Talk:Millennials

When does it start?

I've always heard that Generation Y started on January 1, 1982. This makes sense because I've always heard that Gen Xers become adults before the turn of the millennium (So you'd have to be born before 12-31-81 to be an Xer)

Where is the line drawn...It's in 1976, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1985, and even 1986...Where is the distinction? I believe it ought to be January 1-1982 to September 11, 1996 as Gen Y. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.152.66.130 (talk) 00:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I'm currently pulling out all my references to support this. I was born in 1981 and I'm an 80's child having lived throughout the decade. My earliest memories are seeing ET and Ghost Busters in the movie theatre. I've always had a really good memory. While I'm also an early 90's kid and late 90's teen, I'm at the tail end of Generation X. You can't really be an "80's child" if you're born after 1982 - not really. If you were older than 16 in 1980 you aren't an 80's kid through the whole decade. However you would be part of Generation X. Generation X is made up of those born in the 60's, 70's and up to 1981. While those born in mid-80s or late 80s and early 90's had 80's reruns (barely), 80's kids were more familiar with late 60s and 70s reruns as well.

I'm not sure why people born in late 80s and 90s are changing the dates to include 1980 and 1981 in Generation Y. Generation Y starts with the "Millennials" - those who graduated high school in 2000 or born in 1982. Try the yahoo search phrase "Generation Y" "1982" (separate quotes). I have a ton of sources, and from sociology articles as well as marketing and research. While people born in the late 70's up to early 80's can also be part of the Internet revolution period, Generation Y encompasses a larger group than that. There's a reason why they are called the Millennium Generation.

Again, while I agree that people had siblings who influenced what they listened to or watched, etc., you're not part of Generation X if you don't remember when CDs came out, weren't around or don't remember Ronald Reagan, missed the Challenger explosion, etc. Generation X is usually 1961-1981. The students who graduated in 2000 marked the coming of age of the Millennials.

I wrote my thesis on Generation Y, it is those born 1980 and after..(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC).

I will be working on articles for both Generation X and Generation Y with sources. However, I'm sure there will be people who keep deleting them. The general consensus is that the year 2000/1982 birth year marks the start of Generation Y.--CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 00:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

For the core Gen Y group, maybe, but the XY cusp can reach back as far as those born in 1975. For those born 1975-1981, I think the debate is whether they're a subsection of both Generations X and Y or if they form their own unique generation. Lothar76 (talk) 18:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

STOP CHANGING THE DATES. MILLENNIALS REFERS TO GENERATION Y/CLASS OF 2000, 1982 BIRTHS! THIS IS REPORTED IN MARKETING DEMOGRAPHICS AND UNIVERSITY PAPERS.--99.5.246.114 (talk) 00:55, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The list of generations wiki has this to say: Generation Y is also known as Generation Next or the Millennials.[10] Generation Y spans from circa 1980 to the mid 1990s.[11][12][13][14][15][16][17] Until Generation Z began to come of age in the late 2000s, Generation Y was often said to end around 2000 for convenience, but it is now more common to place the threshold between Generations Y and Z somewhere in the middle of the 1990s. Let's keep it consistent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.97.99.34 (talk) 11:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Some observations, and ideas

Remember, a generation is defined by certain events that occurred in their lifetimes, thus a shared perspective. For example, the Boomers were born during a "boom" time where birthrates were the highest they had ever been. They also had the Kennedy assasination, Woodstock, and the Vietnam War draft. That's why some want Obama and others who were just a bit too young to have been in the draft before it ended in 1975, put into Generation Jones. They had large classes in school like the other boomers, but were only 8 durring Woodstock, and they weren't able to be drafted to Vietnam!

Keep in mind, even though it is considered to have technically ended in 1975 with the Fall of Saigon, it wasn't until 1977 when Carter pardoned the draft dodgers, which in a lot of people's minds was the true "end" to it all. American's were able to come back, without fear of going to prison, and return to "normal" lives. However, all those born in the early 1960's were still too young to serve in 1977. The youngest would have been born in the 1950's- the heart of the boomers.

People point to birthrate to define a generation, because they share the common perspective of a large class in school (more of them). This doesn't quite work for those after the boom, because the "bust" of the second half of the 1960's through the 1970's, wasn't THAT much. Because of different factors, many babies weren't born in the 1970's compared to the 1960's and 1980's. Those born in the 1970's had smaller classes, and that was the decade with the fewest births since the baby boom. The births increase in the 1980's as more and more boomers settle down, start families, and obviously all the draft dodgers could now have families, causing birthrates to go up to boomer levels, hence the term "echo-boom".

Some try to pinpoint when the start of that boomlet was. Some point to 1976, because more were born that year than 1975, and it did continue to go up until 1993. If you look at the pure numbers though, births don't go up to near boomer levels until 1979 when the number was almost 3.5 million (the very MINIMUM to be considered a "boom"), until 1993, the last year it was still over 4 million. The actual live birthrate of those years are roughly 16%.

That means the 1980's babies have the same shared perspective that the boomers have- larger class sizes. The other problem with a shared perspective is that there was no major war like Vietnam. There were some other things that occured though. The first that everyone seems to point to is 9/11 (although this is more for the end of Generation Y more than anything else). There is also the dotcom bust of the early 2000's.

Both events are in 2001, and don't forget that after 9/11, the stock market really declined. So, put everything into perspective. If you're 22 (born 1979), you're just graduating college this year (assuming the 4 year thing), and are going into the workforce when all kinds of bad stuff is happening! Also, if you count "coming of age" as 21, then the first to come of age in the "new millennium" or the 2000's (using 2000 to start) would have been born in 1979. Another shared perspective. The final entire year Clinton was in office and the world was "peaceful" was 2000. The youngest to have kept him in office for those 8 years were born (excluding those born after election day in November) from 1975 to 1978. Assuming they graduated college at 22, they would all be in the workforce during the dotcom boom.

The 2000 US Presidential election has gone down in history as being the most controversial in the last 100 years. The Florida election results kept the winner from being decided for days. The youngest voters in this election were born for the most part from 1979 to 1982. That means their first presidential election has been marred. A shared perspective.

Looking at US presidential elections, the US just had the most historic. In 2008, the first African American president was elected. Zogby divided the voters into different demographics, based solely on age. The youngest voters were in the 18-29 demographic, or those born between 1979 to 1990. Another shared perspective, "young" voters were those between 18 and 29. Here's a link that talks about it:

http://www.zogby.com/blog/10112008part2.cfm

Finally, if you look at the historical events, as well as birthrate, you'll come to see a divide happening between Generation X and Generation Y. If we look solely at birthrate, the 16% (rounded) rate begins in 1979, and ends in 1994. If we look at the youngest voters of the 2000 election, we see the entire years 1979 to 1981 included. Looking at the most historic election in United States history, Zogby puts all the those in the 18-29 demographic to be all those born from 1979 to 1990. Also, keep in mind nearly all those born in 1994 will be old enough to vote for Obama's re-election in 2012. Plus, the first to turn 21 in the 2000's were born in 1979.

