. Mr. Howe adopted a name that someone here suggested, years ago now (Homelanders), but that name has not caught on because it doesn't fit. Since letters are used now for generations, as I suggested in my 1997 book, I suspect every generation will have a letter from now on, even if that's not the primary name. Not because I said so though, of course

The next prophets, yet to be born, are already being called Generation Alpha, or the Alpha Wave Generation. I think that's a cool name.

1981 is late X. I don't accept the idea of cusps because I'm born outside the XY cusp yet have done many of the things in childhood and teens that pure Millennials supposedly have not done. Since it says I haven't done these things because I was born outside of the range it means the cusp is garbage. If I have experienced these things that "core Millennials" supposedly haven't then what makes me different from this supposed cusp range? I read an article on the cusp and experienced those very same things. This means the category is arbitrary and artificial.

I have a feeling that the reason why 1981 borns are occasionally called Millennials is because they apply to the "not at school when the Challenger exploded but were at school when Columbine happened" rule.

Despite applying to the rule, I still believe that they're late Gen X overall and have more in common with people born in 1976 than people born in 1986.
*1981 borns may still remember the Challenger explosion whereas 1986 borns (almost all of them) were born after it happened.
*1981 borns spent most of their elementary school years before the Berlin Wall fell.
*1981 borns were probably too old for Nicktoons despite still being in elementary school when they came out.
*1981 borns were already in high school when Windows 95 came out, a release that changed technology forever.
*1981 borns might have been part of the grunge subculture, which lasted from around 1990/1991 to 1995/early 1996 and peaked in around 1993/1994. Using this reason will break the 18-year generation theory for sure though (because on a similar note, you could argue about 2002 borns being part of the hipster subculture, which lasted from around 2011/2012 to 2016/early 2017 and without a doubt peaked in 2015). This is where the 84-year saeculums and 21-year generations come to play.
*Most importantly to why they are still Gen X, they graduated high school before Y2K, unless they had a late birthday.
*Not necessarily important, but the "stereotypical Millennial" celebrities weren't really born until 1986 because that's when Amanda Bynes, the Olsen twins, and Lindsay Lohan were born. Most people will consider 1981 Gen X but everyone will consider 1986 Millennial.

[AspieMillennial]

(08-06-2019, 02:19 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(08-06-2019, 11:57 AM)AspieMillennial Wrote: 1981 is late X. I don't accept the idea of cusps because I'm born outside the XY cusp yet have done many of the things in childhood and teens that pure Millennials supposedly have not done. Since it says I haven't done these things because I was born outside of the range it means the cusp is garbage. If I have experienced these things that "core Millennials" supposedly haven't then what makes me different from this supposed cusp range? I read an article on the cusp and experienced those very same things. This means the category is arbitrary and artificial.

All T4T categories are general, not all-inclusive. Many people experience life events that don't fit the mold of the time or be non-conforming to the defined archetype of their generation. That's not unusual. If that applied to all, or even most people in a generation, then you really would have a case for arbitrary behavior.

Except this is how it's used in the real world. In the real world a bunch of people like to shout and generalize about experiences or what you think or believe. It's used for the blame game most of all.

[AspieMillennial]

(08-06-2019, 03:41 PM)Ghost Wrote:

(08-06-2019, 11:57 AM)AspieMillennial Wrote:

(08-06-2019, 10:56 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(08-05-2019, 07:47 PM)Ghost Wrote:

(08-05-2019, 03:05 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I hope the Pew dates fade away. Generations are not 15 years long. 2003 is correct; 2004 is OK. Homelanders is just a name thrown around on this forum; it has no other platform and will face away. It also implies that this generation is about dealing with the aftermath of 9-11. Gen Z seems like it's catching on. I called them that in my 1997 book.

When the term "Gen Z" is used, the 1981-1996 and 1982-2000 definitions are always the most common definitions for Millennials, even though most will probably agree that 1981 is an X year (I'm pretty sure everyone on here, myself included, thinks that 1981 is a Gen X birthyear).

