Talk:Boomerang Generation

I am no expert, but it seems to me that the article has merit. I do think it should be specific in terms of the racial and ethnic breakdown in terms of who is effected. I believe that in many cultures in the world the younger, or unmarried child will stay home and care for the parents. As well parents will move in with older more established parents in their old age as opposed to the Western prevalence in placing the elderly in a third party home. I believe what the writer was trying to convey was the ever increasing occurrence of "White" Western (specifically North American) Gen-Xer's and Gen-Yer's ambivalence to either move out on their own for fear of failure or because of failure and that these particular generations (between 23 and 39) have been accustom to a certain way of life that may not be readily available in our current economic climate. As students graduate from college and as Gen-Xer's get older and so do their parents I think we may see an uptick in more "boomerang" persons. I believe more research needs to be done on this subject, but I also feel that there is definitely enough here to take it off the disputed list...

Old talk

I would like to see more cultural context in relation to "boomeranging". It is hardly uncommon, nor has it been for generations, for adult children in black and Latino households in the U.S. to live at home for extended periods. Many of these homes are parented by single mothers due to early death of the father (I believe more common in black and brown families, but this would need stats to back it up) or divorce. That the practice is now affecting white families to a greater degree may be reflective of all the factors in the article, but it is culturally isolationist to imply that it is a new occurrance in developed countries, because in segments of the U.S. it decidedly is not. It would be worth examining if in integrated neighborhoods, it is more common for white adults to continue to live at home than it is in all-white neighborhoods. It would also be interesting to compare rural areas to urban and suburban areas. Another factor that should be explored is the greater need for higher education today. A college degree is much more necessary to even low-level jobs, and a masters degree is required for many. This neccessitates keeping ties to home longer. Lmonteros 15:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I think your excellent observation about this term's connection with white households is in effect a comment on its middle-class-ness. I added a caveat to that effect to the introduction. If we *had* the kind of in-depth studies/comparisons you mention, I'd be all for referencing them, but in lieu of that does the caveat work for you?UserAccount001 01:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The caveat does help, and I notice the article is better researched and written than it was when I commented two years ago. However, observationally, I do see an ethnic component. My town is a predominantly middle-class suburb of 46,000, with a much higher percentage of blacks, Latinos, and Armenians than the U.S. or state averages. These middle-class families tend to be more multigenerational than white middle-class families; thus, I think it is more acceptable for white middle-class families to be multigenerational here.Lmonteros (talk) 03:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I am part of this generation, and I think the explination is incorrect. Most of the people who move back with their parents move back because of either money, or the fact that that they were not sufficiently prepaired to live on their own. The fact is that it is much harded to get started in the 00s than it was in previous decades.

This is a very strange entry. People born during these particular five years consists of a generation due to one single trait? Anyway, I live in Sweden, but I agree that it seems harder to establish your own life now than it has been before. I only speak from my experience in Stockholm, but living/rent is expensive, jobs and apartments are hard to get by, and the competition is tough. 惑乱 分からん 20:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The term is in general use because of the rough boundaries of this generation and the observation of unusual numbers of recent college graduates returning home. It does seem the term is unfortunate. Perhaps another term related to scarcity in times of wealth or some other common feature might work? Alternatives could stick if presented here. Just some thoughts from a former "twentysomething" back in the day. --M0llusk 00:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

How can people born in 1986 be considered part of this generation? They're only freshmen and sophomores in college, so by definition, they can't be boomerangers...

Most people born in 1986 would be starting their 3rd year in a 4-year college now, or would have just graduated with an associate degree from a 2-year college. I think they are included because of the latter possibility. Also, I think there is a consensus between the attitudes of a great chunk (at least) of people born in 1986 and the (apparent) 'defining' attribute of this generation regarding living with one's parents after being on your own for a few years. I, along with most of my friends were born in 1986, and there is generally lacking any stigma that was once associated in American culture with living at home after you graduate. There tends to be a feeling that returning home after school (or never leaving in the first place) is financially, as well as emotionally a good idea. So, I think perhaps a few more years will be added yet to the boundaries of this generation, as more people graduate and fit into this generation's 'definition' (also, the span of this generation is pretty small).--D izzygirl 22:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree and think that perhaps it could be extended to a lot of today's college students who will return home after college or stay at home during college. It seems that this is happening a lot. shijeru 22:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