A little about me. I'm 32 (born 1977), and I noticed when I was talking to those born in 1979 and later about the first time I voted for a president in the 1996 election, they either don't remember it, or didn't care. I talk to them about the 2000 election, it's as if a lightbulb went off, and they talk about how they were in suspense for days to see who won. It's odd to me how back in the 90's during different elections I was put into the Gen X category, and somehow this decade I became a Gen Y, when I remember nearly all the 80's, and even voted 5 times in the 90's! I also talk to 80's babies about different events from the early 80's (1982 specifically), and I get a blank stare. I noticed that everyone I talk to born in 1977 all seem to remember the early/mid/late 80's, while those born in 1979 somehow only seem to have mid/late 80's memories. Can 2 years really make that kind of difference? I guess it can when talking about 1982, as 1984 to them was 1982 to me. I remember clearly when I was 5 in 1982, and saw ET in theaters, heck I even kept that ET doll from back then. Looks like trash, but he's MY trash! I also remember the record player I got for Christmas that year, and all the records I used to play on it back in the early/mid 80's. I tell all this stuff to 80's babies, and they act like I'm old! They talk about the cassettes they used to play in the mid/late 80's, and I did get a cassette player in 1985, but I remember the early 80's, BEFORE cassettes had the market! There's a shared perspective the mid to late 70's babies have that seem to really taper off around 1978. This connects us to other Xers (barely), that we have a shared perspective that those born in 79 and the 80's just don't have. Thanks for reading, and I think once others start seeing these perspectives, they will then divide Gen X and Gen Y between 1978 and 1979. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.11.154.4 (talk) 21:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I took a Sociology class at SIUe, and they used similar logic, but they had different years than you. They claim those born from 1976 to 2000 were known as Generation Y. They used similar ideas, saying that Generation Y's first vote was in 2000, something the class talked about one day. They did talk about that screwed up Florida part. I thought about the same comment you made, that the ones born in 1976-1978 would have been old enough to have voted in the 1996, making me wonder how 2000 was their first vote! I can't see the logic, because the teacher said the first-time voters were between the ages of 18-24. Isn't 24 old enough to have voted in TWO elections that year, I asked. She said if they had turned 18 four years earlier- so wouldn't that make the person 22, not 24? She said I was overthinking everything, and first-time voters in 2000 were born from 1976-1982. Oh well, I guess everyone has a different point of view! I tend to agree that Generation Y begins around 1980, aka the Reagan era. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.163.45.176 (talk • contribs) 23:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I took that class, she didn't say they were 18-24, she said they were born from 1976 to 1982. Yes, that means they were 18-24, and she was using those ages, because that's the common age group for college students. Ususally, first time voters are in college, meaning the 18-24 demographic. Yes, it also means the 23 and 24-yr-olds could have voted in 1996 as well, but they were still in the 18-24 demographic in 2000, so that's why their birthyears (1976, 1977) were included. If you think about it, they would be the ONLY years to have voted in 1996, because someone born in December, 1978, would have still been 17 during the 1996 election. Hope this clears up why the teacher said that the first-time voters in 2000 were born from 1976 to 1982. I was born in 1987, and I'm clearly Generation Y. I don't get why people include those a decade older than me into my generation. They were in college before cell phones and the internet became widespread, so how did they have the same experiences as I did? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.163.45.58 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Things that can fit into the article somewhere

I'm going through and cleaning the article up; it is unwieldy and redundant and oftentimes goes off topic. Here is one reference that doesn't fit immediately but can probably go somewhere.Kevin143 (talk) 09:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The child poverty rate was still relatively high in many Western countries throughout the 1980s and '90s.

This is another paragraph I deleted. The Google Answers list has some good references that may be able to be integrated, but we need to be careful about broadly describing Generation Y, especially broad descriptions from non authoritative web sources like about.com or self-published sources.Kevin143 (talk) 09:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Generation Y Psychographics

To understand the Gen Y mindsets , you need to understand the time in which they were born (around 1978-1998, although sources differ). Gen Y came of age during an unprecedented time of growth (late 1990s), when technology was rapidly growing in investability and popularity (think dot com bubble). The environment in which they grew up expected more of them. They needed to be faster and more efficient (with the advent of better technology), smarter (increase in college enrollment), and more available (40-60 hour work weeks) than Boomers and Gen X. Therefore some of the defining characteristics of Millennials are tech-savviness, family-centric, achievement-oriented, team-oriented and attention-craving.

These two sentences are well cited enough but I don't think these sources refer to Generation Y and it is a misciation. They've gotta be a miscitation, Millenials were just too young to have eating disorders in 1988 and 1993.Kevin143 (talk) 09:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Anorexia in Gen Y

The desire to meet model beauty standards is still increasing, particularly in women. The Institute of Psychiatry in London found a three fold increase in anorexia and bulimia between 1988 and 1993. Genetic traits linked to anorexia and bulimia may be obsessiveness, perfectionism, and anxious personality styles.

Terrorism

While I don't feel that 9/11 had any impact on generations themselves, I do feel that one of the main things about Generation Y is growing up in a time of terrorist threat and the different images being pushed around in regards to that from both the Government and the media. It's also the first time in history in which terrorists have used the internet and television to bring their threats directly into the living rooms of the people. I think that one of the significant cultural images is the image of Osama Bin Laden on his many videos. I'm not a wiki editor or anything, just think this should be included somehow. 130.88.186.26 (talk) 00:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I would disagree with your first statement. As a "member" of generation y, I would say that prior to 9/11 the world seemed like a relatively peaceful place. and that day altered our view of the world. Although it is not as if terrorist had not existed prior to that day, they weren't something in the minds of generation yer's. How it changed generation y's perception if the world and international affairs may be something to discuss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fisch4985 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah uhm under re-reading this article it's clearly written by non-generation Y people. I understand the need for citation but the article is ridiculous and pretty much anyone who grew up during the 80s and 90s will agree. It's like we all went on the baby boomer article and put that they all had a gambling addiction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.186.26 (talk) 16:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

"Parts" Criticism

Where the hell are your sources? This sounds like shit written by Faux News in one of their "exposé"s on "sexting". Seriously, the part about people born before 1995 being big consumers of Disney channel is comedy gold. Are you that out of touch? If you need a source to tell you that Disney channel is the domain of <12 year old girls and <10 year old boys, you need to stop relying on your personal experience with this sort of article.