Now regarding the Gen Z name - the only reason why it is named that is because Gen Xers are called Gen X and Millennials were at one point called Gen Y. It'll probably fade away overtime, but I don't doubt that it'll still start in either 1997 or 2000.

The latest birthyear I have seen lumped as being a "Millennial" though is 2006, which might surprise you.

I regard 1981 as a Gen X year, but it's on the cusp; I do accept the idea of cusps; it's just common sense. Nothing is so strictly bordered in the living world.

The most-common definitions and dating of the last millennial year are given by Pew Research, which is not a study of generational traits, but only demographics. It's like saying Boomers began in 1946 because that's when the baby boom started.

Gen Z will eventually be regarded as starting in 2003, at least among those who study generations and not demographics. And Gen Z will go all the way to 2024, because the 1T is not going to start until 2028 or 2029. Mr. Howe still says Gen Z starts in 2004, and we here should use that date or close to it, and not 1997 or 2000.

Gen Z is the name that has caught on so far. But if there's another name that comes along that describes them, and it catches on, the name could change. There's no such name yet, although people on T4T forums have speculated about it and offered names. That's always fun to do, but it doesn't mean that what we say here will catch on in the media zeitgeist. Mr. Howe adopted a name that someone here suggested, years ago now (Homelanders), but that name has not caught on because it doesn't fit. Since letters are used now for generations, as I suggested in my 1997 book, I suspect every generation will have a letter from now on, even if that's not the primary name. Not because I said so though, of course

The next prophets, yet to be born, are already being called Generation Alpha, or the Alpha Wave Generation. I think that's a cool name.

1981 is late X. I don't accept the idea of cusps because I'm born outside the XY cusp yet have done many of the things in childhood and teens that pure Millennials supposedly have not done. Since it says I haven't done these things because I was born outside of the range it means the cusp is garbage. If I have experienced these things that "core Millennials" supposedly haven't then what makes me different from this supposed cusp range? I read an article on the cusp and experienced those very same things. This means the category is arbitrary and artificial.

I have a feeling that the reason why 1981 borns are occasionally called Millennials is because they apply to the "not at school when the Challenger exploded but were at school when Columbine happened" rule.

Despite applying to the rule, I still believe that they're late Gen X overall and have more in common with people born in 1976 than people born in 1986.
*1981 borns may still remember the Challenger explosion whereas 1986 borns (almost all of them) were born after it happened.
*1981 borns spent most of their elementary school years before the Berlin Wall fell.
*1981 borns were probably too old for Nicktoons despite still being in elementary school when they came out.
*1981 borns were already in high school when Windows 95 came out, a release that changed technology forever.
*1981 borns might have been part of the grunge subculture, which lasted from around 1990/1991 to 1995/early 1996 and peaked in around 1993/1994. Using this reason will break the 18-year generation theory for sure though (because on a similar note, you could argue about 2002 borns being part of the hipster subculture, which lasted from around 2011/2012 to 2016/early 2017 and without a doubt peaked in 2015). This is where the 84-year saeculums and 21-year generations come to play.
*Most importantly to why they are still Gen X, they graduated high school before Y2K, unless they had a late birthday.
*Not necessarily important, but the "stereotypical Millennial" celebrities weren't really born until 1986 because that's when Amanda Bynes, the Olsen twins, and Lindsay Lohan were born. Most people will consider 1981 Gen X but everyone will consider 1986 Millennial.

I agree. They remember the challenger explosion, they remember most of the 90s and had their childhood in the cultural 80s. They were also teens in the 90s and became adults before the 08 crash. They are firmly Gen X. However I still don't believe in the cusp. Why should someone born in 1990 who doesn't fit into what researchers say about Millennials get to be grouped with things not true of him yet the person born in 1984 gets to skate by because of the cusp category? If the person in 1990 should be stereotyped so should the person born in 1984. Cusps just allow a range to say "Don't stereotype us. Stereotype these other people!" I don't see the value in them. What makes 1982-1985 so special that they get to escape the scrutiny? I hear many of them running their mouth how they got to do things core Millennials didn't but what's the difference if someone born in 1990 grows up doing these things compared to some kid born in 1984? That's what I don't get. Why does the kid born in 1990 have to be told they didn't do these things in childhood yet the 1984 born gets to skate by?

