Homelanders: Mid 90s or Mid 00s?

[HoldOn]

Looking on Google Books and news sources, it seems proposed Gen Z starting dates are evenly split between 2004/5 or 1995/6. Depending on who you ask, the generation starts on either side of the year 2000, which is quite a massive gap (10 years).

Which of these dates do the forum members find more fitting? I believe the mid 90s dates are based on growing up in a post-September 11th world and the rise of the Internet with the release of Windows 95, while the mid 2000s dates are based on memories of growing up in a post-Obama and post-Great Recession world.

[FLBones]

Mid 2000s. No way in hell are those born in the mid 90s homelanders already.

Neil Howe lists Homelanders as those being born from 2005 and will continue for another 10 years. Right now Silents are dying out in large numbers and being replaced by a new generation of Artists.

[Warren Dew]

Remember that the breakpoint for being an adaptive is that they are not old enough to help resolve the crisis. Given we're still in the crisis period, 1995 is clearly too early. Some are now saying the crisis may not be resolved until 2030; if that's the case, even 2005 may be too early.

[FLBones]

Another thing to add in, adaptives come of age during a High, not during a 4T. 

So I reckon whenever the next 1T begins, the cutoff line will be the last year any cohort was born contributed to the 4T climax. Could be 2000-2010. The media usually cuts Millennials off around 1993-2004. Generally speaking, the next generation starts to be born around 2-3 years before the next turning begins. This 4T started in 2008. Assuming this 4T lasts 21 years and we enter the High in 2029, that means those born in 2005 will be turning 24, thus coming of age. So 2005 seems to be a good point, for now.

[tg63]

Unless I'm mistaken S&H defined the start of a new generation as 3-4 years before the onset of a new turning. So if we go with 2008 as the start of the 4T as is generally accepted (others posit 2005 or even 2001, but your mileage may vary), that would make the start of the homelander generation as 2004-5. Seems to fit intuitively for me.

[David Horn]

(11-27-2016, 11:44 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: Remember that the breakpoint for being an adaptive is that they are not old enough to help resolve the crisis.  Given we're still in the crisis period, 1995 is clearly too early.  Some are now saying the crisis may not be resolved until 2030; if that's the case, even 2005 may be too early.

Using the only 4T example in the modern era as a guide, 2030 is out of the question.  Late 1929 through early 1946 was less than 17 years.  Being generous, that would still make a 4T beyond 2025 highly unlikely.

[HoldOn]

(11-28-2016, 09:24 AM)tg63 Wrote: Unless I'm mistaken S&H defined the start of a new generation as 3-4 years before the onset of a new turning.  So if we go with 2008 as the start of the 4T as is generally accepted (others posit 2005 or even 2001, but your mileage may vary), that would make the start of the homelander generation as 2004-5.  Seems to fit intuitively for me.

If you go by the belief that 9/11 began the 4T, that would place the Homelanders' starting date around 1997-8ish, correct? Which wouldn't be far off from the dates that sources like Gallup, Pew Research, and The New York Times use for Millennials and Zers (usually a cutoff of ~1995-98).

Honestly, I don't abide by the idea that generations *must* be ~20-25 years each. I believe that as technology progresses, it makes sense for each generation to get shorter and shorter. A 12 year old, who S&H consider a tail-end "Millennial", for example, grew up with much more advanced technology than even a 21 year old "Millennial". The former does not know a world without iPhones, while the latter spent nearly all of their childhood (ages 5-12) *without* iPhones.

Here's my idea of generations (feel free to disagree).

Lost Generation: 1883-1900
Greatest Generation: 1901-1924
Silent Generation: 1925-1945
Baby boomers: 1946-1964
Gen X: 1965-1981
Gen Y/Millennials: 1982-1996
Gen Z/Homelanders: 1997-present (if Trump's presidency brings on a certain world-changing event, an ending date could be found for this generation)

[MillennialJim]

(11-28-2016, 09:24 AM)tg63 Wrote: Unless I'm mistaken S&H defined the start of a new generation as 3-4 years before the onset of a new turning.  So if we go with 2008 as the start of the 4T as is generally accepted (others posit 2005 or even 2001, but your mileage may vary), that would make the start of the homelander generation as 2004-5.  Seems to fit intuitively for me.

This is my belief as well.  