Is Chicken Soup for the Teenage Soul really a good example of a book that resonates with Gen Y? Not being part of Gen Y, I must plead some ignorance but it seems counterintuitive to me. I think it should be removed if it can't be substantiated. Further, I'm a little hesitant about Harry Potter being featured as it has such a wide appeal. I think Goosebumps is a good example though as it seems relatively isolated to that period in time with a fairly obvious target audience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.46.203 (talk) 12:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Generation

What determines whether someone is in Generation Y?

If it is taken as a group of people born between 2 time periods, what makes these 2 time periods the correct line at which to draw the distinction between generations? Why not a year later, or a year before?

Are people trying to say that a person born on one day may belong to one generation, then a person born the day after belongs to the "next" generation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.69.86 (talk) 02:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, by the definition this would be true..(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC).

IM

Why is the discussion of IM behaviors necessary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.59.249 (talk) 00:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I think this is included to show that Generation Y is drastically different due to the internet. Maybe including a section about technological progress and its effects on Gen Y?

  "Millenials are growing up as familiar with computers as Boomers were with television.  In fact , more of today's teens say they can live without a television(28 percent) than without a computer(23 percent).  With computer ownership becoming more essential, gender and income gaps are narrowing"

Howe, N. & Strauss W. (2000). Millennials Rising : The Next Great Generation. NY: Random House.

I think this should be added... What do other people think?(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC).

Why not make it scientific and graph it?

Why doesn't anyone graph the birthrate for America? The baby boom of the late 40's to early 60's was how they defined the boomers, so why not do that with the Xers? If you strictly go by the graph, the boomers are from 1945 to 1959, X is 1960 to 1975, and Y would be 1976 to 1991. This creates some problems, because the "boom", which really started in 1946 due to the huge increase from the previous year, was still going, despite it starting to decline, as more than 4 million babies were born each year from 1960 to 1964. Also, the births in 1976, 1977 and 1978 were still below the 3.5 million mark, and don't reach it until 1979- if you round. So, looking purely at the numbers, the three generations would be:

1946-1964: Boomers; 1965-1978: Gen X; 1979-1994: Gen Y

Here are the numbers from the U.S. Census report:

1940: 2,559,000; 1945: 2,858,000; 1950: 3,632,000; 1952: 3,913,000; 1953: 3,965,000; 1954: 4,078,000; 1955: 4,104,000; 1956: 4,218,000; 1957: 4,308,000; 1958: 4,255,000; 1959: 4,295,000; 1960: 4,257,850; 1961: 4,268,326; 1962: 4,167,362; 1963: 4,098,020; 1964: 4,027,490; 1965: 3,760,358; 1966: 3,606,274; 1967: 3,520,959; 1968: 3,501,564; 1969: 3,600,206; 1970: 3,731,386; 1971: 3,555,970; 1972: 3,258,411; 1973: 3,136,965; 1974: 3,159,958; 1975: 3,144,198; 1976: 3,167,788; 1977: 3,326,632; 1978: 3,333,279; 1979: 3,494,398; 1980: 3,612,258; 1982: 3,680,537; 1983: 3,638,933; 1984: 3,669,141; 1985: 3,760,561; 1986: 3,731,000; 1987: 3,829,000; 1988: 3,913,000; 1989: 4,021,000; 1990: 4,179,000; 1991: 4,111,000; 1992: 4,084,000; 1993: 4,039,000; 1994: 3,979,000;

Plus, those born from 1979 on were the first cohert to come of age (21) starting in 2000.

What's this (US Only) crap in regards to Generation Jones?

Oh... I get it! 1954-1964 only happened in the good ol' US of A. Yanks.... just keep on offending the rest of the world with their self-centred crap. Or should I type, CENTERED. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.208.43 (talk) 11:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

centred could be mispronounced as cent-red so is demonstrably less efficient and more error-prone than centered

different countries have different names and generations that is all--Wikiscribe (talk) 20:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The Post WWII Baby-boom is the start of discussions about Generations in the US (and Western Europe). To say thus was world wide is to be a typical ignorant Euro. I mean can you say the WWII had any of the same effect in India as it had in Germany? 76.181.171.165 (talk) 18:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not really the place for your ill-advised insults. Generation Jones crap? I haven't a clue what you're talking about, but GenJones has not just developed a large following in the U.S, but also in many other, particularly European countries.

I’ve removed the Strauss and Howe chart, which belongs only on the Strauss and Howe page. By putting that chart on each generation page, it gives a false impression to readers that that chart represents an official or widely-accepted list of generations, which is certainly not the case. While Strauss and Howe have contributed to our knowledge about generations, their theories are still very controversial, and have become very discredited in some circles. Many generations experts, for example, strongly disagree with the long length of their generational constructs. In any event, it was very misleading to put that chart on other pages than theirs.

I’ve also added in the reference to Generation Jones because it was incorrect otherwise; Gen Xers are primarily the offspring of Baby Boomers, while Gen Yers are primarily the offspring of Generation Jones.Wendy 2012 (talk) 02:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Not really. Here in the Philippines and the Asean Region as a whole (formerly known as South-East Asia Region), Generation cut-offs and names are the same as the rest of the world. Even though some will argue there are differences, but if we go deeper and understand and analyze things objectively, we start to see and realize how similar the Eastern Hemisphere to the Western Hemisphere. First video game there? Same year here. High birthrate? Same year here. The list goes on. So I for one believe the "US Only" should be removed or re-worded or be defined more clearly as to "what IS" "US-only". --- Laibcoms (talk | Contribs) 12:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The article may have been US-centered before, but the International section nowadays does not read like I understand Wikipedia should. I am not an editor, but I added a cleanup tag to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.66.51.7 (talk) 05:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

For the record the second world war had a massive impact on India which paralles Germany in many ways, the war is a key factor in Indian independance and the partition of india.(82.3.44.176 (talk) 15:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC))

A Conversation from the talk page of %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me)

Thanks I've added another reference justifying the point about Generation Y being labeled as 'Civics' and 'Nation Builders'. It is a common label they are often given. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jreconomy (talk • contribs) 00:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

you provided a really great link there! which is to a well-worded article. but I dont think it really goes in line with the terms "civic" or "federation generation" perhaps between the 2 of us we could come up with a good way to rewrite the statement to reach what it is that you are trying to say. I think if we drop the reference to Federation generation and instead say something to the effect that:

The generation is sometimes defined as "Civics", characterised as wealth creators and nation builders. They are sometimes described as an "overachieving, overscheduled" generation

with a single ref that points to the smh article... what do you think about that? shoot back a revision if you think there should be a way to word it better.

by the way, perhaps we should take this to the article's Talk Page what do you think? %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me)

Thats fine, but I think the quotations from the authors (the "civic minded heros") should stay in there —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jreconomy (talk • contribs) 00:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Why do you feel that the phrase is so important? part of why I question the phrase is because it really is on the edge of being a problem for NPOV. what if a reader were to come along who is critical of the generation and they read that and the entire credibility is shot for them because they see it as oppsing to their point of view? It really is best to abide by WP:NPOV because it adds the best tone possible to articles %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 00:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I went ahead and made the edit. %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 14:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, thats fine, I agree with your change —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jreconomy (talk • contribs) 07:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Ever revolving time frames!!!