[Ghost]

(08-06-2019, 06:05 PM)AspieMillennial Wrote:

(08-06-2019, 03:41 PM)Ghost Wrote:

(08-06-2019, 11:57 AM)AspieMillennial Wrote:

(08-06-2019, 10:56 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(08-05-2019, 07:47 PM)Ghost Wrote: When the term "Gen Z" is used, the 1981-1996 and 1982-2000 definitions are always the most common definitions for Millennials, even though most will probably agree that 1981 is an X year (I'm pretty sure everyone on here, myself included, thinks that 1981 is a Gen X birthyear).

Now regarding the Gen Z name - the only reason why it is named that is because Gen Xers are called Gen X and Millennials were at one point called Gen Y. It'll probably fade away overtime, but I don't doubt that it'll still start in either 1997 or 2000.

The latest birthyear I have seen lumped as being a "Millennial" though is 2006, which might surprise you.

I regard 1981 as a Gen X year, but it's on the cusp; I do accept the idea of cusps; it's just common sense. Nothing is so strictly bordered in the living world.

The most-common definitions and dating of the last millennial year are given by Pew Research, which is not a study of generational traits, but only demographics. It's like saying Boomers began in 1946 because that's when the baby boom started.

Gen Z will eventually be regarded as starting in 2003, at least among those who study generations and not demographics. And Gen Z will go all the way to 2024, because the 1T is not going to start until 2028 or 2029. Mr. Howe still says Gen Z starts in 2004, and we here should use that date or close to it, and not 1997 or 2000.

Gen Z is the name that has caught on so far. But if there's another name that comes along that describes them, and it catches on, the name could change. There's no such name yet, although people on T4T forums have speculated about it and offered names. That's always fun to do, but it doesn't mean that what we say here will catch on in the media zeitgeist. Mr. Howe adopted a name that someone here suggested, years ago now (Homelanders), but that name has not caught on because it doesn't fit. Since letters are used now for generations, as I suggested in my 1997 book, I suspect every generation will have a letter from now on, even if that's not the primary name. Not because I said so though, of course

The next prophets, yet to be born, are already being called Generation Alpha, or the Alpha Wave Generation. I think that's a cool name.

1981 is late X. I don't accept the idea of cusps because I'm born outside the XY cusp yet have done many of the things in childhood and teens that pure Millennials supposedly have not done. Since it says I haven't done these things because I was born outside of the range it means the cusp is garbage. If I have experienced these things that "core Millennials" supposedly haven't then what makes me different from this supposed cusp range? I read an article on the cusp and experienced those very same things. This means the category is arbitrary and artificial.

I have a feeling that the reason why 1981 borns are occasionally called Millennials is because they apply to the "not at school when the Challenger exploded but were at school when Columbine happened" rule.

Despite applying to the rule, I still believe that they're late Gen X overall and have more in common with people born in 1976 than people born in 1986.
*1981 borns may still remember the Challenger explosion whereas 1986 borns (almost all of them) were born after it happened.
*1981 borns spent most of their elementary school years before the Berlin Wall fell.
*1981 borns were probably too old for Nicktoons despite still being in elementary school when they came out.
*1981 borns were already in high school when Windows 95 came out, a release that changed technology forever.
*1981 borns might have been part of the grunge subculture, which lasted from around 1990/1991 to 1995/early 1996 and peaked in around 1993/1994. Using this reason will break the 18-year generation theory for sure though (because on a similar note, you could argue about 2002 borns being part of the hipster subculture, which lasted from around 2011/2012 to 2016/early 2017 and without a doubt peaked in 2015). This is where the 84-year saeculums and 21-year generations come to play.
*Most importantly to why they are still Gen X, they graduated high school before Y2K, unless they had a late birthday.
*Not necessarily important, but the "stereotypical Millennial" celebrities weren't really born until 1986 because that's when Amanda Bynes, the Olsen twins, and Lindsay Lohan were born. Most people will consider 1981 Gen X but everyone will consider 1986 Millennial.