There were some good indications that the 2003-2005 cohorts were changing in terms of parenting trends and other things we look for in rearing a different generation.  Preceding generations drive reactions to world events, which drives parenting styles, which in turn creates a new generation that differs from the past.  I'm a 1982 cohort.  I have a 2 year old daughter.  No one who looks at how children are raised today can say that the temperament of parenting and current parenting trends are similar to how kids were raised in the 80's and 90's.  IMO a break began to occur in the early 2000's, to more protective styles of parenting consistent with an adaptive generation.

[Warren Dew]

(12-02-2016, 11:19 AM)MillennialJim Wrote:

(11-28-2016, 09:24 AM)tg63 Wrote: Unless I'm mistaken S&H defined the start of a new generation as 3-4 years before the onset of a new turning.  So if we go with 2008 as the start of the 4T as is generally accepted (others posit 2005 or even 2001, but your mileage may vary), that would make the start of the homelander generation as 2004-5.  Seems to fit intuitively for me.

This is my belief as well.  

There were some good indications that the 2003-2005 cohorts were changing in terms of parenting trends and other things we look for in rearing a different generation.  Preceding generations drive reactions to world events, which drives parenting styles, which in turn creates a new generation that differs from the past.  I'm a 1982 cohort.  I have a 2 year old daughter.  No one who looks at how children are raised today can say that the temperament of parenting and current parenting trends are similar to how kids were raised in the 80's and 90's.  IMO a break began to occur in the early 2000's, to more protective styles of parenting consistent with an adaptive generation.

Good to see another millenial posting.  Willing to say where you are from?

While I agree that parenting has gotten overprotective - my kids are 8, 6, and 4 - I'm not sure how sudden it was.  Nor am I certain that the protective trends are definitive in anything other than retrospect; the GIs were the people who fought in WWII and thereafter got automatic respect therefor.  The Silents were the ones who had no war stories of their own to tell.  I think that ultimately, the breakpoint between Millenial and Quiet will similarly be whether they participate in the crisis war this time around.

[Kinser79]

(12-01-2016, 01:14 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(11-30-2016, 10:09 PM)HoldOn Wrote:

(11-28-2016, 09:24 AM)tg63 Wrote: Unless I'm mistaken S&H defined the start of a new generation as 3-4 years before the onset of a new turning.  So if we go with 2008 as the start of the 4T as is generally accepted (others posit 2005 or even 2001, but your mileage may vary), that would make the start of the homelander generation as 2004-5.  Seems to fit intuitively for me.

If you go by the belief that 9/11 began the 4T, that would place the Homelanders' starting date around 1997-8ish, correct? Which wouldn't be far off from the dates that sources like Gallup, Pew Research, and The New York Times use for Millennials and Zers (usually a cutoff of ~1995-98).

Honestly, I don't abide by the idea that generations *must* be ~20-25 years each. I believe that as technology progresses, it makes sense for each generation to get shorter and shorter. A 12 year old, who S&H consider a tail-end "Millennial", for example, grew up with much more advanced technology than even a 21 year old "Millennial". The former does not know a world without iPhones, while the latter spent nearly all of their childhood (ages 5-12) *without* iPhones.

Here's my idea of generations (feel free to disagree).

Lost Generation: 1883-1900
Greatest Generation: 1901-1924
Silent Generation: 1925-1945
Baby boomers: 1946-1964
Gen X: 1965-1981
Gen Y/Millennials: 1982-1996
Gen Z/Homelanders: 1997-present (if Trump's presidency brings on a certain world-changing event, an ending date could be found for this generation)

You've got it backwards. Because what defines a saeculum is human lifespan, increasing life spans have lengthened seacula and also turnings.

Incorrect. The human maximum lifespan has not increased and has remained consistantly in the 120 year range since ancient times. The only difference is that the AVERAGE human lifespan has increased. Largely though massive reduction in deaths among the very young. You're not Eric, so I expect you to have an understanding of how averaging works considering it is something most people in learn in fourth grade maths class.

That being said, as human life spans have not increased but rather only the numbers of each generation reaching into late elderhood there could be some lengthening of the saeculum but the evidence for such is not present as of yet.

As to the topic since the 4T really began around 2005, I'd argue that no one born before 2002 at the earliest could possibly be a "Homelander". As for the end of the 4T I suspect that it will be some time around 2025. It also conveniently is 80 years give or take a year from 1945.

[Warren Dew]

Stories about him fighting in the war, or just stories about the war? The latter are not "war stories" in the way the term is usually used in the U.S.