Ok, I understand that the time frame on Gen Y tends to be defined differently by several publications, but something I constantly see on this article is one person changes one of the sets of dates, and another person comes in and either changes it back, or worse only changes part of it and then another person still comes in and edits it to some other set of dates.

What is really bad about this is that the generations time line is not consistent throughout the article. All I am asking is 2 things. If you change one of the sets of date ranges on the article, please either edit them all. If not, please make it clear when editing one of the time frames that it is an alternative view than other dates on the page.

Also, Please give refs on your dates! too many of these dates are being edited per WP:OR. all I am asking is that you please consider that this article is likely to be read by people who are interested in reliable information not opinions. Perhaps if we can clear that one thing up we could also start to improve the article to a point where it is more encyclopedic. In the mean time I am going to tag this article with wikify cleanup and will try to come back and write a properly referenced section about the time frame of births of the generation and how they tend to vary. %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 14:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The best thing to do would be to mention which sources give which dates. I don't know what the primary sources for the dates are, though... journalists and authors have used various dates, but I don't know where they're drawing their information from.--Father Goose (talk) 20:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

True, which is why I plan to write a new section for the article explaining the variance in reported dates... the same thing could potentially help out other generation articles as well actually :) %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 22:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Thats a good plan. Right now the dates are 1980-1994, but according to some accounts that even overlaps with Generation Z. We need a section to explain different dates, or how certain Generations can overlap give or take a few years. For instance a child born in 1990 to a mother who was in Generation Jones probably has more in common with Generation Z, who were born to Generation X which was only a few years apart from Generation Jones, Jones was sandwhiched between X'ers and the Boomers. Thats much different than say a child born in 1984 or 85 to a Baby Boomer who is now in their early 60s and nearing retirement.Rumble74

There have been many studies and research as to the years in which where GEN X and GEN Y end and start. One book publishes that GEN Y starts at 1976, others at 1977. Those born in 1976 are said to belong to both GEN X and GEN Y. Gen Y came to term in 93. XY cusp refers to those born in 75-85 or the MTV gen. If you were born in 1976, you are lucky, you belong to both the X and Y, mostly Gen Y, you're most likely a Gen Y if your parents were born in the years 1954 53 etc (baby boomers)

This will include ALL members of this generation. No discrepancies.

The youngest members were born in 1994.

There are 3x sub-cohorts/waves to this generation:

1) 1977-1983(4) (Core Net Generation)

2) 1984(5)-1990 (Core Millenial Generation)

3) 1991-1994 (Core/Cusper Millenial Generation)

Each of these sub-groups share roughly similar life/cultural experiences, and attitudes towards work, technology, politics, religion, etc.

What demarcates the (American) Generation Y from previous and subsequent generations is their coming of age during (b. 1977-85), or their strong memory and capacity to appreciate (b. 1986-94), the transition into the digital/information age. Most members can still appreciate the pre-internet/digital society.

Individuals born after 1995 (when internet became mainstream (i.e. AOL)) are of a different generation because they are (currently) coming of age when digital/internet technology has been firmly established and deeply integrated into society. Even if they could remember a time before 9/11, (as adults) they may perceive their experiences differently based on the cultural climate in which they were born.

For example Millenials tend to be 1980's culture revivalists, along someone who was born in the 1970s, who may be more inclined to celebrate 1970's culture.

A generation tends to want to revive the decade in which it was born.

Added a few sources here:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m4467/is_2_54/ai_59949724
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/259995
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/brainiac/2008/03/net_generation.html
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/27/politics-and-the-dotnet-generation
http://www.jasondorsey.com/geny_info.html

jlh629 (talk) 18:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with you 100% and have always heard of the start date as late 70's (with 1977 being the most common) I think that the internet is publishing different information than what I had seen previously. Unfortunately I couldn't find any of the sources that I had read nearly 10 years ago about generation y so I just went with one of the sources that I could find, one that included the majority of what I know it to be. The reason I insist on a reference for this is because this article has constantly been up for debate on 2 major things. The first being the name (which you can see by browsing this talk page) and the second being the date range (which I have seen some argue is as late as the mid 90's). I will do some more searching again later, maybe collect some reference material in part of my user sandbox and will try to find something more reliable than what is currently up there. %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 19:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's a source: http://www.usatoday.com/money/workplace/2005-11-06-gen-y_x.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.123.218 (talk) 01:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

If you use that article as reference you'll have to put the start date for gen y at 1976 not 1977 because that article date is from 2005 and states people who have not turned 30 yet hence people born in 1976 had not turned 30 yet in 2005,lets give a halt with this insistance with the inclusion of people born in the 70's as gen y starters, first off there is a bridge type generation already,its called the mtv generation people born from 75-85 these are people from gen x and gen y who share some bonds in other words cuspers some gen x will have a little gen y in them and vice versa. I can hardly believe that that would include only 2 years of gen x and 8 years of gen y,also a good reference for the start of gen y is gen x if you check a lot of the end dates for gen x it ends some where from 1980-1982 even on the gen x article now there are 2 reliable sources that would conclude the start date for gen y either in 1980-1982 gen y starts with the 80's most likley 1981 or 1982--TheGrailHermit (talk) 01:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

This article needs a major clean-up. The start of Generation Y is WIDELY ACCEPTED as those born between 1977 and 1994. Even the Gen-Y blog site makes this reference. The Washington Post states: "Lumped under millennials or generation Y, some in their 20s and early 30s..." (Washington Post). Furthermore, Inc. Magazine refers to Gen Y-ers as those born between 1977 and 1994 (Inc. Magazine). The O.C. Register also puts Generation Y as those born between 1977 and 1994 (O.C. Register). The Post Gazette echoes this sentiment: "Age is the obvious difference between the two: Generation X consists of those born between 1965 and 1976, Generation Y between 1977 and 1994" (Post Gazette). The Boston Globe define the generation the same way: 1977 to 1994 (Boston Globe). Not to exhaust the point, but The Chicago Tribune also states that Gen Y-ers are "those born between 1977 and 1994" (Chicago Tribune). --USLeatherneck (talk) 11:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Hold up you can't use terms like widley accepted particulary when we are talking about generations which is highly debateable people are still debateing the baby boomers and generation x start and finish dates,we should include all all sourced material on this subject, like some of these which have various dates for start date of this generation

