Me? Born 1967 to a hippy mom in the University of Chicago, baby. I’m so X I have to keep my arms above my head at 45 degree angles.
Everyone is right that we’re screwed on taxes and social security, though. I would, right here, right now, renounce all claims to Social Security in my retirement if they stopped deducting it from my income with my next check. I wouldn’t even try to claim anything against what I’ve already paid…they can keep that. Just stop screwing me and all is forgiven.
pldennison wrote: “Er . . . not to be too nitpicky, since this seems to be a sore subject with you, but I hope by “some people” you meant “most people.” The Baby Boom is generally accepted to have comprised the period 1946-1964. By the measures by which the popular culture usually views these things, the generation born in the late 50’s through the 60’s is part of the Baby Boomer generation.”
Yes, I’ve seen the demographic definition, too. It’s just that in popular culture, Baby Boomer means “person born at or near the beginning of the 1946-1964 period.” Back in '86, the newsmagazines were full of “Boomers Turning 40!” articles (I had just turned 25.) Back in '96, the headlines read “Boomers Turn 50!” (I was 35.) In 2010, the headlines will all say, “Boomers Hit 64!” (I won’t be quite 50 yet.) Add to that all the cultural and historical references that go along with boomers, which almost always refer to the fifties for children (before I was born) and the sixties for college students and young adults (I finished college in '82) and you see…
Okay, so what is it about 1946-1964 that sets it off so sharply? 1946 was the first year after WWII, so that makes about as much sense as anything relating to ‘generations’, but what about 1964? Did they just flip the last two numbers?
I think it’s completely arbitrary anyway, but I’d like to know how those who don’t agree with my assessment justify it.
I believe that the measure for a “generation” has traditionally been 18 years (hence 1946-1964). I think most people here would disagree with this definition as being too long, however. Maybe any definition of generation is flawed, because it’s not like people have babies one year, then don’t have them again for 18 years - it’s a continuum of new people showing up on Earth. Maybe we should only define groups by year of birth, not by generation.
(BTW, I fully agree with you, Jonathan Chance, but unfortunately, my government lost all the money in our pension fund on bad investments, so the money I’m paying into the pension fund now is for my parents and grandparents, not myself {how my tiny little generation is going to support the top-heavy Boomers, I don’t know}. My RRSP’s are supposed to be for me. And they wonder why we’re a disillusioned generation. :))
Well maybe, but I’ve never seen people born later than 80’ included in Gen-X, so certainly not 82’: I don’t think a generation=18 years holds true for other generations. I’m confused and disheartened that no one will tell me what generation, I, a 1977 model, belong to. I’ve seen as many stats that include the year in X that don’t. (not that I feel much kinship with people who were born in the mid-60’s but it’d be nice to know one way or the other!) Why aren’t there any offical stats? If we can nail down 12 inches is a foot, and 52 weeks is a year, we should be able to come to a concesus about what makes a generation.