[Warren Dew]

That's not what "war stories" means, sorry.

[Warren Dew]

So you would call formal historical analyses of WWII "war stories"? I've never seen that usage.

[MillennialJim]

(12-02-2016, 01:42 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(12-02-2016, 11:19 AM)MillennialJim Wrote:

(11-28-2016, 09:24 AM)tg63 Wrote: Unless I'm mistaken S&H defined the start of a new generation as 3-4 years before the onset of a new turning.  So if we go with 2008 as the start of the 4T as is generally accepted (others posit 2005 or even 2001, but your mileage may vary), that would make the start of the homelander generation as 2004-5.  Seems to fit intuitively for me.

This is my belief as well.  

There were some good indications that the 2003-2005 cohorts were changing in terms of parenting trends and other things we look for in rearing a different generation.  Preceding generations drive reactions to world events, which drives parenting styles, which in turn creates a new generation that differs from the past.  I'm a 1982 cohort.  I have a 2 year old daughter.  No one who looks at how children are raised today can say that the temperament of parenting and current parenting trends are similar to how kids were raised in the 80's and 90's.  IMO a break began to occur in the early 2000's, to more protective styles of parenting consistent with an adaptive generation.

Good to see another millenial posting.  Willing to say where you are from?

While I agree that parenting has gotten overprotective - my kids are 8, 6, and 4 - I'm not sure how sudden it was.  Nor am I certain that the protective trends are definitive in anything other than retrospect; the GIs were the people who fought in WWII and thereafter got automatic respect therefor.  The Silents were the ones who had no war stories of their own to tell.  I think that ultimately, the breakpoint between Millenial and Quiet will similarly be whether they participate in the crisis war this time around.

Thanks - I think life and politics would be much easier if everybody else just let us take over.  My home base is Wisconsin, but I travel cross country a lot.  

I agree with you that there was no one moment when parenting trends just changed... I did start noticing it in the 2nd Bush term, though, especially with little kids.  I just can't join the hypothesizing that kids born in the late aughts or early 2010s are still Millennials.  In addition to all of the objective reasoning behind my reaction, it just feels wrong.  The kids of the 2010s ain't us.  I don't especially think the kids of the mid-2000's (10 year olds and such today) are us, either.  

Another marker may be the introduction of the iPhone in 2007.  If you never knew life before the smartphone era, you ain't a millennial.

[HoldOn]

It should be noted that on sites like Reddit and Facebook, most people there seem to think 9/11 was the "breaking point" from Millennials to Gen Z, not the 2008 Recession/Obama election.

[HoldOn]

(12-03-2016, 10:38 PM)MillennialJim Wrote: Another marker may be the introduction of the iPhone in 2007.  If you never knew life before the smartphone era, you ain't a millennial.

Interesting point. That would place Homelanders' starting date around 2003-2004 or so.

[Warren Dew]

(12-03-2016, 10:38 PM)MillennialJim Wrote:

(12-02-2016, 01:42 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(12-02-2016, 11:19 AM)MillennialJim Wrote:

(11-28-2016, 09:24 AM)tg63 Wrote: Unless I'm mistaken S&H defined the start of a new generation as 3-4 years before the onset of a new turning.  So if we go with 2008 as the start of the 4T as is generally accepted (others posit 2005 or even 2001, but your mileage may vary), that would make the start of the homelander generation as 2004-5.  Seems to fit intuitively for me.

This is my belief as well.  

There were some good indications that the 2003-2005 cohorts were changing in terms of parenting trends and other things we look for in rearing a different generation.  Preceding generations drive reactions to world events, which drives parenting styles, which in turn creates a new generation that differs from the past.  I'm a 1982 cohort.  I have a 2 year old daughter.  No one who looks at how children are raised today can say that the temperament of parenting and current parenting trends are similar to how kids were raised in the 80's and 90's.  IMO a break began to occur in the early 2000's, to more protective styles of parenting consistent with an adaptive generation.

Good to see another millenial posting.  Willing to say where you are from?

While I agree that parenting has gotten overprotective - my kids are 8, 6, and 4 - I'm not sure how sudden it was.  Nor am I certain that the protective trends are definitive in anything other than retrospect; the GIs were the people who fought in WWII and thereafter got automatic respect therefor.  The Silents were the ones who had no war stories of their own to tell.  I think that ultimately, the breakpoint between Millenial and Quiet will similarly be whether they participate in the crisis war this time around.