[[1]] early 1980's

[[2]] 1981 or 1982

[[3]] 1980 or 1981

[[4]] 1982

[[5]] 1982

[[6]] 1981

[[7]] 1980

[[8]] 1981

[[9]] early 1980's

[[10]] 1981

[[11]] 1976

[[12] 1976

[[13]] 1976

[[14]] 1976

[[15]] 1979

[[16]] 1979

with all that said there are to many sources going in a 100 different directions there is no general consensus by sources on one start and finish date of millenials/gen y, so all dates must be used in the article in other words in the begining of the article have a span of possible starting states which would span as early as 1976 and starting as late as 1982(and everything in between of cousce) and ending as early as 1990 or as late as 2000 the article must contain all souced points of view on this sort of subject being generations are very subjective--TheGrailHermit (talk) 15:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Im not trying to play dueling sources but im just trying to bring out that there are enough varying differing opinions to include all sourced years--TheGrailHermit (talk) 16:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

This seems to be the best approach. I just didn't like how the entry prior to the revision defined the generation as 1982 to 1994, considering many articles claim it spans before that (e.g. 1977). --USLeatherneck (talk) 22:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I want gen Y to include the entire 1970s so I don't feel so old! Seriously though, if you remember the cold war you are gen X or earlier. Quite whining!

Prepping for Archive

I am prepping this talk page for archiving soon. I am marking old discussions either stale or resolved based on my personal opinions. please review what I have marked above and remove or change tags as you feel fit.

Next sunday August 10 2008 I will be moving all topics with stale or resolved tags into archive 3. %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 20:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Tomorrow I will be doing this archive. I will be including everything that doesnt have discussion in the last 29 days (the reason it's 29 and not 30 is because there is one topic right there on the edge and I would rather just take care of it tomorrow instead of waiting another day to clean this talk page up. Anyway this will include all discussions on this page from "I have redirected the article Echo_boom_generation here" up with the exception of "What's this (US Only) crap in regards to Generation Jones?" %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 17:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

OK this archive has been completed %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 21:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Who's Herbig?

This sentence in the intro

Generation Y are primarily the children of Baby boomers, though some are the children of Generation Jones or older members of Generation X .

has a reference to "Herbig et al 1993". There is no other reference to Herbig on the page, so no indication of what (if anything) Herbig wrote that associated Generation Y with the Baby Boomers, Generation Jones, or Generation X. Google doesn't show anything for Herbig except for other references to "Herbig et al 1993" which I'm guessing are because of straight copies of this wikipedia page. If there is no Herbig, the sentence should be removed. Patrickbowman (talk) 22:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I saw that as well and considered removing it myself. I think it would be best just to get rid of it but hesitated and while I try to keep WP:Bold in mind, I tend to resist it rather often. %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 23:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Familiarize yourself with bold, revert, discuss, if you haven't already. Once you realize that you are allowed to do anything on Wikipedia as long as you accept that anyone else is allowed to disagree and reverse your actions, you'll see that you're free to do pretty much anything. Just be sure to explain your thinking with every edit (in edit summaries, or on talk pages if it's too complex). If you share your reasoning, no one can fault you, even if they disagree with you.--Father Goose (talk) 06:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I have read that one before but never really took it to heart. I think this article is a good example of how that process could be very valuable. Thanks for pointing it out to me again! %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 18:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Sexuality

This generation might be one of the most sexual in a long time, why has no one made more note of this in the article? I added a note and some cites. --IdLoveOne (talk) 00:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe that it is not the generation itself sexual but mostly attributed to high population, sexual propaganda pushed by corporations for profit, and reduced belief in waiting until marriage. I was born in 85'and definitely more sexually active now than a few years ago. Everyone loves to have sex so why should this generation be any different???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.37.151.183 (talk) 20:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

This generation has sex younger and waits longer until marriage as a consequence of liberalizing attitudes born in the sexual revolution the 60s, codified in modern movies and TV shows, as well as increased tolerance overall to a diversity of lifestyles. A section should definitely be added, but with good sources to back it up unlike most of this piece of shit WP:OR article.--Loodog (talk) 17:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Timespan

We really need a proper definition of Generation Y.

Some thoughts

• Anyone born before 1977 is certainly not Generation Y.
• Anyone born post-1995 is probably Generation Z.
• A human generation is either 20 or 30 years, depending on which source you go by (though 20 years more reasonable).
• The majority of Gen Y are generally in the teens or 20s now.

--Josh Atkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 11:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Certainly agree - I tend to think of a Generation as 18 years - the generally accepted time to maturity and adulthood. The start date of Gen Y and demarcation with Gen X is a problem area, no one seems to agree upon. However - I believe the enddate of Gen Y and start of Gen Z is clear, to qualify as a Gen Y you have to be able to remember (in a very basic sense) what the world was like before terrorists brought down the twin towers, which of course happened in September 2001. For the record, I am not American, but that even did change the entire course of human history, that is surely indisputable.

• • Given that, I would say anyone younger than 5 or 6, at the time of 9/11 therefore does not qualify as Gen Y - they are by definition part of the next Generation, Gen Z. That to me puts the end date of Gen Y at about (Northern) Summer of 1995. If you extrapolate back from that date by a Generation (of 18 years) you get to 1977.

• • Younger than 5 should work, I was 5 the year of 9/11 and can remember it vividly.

• • Given all that, it seems perfectly reasonable to mark Generation Y as "generally accepted" as those born between 1977-1995. (Summer to Summer if you must)

• • Personally I think there are other factors in play, and they go largely to the ages of your siblings. If you are the youngest sibling in a family of 6, and your 3 brothers and sisters were born in the early 1970s and you were born in 1977 or 1979 or even 1981 - you are far more likely to identify strongly with Gen X themes because of the influence of your siblings.

• • If, however, you were born in 1975 but had three or four younger siblings born in 1979, 1981, 1984, 1986 for instance, you have been far more heavily influenced by more Gen Y themes. This is where the bridging explanations come from and why people of the same age may very well belong to different Generations. It is about environment as well as just date of birth - but that is far too complicated to go into properly when no one can even agree on when the basic parameters of Generation Y start and end. - I do plant my flag for 1995 as the final year of Generatio Y though, and I stand by that demarcation strongly.

• • Sorry to dissagree, but the end should be the Summer of 1996. 9/11 is a good point when the world changed and people born before the summer (Including myself in January) can remember 9/11, but people born afterwards in late 1996 or 1997 cannot.