<shehn> I was born in '80, graduated from undergrad in '02, and we were already headlong into the recession (minor depression?) that began probably in early '01. My suggestion would be to move these years slightly back, so that the entry reads '1978-1984', at least for now. But even though the middle class contributes to shrink as a demographic percentile of all American households, it's hard to argue that we're still in a recession. So - depending on how we are defining 'Boomerang Generation', it could either be crisply and permanently terminated around '84, or it could continue indefinitely until the Baby Boomers cease to comprise the bulk of the middle class - which could be another 10-20 years with progressively later retirement ages and continued public health improvements. </shehn>

Please don't add citation needed markers where they're not needed. There's plenty of evidence to support the claims made in this article -- and a plethora of citations have now been provided to back up these claims. Three different citation needed markers in a single sentence seems a bit execessive. Sometimes I get the feeling people add citation needed markers just to cast doubt upon statements they believe are detrimental to favored political powers. We're here to write an encyclopedia -- not help one political party look better than another. The fact that there have been periodic economic downturns affecting some generations should not be questioned just because it might make somebody's given politics look bad. Plenty of evidence backs up the statements made in this article. Some negative economic factors affected the Boomerang Generation. If you have something to add, please feel free to add it (and cite your sources). That's much more helpful and constructive than just casting doubts on two or three statements per sentence in an effort to make the whole article appear biased and suspect. Thanks! 66.17.118.207 14:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to add that the boomerangers are called 'Generation Internship' (Generation Praktikum) in Germany and `Generation in danger' (génération précaire) in France. So it seems to be an international phenomenon. (Joerg Tremmel)

I think the article overemphasizes the impact of "outsourcing." All the references given for this statement are from the media, and studies referenced in the linked articles (if they reference hard data at all) cite numbers like 45k to 400k jobs lost to outsourcing in a 3 month period. Bureau of Labor Statistics reports gross private-sector job losses and gains to be on the order of 6 to 9 million per quarter between '96 and '06. 6% or so of job losses loosely attributable to outsourcing is hardly a staggering statistic. DirectEON 07:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Definition

I see no evidence for the definition of the term at all. DGG (talk) 06:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

If none is forthcoming, the article should be deleted. DGG (talk) 17:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

alternatively, if the topic is interesting--and probably it is--perhaps there is a better title--one that does not represent the work of a isolated fringe theory?

This article should stay. I can vouch that the term boomerang children for example is used relatively widely in the studies of the sociology of the family ([1]), but boomerang generation is also quite popular. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

deletion of support/opposition sections

The deletion of these sections was summarized as "cleanup"; this is not an adequate justification for major deletion. It is true that the sections were tagged "unreferenced", but this itself was questionable. It is common practice for Wikipedia entries to contain editorialization in addition to factual reporting. The sections in question do not make eggregious claims; or if they do those claims should be challenged individually. —Preceding unsigned comment added by UserAccount001 (talk • contribs) 01:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC) The new additions to the opposition do indeed make egregious claims and seem to have no relevance to the subject. Suckling at the maternal teet? Offering financial advice? Rather peculiar. 24.80.225.189 (talk) 06:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

By region

I recall reading somewhere that Boomeranging is more popular in Europe and Asia than in USA. We need a discussion of that phenomenon by regions and countries... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Can a more experienced editor please nominate this for deletion

This article should be deleted I believe. Thank you, --68.9.117.21 (talk) 19:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Please give a rationale why. I cannot list it on WP:AFD without some reason. —Bill Price^{(notyourbroom)} 19:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

the term docent seem to have any reliable sources that mention the term. It reads like original research.--68.9.117.21 (talk) 02:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

see here —Bill Price^{(notyourbroom)} 02:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

are any of those in the article? Maybe some could be used in the lead to improve the article?--68.9.117.21 (talk) 02:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

This seems like it is mostly about empty nest syndrome?--68.9.117.21 (talk) 02:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)