Thanks - I think life and politics would be much easier if everybody else just let us take over.  My home base is Wisconsin, but I travel cross country a lot.

Just to clarify, I'm not a millenial myself; I was referring to taramarie.  It will be interesting to see any differences and agreements between millenials on opposite sides of the Pacific.

Quote:I agree with you that there was no one moment when parenting trends just changed... I did start noticing it in the 2nd Bush term, though, especially with little kids.  I just can't join the hypothesizing that kids born in the late aughts or early 2010s are still Millennials.  In addition to all of the objective reasoning behind my reaction, it just feels wrong.  The kids of the 2010s ain't us.  I don't especially think the kids of the mid-2000's (10 year olds and such today) are us, either.  

Another marker may be the introduction of the iPhone in 2007.  If you never knew life before the smartphone era, you ain't a millennial.

There are always big differences between the leading edge and the trailing edge of generations.  Trailing GIs never knew a world wiithout automobiles, for example.

[FLBones]

Babies currently being born are core Homies. Just like those born in the mid to late 1930s were core Silents. We probably have 7-10 years to go until we start to see the new generation of Prophets being born.

[Odin]

(12-04-2016, 06:22 AM)HoldOn Wrote: It should be noted that on sites like Reddit and Facebook, most people there seem to think 9/11 was the "breaking point" from Millennials to Gen Z, not the 2008 Recession/Obama election.

Based on the discussions on Reddit I've seen most people's idea of what "Millennial" means is extremely confused and many people have forgotten that we folks in our early 30s are also Millennials.

About a week ago there was an Reddit post about Millennials watching less sports and there was a discussion in the comments about why people's understanding about the term "Millennial" is so muddy and one poster mentioned that "Millennial" now is running into the same issue the term "Generation X" had in the mid 90s, it has degenerated into a generic buzzword used by clueless middle-aged marketing executives for "teenagers and people in their early 20s".

[The Wonkette]

(12-03-2016, 07:16 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(12-01-2016, 01:14 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(11-30-2016, 10:09 PM)HoldOn Wrote:

(11-28-2016, 09:24 AM)tg63 Wrote: Unless I'm mistaken S&H defined the start of a new generation as 3-4 years before the onset of a new turning.  So if we go with 2008 as the start of the 4T as is generally accepted (others posit 2005 or even 2001, but your mileage may vary), that would make the start of the homelander generation as 2004-5.  Seems to fit intuitively for me.

If you go by the belief that 9/11 began the 4T, that would place the Homelanders' starting date around 1997-8ish, correct? Which wouldn't be far off from the dates that sources like Gallup, Pew Research, and The New York Times use for Millennials and Zers (usually a cutoff of ~1995-98).

Honestly, I don't abide by the idea that generations *must* be ~20-25 years each. I believe that as technology progresses, it makes sense for each generation to get shorter and shorter. A 12 year old, who S&H consider a tail-end "Millennial", for example, grew up with much more advanced technology than even a 21 year old "Millennial". The former does not know a world without iPhones, while the latter spent nearly all of their childhood (ages 5-12) *without* iPhones.

Here's my idea of generations (feel free to disagree).

Lost Generation: 1883-1900
Greatest Generation: 1901-1924
Silent Generation: 1925-1945
Baby boomers: 1946-1964
Gen X: 1965-1981
Gen Y/Millennials: 1982-1996
Gen Z/Homelanders: 1997-present (if Trump's presidency brings on a certain world-changing event, an ending date could be found for this generation)

You've got it backwards. Because what defines a saeculum is human lifespan, increasing life spans have lengthened seacula and also turnings.

Incorrect. The human maximum lifespan has not increased and has remained consistantly in the 120 year range since ancient times. The only difference is that the AVERAGE human lifespan has increased. Largely though massive reduction in deaths among the very young. You're not Eric, so I expect you to have an understanding of how averaging works considering it is something most people in learn in fourth grade maths class.

That being said, as human life spans have not increased but rather only the numbers of each generation reaching into late elderhood there could be some lengthening of the saeculum but the evidence for such is not present as of yet.

It's true that much of the increase in average lifespans is because of increase in infant and early childhood. However, it is also true that lifespans for people who reach adulthood or even middle-age have also increased. With advances in medicine and fewer people smoking, fewer people in their 50s and 60s are dying from diseases such as pneumonia, influenza, emphysema, or heart disease, and the old-old (over 75 or 80) are the fastest growing demographic.