• • I believe that Generation Y spans January 1, 1982 to September 11, 1996. I was 6 when 9-11 occured and I can remember it very well (I was born in Jan. 1995, and I consider myself to be a member of Generation Y.) I had a sister in Dec. 1999 and I consider her to be an member of Generation Z because she cannot remeber the 9-11 attacks. Also, I think that 9-11, the two wars in the middle east, and the election of Barack Obama have made a larger impact on Gen Y than the rise of digital technology... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.105.128.56 (talk) 02:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

• • I personally think that Digital Technology has had a much larger impact on GenY than 9/11. Iraq, Afghanistan, and September 11th, they're just news stories, essentially. Watching the twin towers fall when your 6 won't change your attitude towards the world... because there'll be no attitude to change. But the internet... if your entire life has been in a digital world, you will have a completely different attitude towards your friends, family, information, socialization, and so on than anyone before you. I've heard that kids born in ~1994-95 were using MSN messaging when they were in grade 3(03-04). When I was in grade 3(99-00, not long before 03-04), nobody would have been interested in talking to each other on the phone or internet, we would much rather play fort. And if you were to go back 10, 20, 60, or even 120 years, there would have been the same rough attitude. The internet is probably the most significant generational cut off point since WWI. I would say Gen Y covers the years 1978-1993.bob bobato (talk) 00:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you to an extent. However, this is all purely speculation and our own personal opinions. Personal anecodtes will be very different from person to person. We need to find reliable sources to back up and reinforce opinions in the article.Peregrine981 (talk) 14:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Some thoughts on this article

3 years ago I came to this article and found that it was a complete mess. No scratch that, it was a complete and utter fucking pathetic excuse for an encyclopedic article. Being a (begrudged) member of "generation y" I actually found the article insulting. It basically read like it was telling me what I'm supposed to be, listing a bunch of stereotypes presented as facts, dubiously sourced statistics, partisan screed, and a laundry list of "reasons" why generation y are a bunch of moronic, consumerist, shiftless layabouts who are contributing to the downfall of society. It was just trash talking from top to bottom.

I was so incensed by this trashy article that I came onto the talk page, and totally slammed it. I got a comment on my talk page from one of the contributors saying that he'd fixed some things, but I ignored it. I thought this article was a lost cause, and to be honest I felt like starting a vote for deletion.

3 years later I've returned to find an interesting, informative, non-assuming statistics based article. No wild claims are made, no questionable conclusions are extrapolated from statistics, no insults or derogatory commentary masquerading as encyclopedic fact.

I'm really genuinely proud of you guys, you've won over a hardcore skeptic. Keep up the good work, stick to Wikipedia's rules, and this'll be a fascinating, front page article yet.▫Bad▫harlick♠ 23:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I think a big mention should be made about the gross stereotyping seen on Gen-Y. Here in Australia, all media categorize this whole generation (including I) as law-breaking, rude, lose-moralled, criminal, trouble makers. It is really over-bearing. We are being treated with disdain for no apparent reason. Probably because of 'What Corey Worthington Did'. Sick Of It All. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.255.133 (talk) 05:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

in America, you're mostly characterized as a generation of whiners. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notchdoctor (talk •

Sounds like the fault of the parents for being lazy in raising us.Richco07 (talk) 21:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

contribs) 15:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Citations

Let's not cite blogs in general, but especially on articles like this where entire generations are being characterized and there are weird interests at play (I feel baby boomers and even gen X sometimes like to nitpick gen Y, i dont know what thats all about). I'm removing "characterized by a heightened sense of entitlement, of comfort, and of rights and privileges" from "Trophy Kids" until this sort of characterization can be backed up with a study. (April.s (talk) 22:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC))

Mentioning the Me Generation

Although it may deserve its own page, this page should at least mention the Me Generation or Entitlement Generation – other names given to this generation and (to some degree) Generation X. I'd add it myself, but I'm busy with other Wiki work. Sources include: Boston Globe: The New Me Generation and Generation Me. I'm not trying to be biased, just pointing to other terms and views that this encyclopedic article should address. –Visionholder (talk) 22:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

• Generation Me does not deserve its own article. It should be merged here or deleted. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 20:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• Generation Me does not exist as an article, nor is it mentioned here. Hence my suggestion to some aspiring editor to mention it. It's just a suggestion. –Visionholder (talk) 20:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oh you've got to be kidding me, there are two of these? Fine, this one should be deleted or merged immediately. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 06:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Most popular web sites for gen y

See [17] Wrad (talk) 19:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Definition

According to the New York Times, Generation Y is the generation "born after 1980". [18] Kaldari (talk) 21:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

1976 is Gen X vs. 1976 is Gen XY Cusp

It seems that 1976 is too early for Gen Y. It should be the final year for Gen X, since it was the last group to graduate from high school (1994) before the internet came out.

Kh298 (talk) 01:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The internet came out in 1991 and grew each subsequent of the early and mid 90's and exploded in the late 90's(your just counting when windows first came out)and did kids born in 1975 and 76 not benefit from the internet as college kids? i think people born in 1975,76,77,78,79,80,81 and maybe even possbly in 1982 and beyond will never be considered hard gen y's or hard gen X's because people born those years have a little of each in them culturaly, just like with barrack obama he is not considered quite a baby boomer but not quite gen x he is considered gen jones which is a bridge generation between bommers and xers and i believe gen x and gen y may have there own its called the MTV Generation--TheGrailHermit (talk) 23:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

There used to be an entry for MTV Generation that referred primarily to the Generation XY Cusp, but someone redirected it to refer to solely Generation Y. Speaking as a 76er who is most assuredly on the cusp, I feel disenfranchised. Lothar76 (talk) 14:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Lets see. I am a 1979 birth. I have been told my whole life I am Gen X. My sister was born 1983 and was also called Gen X. In the 80's Michale Jackson did a Pepsi Commercial "Your the Pepsi Generation" and Pepsi's slogan was "Generation neXt" and "Choice of the neXt Generation". So that tells me that at least from late 70's to the end of the 80's is Generation X. It will always be that way to me anyway. 98.18.191.208 (talk) 20:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The point I'm trying to make is that those born roughly between 1975 and 1986 likely do not fit neatly into Generation X or Generation Y. Look at the List of Generations entry - they are "the last generation able to compare hardwired and analog technologies to wireless and digital technologies based upon personal experiences." The former is very much associated with Gen X and the latter with Gen Y. Point being, 1976ers are not Generation X - we're Generation XY. Lothar76 (talk) 18:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Banners added

For all the reasons above banners have been added to this article. We seem to be unsure as to when Gen Y starts and ends and while it may start in (for example) 1981 in the US it may start in 1982 in the UK or 1981 in Canada. Who really knows. And since this article is not bassed on strauss and Howes work we can argue dates all day long. Also, do not get confussed with a marketing group (several in links) telling when a group starts and ends. They are not doing research for history they are doing it to find a target group to sell things to. --Mickey 14:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Confusing 1977 for 1978

I have noticed that some of the reasoning for defining the beginning of Gen Y to 1977 actually points to 1978. This is not a claim whether or not 1977 or 1978 is an actual generational border. However it is an examination of the evidence that may lead to a later generational break.