I agree. They remember the challenger explosion, they remember most of the 90s and had their childhood in the cultural 80s. They were also teens in the 90s and became adults before the 08 crash. They are firmly Gen X. However I still don't believe in the cusp. Why should someone born in 1990 who doesn't fit into what researchers say about Millennials get to be grouped with things not true of him yet the person born in 1984 gets to skate by because of the cusp category? If the person in 1990 should be stereotyped so should the person born in 1984. Cusps just allow a range to say "Don't stereotype us. Stereotype these other people!" I don't see the value in them. What makes 1982-1985 so special that they get to escape the scrutiny? I hear many of them running their mouth how they got to do things core Millennials didn't but what's the difference if someone born in 1990 grows up doing these things compared to some kid born in 1984? That's what I don't get. Why does the kid born in 1990 have to be told they didn't do these things in childhood yet the 1984 born gets to skate by?

The whole thing is a double standard. Someone born between 1982 and 1985 can easily say that he/she doesn't feel like a Millennial without anyone questioning him/her, but someone born in 2001 will get flamed a lot if he/she says that he/she doesn't feel like a Gen Z.

I have a feeling that the reasons why even people born in 1985 can get away with not wanting to be a Millennial is because they were already in high school when Y2K happened, spent most of their high school years before 9/11, graduated high school before Millennium-era culture completely fizzled out sometime in the summer of 2003, and were already out of college before the Recession. They are also the last people that are seen as "Xennials" according to various sources.

The cultural/political 80's were something like Late 1980-Mid 1991 (give or take a year). You could argue about 'having a childhood in the cultural 80's" for 1982 and possibly even 1983, but not really so much for 1984 and 1985 because they would spend most of their elementary school years after the "end of the cultural/political 80's".

[Hintergrund]

Why is Parkland considered so much more important than Columbine?

[David Horn]

(08-14-2019, 09:04 AM)Hintergrund Wrote: Why is Parkland considered so much more important than Columbine?

Simple: the Parkland students stood-up and made it important.  That's not to say that Columbine wasn't important, but it was considered an outlier then, and only time has shown that I was actually a precursor.  What has shocked me is how \little attention has been focused on Newtown.  That was more than tragic; it was truly abhorrent.

[Ghost]

(08-14-2019, 09:04 AM)Hintergrund Wrote: Why is Parkland considered so much more important than Columbine?

I never said that.

[Hintergrund]

(08-14-2019, 07:44 PM)Ghost Wrote:

(08-14-2019, 09:04 AM)Hintergrund Wrote: Why is Parkland considered so much more important than Columbine?

I never said that.

Some people think so event if you don't say it

[Bill the Piper]

Generation Y was originally believed to start in the late 70s, but the dates moved. So will the dates for generation Z.

[pbrower2a]

(08-14-2019, 09:04 AM)Hintergrund Wrote: Why is Parkland considered so much more important than Columbine?

It may be more critical to the debate on massacre weapons. 

The school administration had showcase students capable of eloquent lamentations of their losses of good friends. At Sandy Hook, the only people who thought like adults were the teachers and administrators. 16-to-19-year-old kids can act much like adults if brilliant. An 18-year-old with an IQ of 140 (and this is an elite public school, so that could be a significantly large proportion than the average) van be very adult. 

The school administration let the students do the talking to the news media, which is an unlikely (and risky) thing to do under most circumstances because very few K-12 students are capable of such. In most cases it would be wrong. In this case those students were the right ones to express grief at senseless death. The students surely needed parental consent for doing so, but some of the parents knew what they were doing when they gave permission.