1- The College Class of 2000. Considering that the bulk of those born in 1977 graduated in 1995, then they were generally the class of 1999, not 2000. That distinction belongs to the class of 1996 who were born on 1978.

2- Bruce Tulgan was associated with the idea that Gen Y ranged from 1977 to 1994 according to the USA today article. http://www.usatoday.com/money/workplace/2005-11-06-gen-y_x.htmhe However he defines it in his writings as being only between 1978-1984. http://www.amazon.com/Managing-Generation-Y-Carolyn-Martin/dp/0874256224

3- As an earlier contributor has noticed, the article states that Gen Y was the under 30 set. Yet when the article was published in 2005, this also included those born in 1976.

4- Finally the idea of the internet being a definitive break is fuzzy as well since there is no one definitive start of the internet. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Internet Also the use of the technology is not exclusive between people born between Dec.31st 1976 and Jan. 1st 1977

5- Many of articles referring to 1977 being the start of the term may in fact be due to simple repeating of the USA today article. This is because the article as of Nov.30th, 2008 is and has been in the top 3-4 Google and possibly other search results for Gen Y. http://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1GGLS_enUS299US303&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=Gen+Y. While the 1977 to 1994 date was an established concept among many others beforehand, there does seem to have been an increase of the use of that term shortly afterwards.

6- Finally as a previous contributor had proposed, a generation is 18-20 years in length. If 1977 is used as a starting date, then if Gen X is confined between 1965-1976 it would be the only 11 year generation in history. Using 1961 as the beginning would require the justification used by Strauss and Howe which state that the full generation spans from 1961 to 1981. Also if such a sharp and unnatural division exists (normal span generations are long enough to include overlapping cusps and waves), then who claims what culturally belongs to people born in 1976 and 1977 who grew up, are at the same stages in life, and are friends and classmates with each other. Or does this mean that those born in 1976 only had one year of youth and became out of touch and outdated as soon as those born in 1977 became teenagers the next year? (Wyn (talk) 05:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC))

End Date September 11, 1996 or January 1997

The end date should be 1997. Using being able to remember 9/11 as a requirement for entrence into Gen Y, September 11, 1996 or January 1, 1997 would be a good end of the generation. Children could certainly remember what was going on when they were 5 years old. Using myself (Born in January 1996) as an example, I can remember 9/11 completely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duffy2032 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

• • And people born in early 1996 were entering school a few weeks before 9/11 so they were able to interact with peers about the attacks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duffy2032 (talk • contribs) 21:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Interact with their peers and say what? "Goo-goo Gaga. Did you see the big plane break the two big buildings? Yeah? Wow, let's play knights"?bob bobato (talk) 00:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Low quality section

The last three paragraphs of "Generation Y in the United States" seem to be chock-full of original research, and the whole thing could use more citations. Anyone agree? --71.203.252.169 (talk) 18:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow

This is probably the most unsourced and biased article I've ever seen on wikipedia. What's up with this "America"-stuff? Everybody else in the western world use those terms as much as any american would. Whole sections without a single source, so where ARE you people getting this info from? Right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.166.50.229 (talk) 00:58, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree... Specifically, who put up this stuff about September 11 marking the end of the generation? I don't think I can even begin to list the number of reasons why this is an absurd theory, but if somebody has a reputable source, I guess we could include it. Peregrine981 (talk) 20:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I cut a lot of unencyclopedic, unsourced, speculation, in an attempt to improve the quality of the article Peregrine981 (talk) 21:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought the same, as I browsed the first couple of paragraphs - Americans this, Americans that: The term Generation Y could refer to much of the western, specifically english speaking, world. What happened to the UK & Ireland, Oceania, Canada, etc. etc.? It ought to be rephrased to reduce this ambiguity. It seems some use the term "Americans" to simply mean "people" sometimes. --Icecold.trashcan (talk) 15:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Umm, get over it! Wikipedia is an American website, its going to have an American point of view...why most of its written by Americans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.105.128.58 (talk) 02:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

GenY is clearly the offspring of GenJones and Boomers. Not only have many written that, but is also axiomatically true, just do the math: if you look at the ages of Yers , and then at Jonesers and Boomers, it is obvious that these two latter generations are the parents of Y. Far more Yers are the offspring of Jones, as far more Xers are the offspring of Boomers, but for now, I won't distinguish who the "primary" parents of Y are. I'll instead just say that Y is the offspring of Jones and boom, which is clearly true.TreadingWater (talk) 16:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Doing math is original research. There is no "clearly" and there is no "obvious". Only reliable sources WP:RS. Personally, I don't find the Richmond Toyota Scion website reliable.--Knulclunk (talk) 02:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Trophy Kids?

No, that is the wrong definition of "Trophy Kids". It has nothing to do with Gen-Y or Gen-Next kids getting trophies (Good Heavens).

Instead, think of the term "trophy brides". Hmm? Get it?

'Trophy Kids' -- like the trophy bride that a rich man gets -- refers to the fact that many affluent "30-Something" couples in the 1980s looked at each other, and their myriad possessions, and said something like:

"Hmm, we have the Beemers, the summer-house, the Carib vacations, the Ethan Allen furniture, the Gucci bags, the Rolex watches, the Sub-Zero, the ...

... wait!

We're missing something. What could it be, what could it be ... hmm ... let me think ... hmm ... Oh, I got it --

-- we need a kid !! "

Yep, that's the 'trophy'. Having a child is just another notch on the gun for the urban yuppies. Another -- uh -- 'trophy', if you will.

And that's a 'trophy kid'. So there.

Btw, terrible grammar in this section too: "..have too great expectations from the workplace and desire to shape their jobs.." Again -- Good Heavens! Who writes this? A Gen-X? Gen-Y?? Gen-Next???

Better: "..have expectations of their workplaces that are too great.." And: "..a desire to shape their jobs.." --Atikokan (talk) 05:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's worth mentioning that Generation Y does not deserve to take the blame for the "everyone's a winner!" mentality. After all, it was their coaches and their parents (ie: the baby boomers) who made the decision to give out trophies to everyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.173.141.129 (talk) 20:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Merge from Nineties kid

The few facts there which are not WP:Original research should be here. I can't even find a source for the name, but I'm willing to allow that. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I certainly think that the 90s Kid article should be merged or deleted. If you can't find a source for the name, I don't think it's Wikipedia's place to make the name. I'm a 90s kid myself, but I never hear the term. And I see no article for 80s Kid, which is even more significant. Belasted (talk) 03:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Correcting Problems in the Millennials Section

When someone gets a chance, the Millennial section of this article has an obvious date error when it says that Howe and Strauss identify these years as "Generation Y": (1932-1995--i guess maybe someone made a typo, or was just being 'funny').