The kids interviewed did very well. But these kids sound more like the sorts who become physicians, attorneys, college professors, and research scientists than most.

[Ghost]

(09-20-2019, 07:39 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote: Generation Y was originally believed to start in the late 70s, but the dates moved. So will the dates for generation Z.

The Millennial and Generation Z birth years are so muddled.

The earliest birth year I've seen for Millennials from a legitimate source is 1974 (1972 if you include Canada's definition of Millennials), and the latest birthyear I've seen from a legitimate source is 2006 (yes, not joking here). However, the most common definitions seem to be either 1981-1996 (not at school when the Challenger exploded but at school during at least one of these three - the Columbine shooting, Y2K, and/or 9/11) or 1982-2000 (coincidentally parallels with the 1946-1964 definition according to the Chinese zodiac).

So, in reality, a 45-year-old and a 13-year old can both be Millennials, even though the former could literally be the parent of the latter.

Some say that Generation X will eventually be 1965-1985 and that Generation Y/Millennials will eventually be 1986-2006, but what does a 33-year old guy with a job, a house, and kids have in common with someone who just became a teenager today?

Edit: Coincidentally, 1986-2006 is actually 1365-1385 according to the Persian calendar.

[Eric the Green]

(09-20-2019, 03:20 PM)Ghost Wrote:

(09-20-2019, 07:39 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote: Generation Y was originally believed to start in the late 70s, but the dates moved. So will the dates for generation Z.

The Millennial and Generation Z birth years are so muddled.

The earliest birth year I've seen for Millennials from a legitimate source is 1974 (1972 if you include Canada's definition of Millennials), and the latest birthyear I've seen from a legitimate source is 2006 (yes, not joking here). However, the most common definitions seem to be either 1981-1996 (not at school when the Challenger exploded but at school during at least one of these three - the Columbine shooting, Y2K, and/or 9/11) or 1982-2000 (coincidentally parallels with the 1946-1964 definition according to the Chinese zodiac).

So, in reality, a 45-year-old and a 13-year old can both be Millennials, even though the former could literally be the parent of the latter.

Some say that Generation X will eventually be 1965-1985 and that Generation Y/Millennials will eventually be 1986-2006, but what does a 33-year old guy with a job, a house, and kids have in common with someone who just became a teenager today?

Edit: Coincidentally, 1986-2006 is actually 1365-1385 according to the Persian calendar.

I think Strauss and Howe have a lot of credibility among those who read their books and heard them speak. According to Mr. Howe, the Millennial Generation runs from 1982 to 2004. Why wouldn't people on a Fourth Turning forum site continue to view those dates as credible and likely dates for the Millennial Generation (Gen.Y)?

Demographers like Pew Research Center have little relevance to the question of generation dating, nor do demographic characteristics. A generation shares to some extent some common experiences in families and world events and culture. Generation X certainly begins in the early sixties birth years, not at the end of the "baby boom" in 1965. How many babies were being born has little relevance to the character of a generation. Boomers have been given that name, but it doesn't describe the generation the way Missionary, Lost and Silent do. Millennial is just a point in time, but it was the name Strauss and Howe came up with and became mainstream. Generation X was chosen by another author and seemed to fit the nature of the generation pretty well, though not in an obvious way.

[Eric the Green]

(08-06-2019, 11:57 AM)AspieMillennial Wrote:

(08-06-2019, 10:56 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(08-05-2019, 07:47 PM)Ghost Wrote:

(08-05-2019, 03:05 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(08-04-2019, 02:43 PM)Ghost Wrote: Whenever the term "Gen Z" gets thrown around, it usually refers to the group of people born between around 1997 and 2012, or in other words, those that have very little to no memories of 9/11 but were at school when the Parkland shooting happened (except for those born in 1997-1999, who were already out of school when it happened).

However, when terms like "Homelander" or "Homeland Generation" appear, there are usually three different possibilities it can refer to - born after 9/11, born since 2003, or born since 2005. 

You would occasionally hear of people born in the late 90's, and to some extent, 2000 and 2001, get called Generation Z, but I've almost never heard them referred to as "Homelanders".

It sometimes makes me wonder if Gen Z's official name will be "Homelanders" and if the Gen Z label will fade away overtime.

I hope the Pew dates fade away. Generations are not 15 years long. 2003 is correct; 2004 is OK. Homelanders is just a name thrown around on this forum; it has no other platform and will face away. It also implies that this generation is about dealing with the aftermath of 9-11. Gen Z seems like it's catching on. I called them that in my 1997 book.

When the term "Gen Z" is used, the 1981-1996 and 1982-2000 definitions are always the most common definitions for Millennials, even though most will probably agree that 1981 is an X year (I'm pretty sure everyone on here, myself included, thinks that 1981 is a Gen X birthyear).

Now regarding the Gen Z name - the only reason why it is named that is because Gen Xers are called Gen X and Millennials were at one point called Gen Y. It'll probably fade away overtime, but I don't doubt that it'll still start in either 1997 or 2000.

The latest birthyear I have seen lumped as being a "Millennial" though is 2006, which might surprise you.

I regard 1981 as a Gen X year, but it's on the cusp; I do accept the idea of cusps; it's just common sense. Nothing is so strictly bordered in the living world.

The most-common definitions and dating of the last millennial year are given by Pew Research, which is not a study of generational traits, but only demographics. It's like saying Boomers began in 1946 because that's when the baby boom started.

Gen Z will eventually be regarded as starting in 2003, at least among those who study generations and not demographics. And Gen Z will go all the way to 2024, because the 1T is not going to start until 2028 or 2029. Mr. Howe still says Gen Z starts in 2004, and we here should use that date or close to it, and not 1997 or 2000.

Gen Z is the name that has caught on so far. But if there's another name that comes along that describes them, and it catches on, the name could change. There's no such name yet, although people on T4T forums have speculated about it and offered names. That's always fun to do, but it doesn't mean that what we say here will catch on in the media zeitgeist. Mr. Howe adopted a name that someone here suggested, years ago now (Homelanders), but that name has not caught on because it doesn't fit. Since letters are used now for generations, as I suggested in my 1997 book, I suspect every generation will have a letter from now on, even if that's not the primary name. Not because I said so though, of course

The next prophets, yet to be born, are already being called Generation Alpha, or the Alpha Wave Generation. I think that's a cool name.

1981 is late X. I don't accept the idea of cusps because I'm born outside the XY cusp yet have done many of the things in childhood and teens that pure Millennials supposedly have not done. Since it says I haven't done these things because I was born outside of the range it means the cusp is garbage. If I have experienced these things that "core Millennials" supposedly haven't then what makes me different from this supposed cusp range? I read an article on the cusp and experienced those very same things. This means the category is arbitrary and artificial.

I suggest that generations cannot be dated on the basis of one person's feelings or experiences. One person's experience does not invalidate the idea of cusps. Clearer thinking than that is needed from T4T fans and participants in a T4T forum, in my opinion. One person does not fit an archetype or stereotype. It's only a generation. I know you are different from the millennial norm, but that does not invalidate the millennial norm. I may happen to be a typical boomer myself, in most ways, but there's plenty of folks who don't fit. I even took an online questionnaire which identified me as a millennial. No-one can fit entirely any general description; it's only a trend that applies generally-speaking to millions of people, not necessarily to you or to me.

[Eric the Green]

(08-06-2019, 03:41 PM)Ghost Wrote:

(08-06-2019, 11:57 AM)AspieMillennial Wrote:

(08-06-2019, 10:56 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(08-05-2019, 07:47 PM)Ghost Wrote:

(08-05-2019, 03:05 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I hope the Pew dates fade away. Generations are not 15 years long. 2003 is correct; 2004 is OK. Homelanders is just a name thrown around on this forum; it has no other platform and will face away. It also implies that this generation is about dealing with the aftermath of 9-11. Gen Z seems like it's catching on. I called them that in my 1997 book.

When the term "Gen Z" is used, the 1981-1996 and 1982-2000 definitions are always the most common definitions for Millennials, even though most will probably agree that 1981 is an X year (I'm pretty sure everyone on here, myself included, thinks that 1981 is a Gen X birthyear).

Now regarding the Gen Z name - the only reason why it is named that is because Gen Xers are called Gen X and Millennials were at one point called Gen Y. It'll probably fade away overtime, but I don't doubt that it'll still start in either 1997 or 2000.

The latest birthyear I have seen lumped as being a "Millennial" though is 2006, which might surprise you.

I regard 1981 as a Gen X year, but it's on the cusp; I do accept the idea of cusps; it's just common sense. Nothing is so strictly bordered in the living world.

The most-common definitions and dating of the last millennial year are given by Pew Research, which is not a study of generational traits, but only demographics. It's like saying Boomers began in 1946 because that's when the baby boom started.

Gen Z will eventually be regarded as starting in 2003, at least among those who study generations and not demographics. And Gen Z will go all the way to 2024, because the 1T is not going to start until 2028 or 2029. Mr. Howe still says Gen Z starts in 2004, and we here should use that date or close to it, and not 1997 or 2000.

Gen Z is the name that has caught on so far. But if there's another name that comes along that describes them, and it catches on, the name could change. There's no such name yet, although people on T4T forums have speculated about it and offered names. That's always fun to do, but it doesn't mean that what we say here will catch on in the media zeitgeist. Mr. Howe adopted a name that someone here suggested, years ago now (Homelanders), but that name has not caught on because it doesn't fit. Since letters are used now for generations, as I suggested in my 1997 book, I suspect every generation will have a letter from now on, even if that's not the primary name. Not because I said so though, of course

The next prophets, yet to be born, are already being called Generation Alpha, or the Alpha Wave Generation. I think that's a cool name.

1981 is late X. I don't accept the idea of cusps because I'm born outside the XY cusp yet have done many of the things in childhood and teens that pure Millennials supposedly have not done. Since it says I haven't done these things because I was born outside of the range it means the cusp is garbage. If I have experienced these things that "core Millennials" supposedly haven't then what makes me different from this supposed cusp range? I read an article on the cusp and experienced those very same things. This means the category is arbitrary and artificial.

I have a feeling that the reason why 1981 borns are occasionally called Millennials is because they apply to the "not at school when the Challenger exploded but were at school when Columbine happened" rule.

Despite applying to the rule, I still believe that they're late Gen X overall and have more in common with people born in 1976 than people born in 1986.
*1981 borns may still remember the Challenger explosion whereas 1986 borns (almost all of them) were born after it happened.
*1981 borns spent most of their elementary school years before the Berlin Wall fell.
*1981 borns were probably too old for Nicktoons despite still being in elementary school when they came out.
*1981 borns were already in high school when Windows 95 came out, a release that changed technology forever.
*1981 borns might have been part of the grunge subculture, which lasted from around 1990/1991 to 1995/early 1996 and peaked in around 1993/1994. Using this reason will break the 18-year generation theory for sure though (because on a similar note, you could argue about 2002 borns being part of the hipster subculture, which lasted from around 2011/2012 to 2016/early 2017 and without a doubt peaked in 2015). This is where the 84-year saeculums and 21-year generations come to play.
*Most importantly to why they are still Gen X, they graduated high school before Y2K, unless they had a late birthday.
*Not necessarily important, but the "stereotypical Millennial" celebrities weren't really born until 1986 because that's when Amanda Bynes, the Olsen twins, and Lindsay Lohan were born. Most people will consider 1981 Gen X but everyone will consider 1986 Millennial.

I do agree as well, and expect that one reason 1981 cohorts are grouped with millennials, at least in the media, is because it's easier just to round off their dates to "born in the 1980s and 1990s."