Additionally, it seems someone's introduced uncalled for label-bias in using the term "Generation Y" when Howe and Strauss do not use this term much (16 references to "Generation Y" vs 120 references to "Millennials" in their book "Generations"). Not only do Howe and Strauss prefer the term Millennials, many who fit this cohort also do! Please consider revising this section to reflect this. In fact, please consider revising the entire article to reflect this. The article may better be redirected to Millennials, rather than the current redirect of Millennials to Generation Y. Thank you!

Peter Bright (talk) 17:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Merge from Tween (generation)

There's only one source identifying 'tween' as a generation cohort, as separate from an age cohort. It looks like everything that isn't OR in that article can safely be merged with this one. Webbbbbbber (talk) 00:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not surprised. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• I support deletion; I was a tween when I was... well a tween (ages 8 to 12). It is an age group, not an entire generation. The defining tween as stated in the article fits well with Generation "We..." or the Generation Z, after Y, and does not seem at all connected with those who categorize themselves Y, such as myself. The Nineties kid article I helped someone else perfect is noted for being a subculture within of GenY, but I think that the person who posted this article had not done there research before posting.(Tigerghost (talk) 19:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC))

• Oppose merge. The info in the Tween (generation) article is unique and sloppy, possibly from a single source and original research. All it would do is muddy the Gen Y article even further. There is no advantage to a merge.--Knulclunk (talk) 21:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
• I nominated for deletion. It's pretty much entirely OR, so nothing can really be merged. AS has been pointed out it's not a 'generation'. --neon white talk 21:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Why is facebook here? If facebook is here, let's add "myspace" as well.

what do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Punkymonkey987 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion: Make All "Letter" Generations 15 years

The number of conflicting year runs on these generations is endless, so I suggest Wikipedia recognizes these:

Gen X: 1965-1979 Gen Y: 1980-1994 Gen Z: 1995-2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by TiramiNew (talk • contribs) 04:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary. These are loosely defined terms with different authors defining them in different ways, so it isn't up to Wikipedia to pretend that the definitions are established and concrete. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

15 year gap between Y and "new silent" in box?

how can Y end in 1986 and Z begin in 2001? what's in between?

i suggest we change them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.237.85.14 (talk) 22:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Institutionalized racism?

In the " Multiculturalism", " Worldwide" section it says "Institutionalized racism in countries such as South Africa and the United States was abolished by the time Millennials grew up, and they know of it only as history."

no source and i wouldn't say it was _abolished_, just reduced

Starglows (talk) 14:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I think what it means is "legalized ethnic discrimination", shall we change it?--Knulclunk (talk) 01:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Time Spans of Generations

Baby Boomers (1946-1964) Anyone born after WWII, but before the start of the Vietnam War. Adopted culture of the 60s and 70s.

Generation X (1965-1981) Anyone who can remember the world as it was before the fall of the Soviet Union. Adopted culture of the 80s and 90s.

Generation Y (1982-1995) Anyone who can remember the world as it was before 9-11. Adopted the culture of the late 90s and 2000s.

Generation Z (1995-present) Anyone who can remember the Bush Administration and the Wars in the Middle East, but not 9-11. Will adopt the culture of the 2000s and 2010s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Republican95 (talk • contribs) 01:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

And you don't recognize how astoundingly arbitrary that is? —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Do Generations Really Have Time Spans?

In my opinion, the year doesn't matter. Your parents are a member of the previous Generation (for my parents, Generation X) you are a member of the next generation (Generation Y) and your children will be members of the next Generation (Generation Z). So it is impossible to have people who are siblings who are members of different Generations. You can't just take a time span and say that everyone born in that time span is a carbon copy of each other. According to this article I am a member of The Late Generation Y (I was born in January 1995). However, I embrace the culture of the 80s and 90s (I love 80s and 90s pop and think of preppiness in the more traditional sense), when, according to this article, I should embrace the culture of the 2000s. So you have to look at generations on a family by family basis, in my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Republican95 (talk • contribs) 01:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

First of all, generations don't generally work that way. I was born in 1987, my dad in 1953, my mom in 1956. They are Generation Jones, not Generation X; meaning they're two generations before me. I don't plan on having a child until my late twenties or early thirties, meaning my kid won't be Generation Z; meaning they'd be two generations after me. Of course, older members of a generation could have kids who are younger members of the next generation, but this is the exception not the rule. You identify a lot with popular culture of your parents' generation? That's actually a trend amongst us Generation Y kids due to the "be your child's friend" style of parenting first made popular by the Baby Boomers (but utilized by Generation Jones and Generation X) combined with our high familiarity with digital technology. For example, my favorite band is Led Zeppelin. It's almost as though labeling generations is based upon recognizing overlying trends of a group of individuals based upon birthyears. l2Sociology, noob. ~_^ -- R'son-W _{(speak to me/breathe)} 07:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I was born in 1985 and I agree that most of it is bullcrap. I have a brother born in 1979 and my closet cousins born 1971-1987 and to me we are all part of the same generation with our parents born in the early to late 40's. I don't much of a difference between my brother and my cousins as much I see a different in my parents and my aunts and uncles. - JoeA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.126.241.210 (talk) 12:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Millennial Generation

This "generation y" thing is trite crap. We millennials call ourselves millennials, because "generation y" is insultingly simplistic and dismissive. Not that "generation x" was particularly insightful, but at least it was appropriate to the generation. Don't even get me started on "generation z". Are you kidding? Let's just name the next 10 generations, and make up traits for them before we even meet them. Millennials. Really, anything other than "Y", Net Generation is something I actually hear, too, and at least iGeneration is clever, even if no one actually uses that term. I suggest the page be moved. Maybe I'll do it myself, if I don't hear strong protest. Fredgoat (talk) 22:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Alright suckaz, I finally did it. Millennial Generation. Boom. Now, what do y'all think? I personally feel it's a more common/better description of the cohort, the name that we'll be using to refer to this generation in fifty years, but I know a lot of people prefer "gen-y", so chime in if you feel I'm wrong. Fredgoat (talk) 21:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Fred, sorry I missed this discussion before, but I feel strongly against this change and reverted it. For future reference, you should only mark things as minor edits that are basically fixing grammatical errors and spelling errors, something no one can dispute. Generation Y is a decidedly more commonly used phrase -- 1.2 million hits on Google for "Generation Y" and 136,000 for "millennial generation". You and your friends may feel millennial is better, but you and your friends are not representative of our entire generation and the Wikipedia page for our generation. Let's try and have a discussion about this. I will agree that this article needs some improvement. Kevin143 (talk) 08:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

For the style of the article though, I agree that saying something like Gen Y'ers or "members of Generation Y" is stupid and it's fine to refer to the actual members of Generation Y as Millennials. Kevin143 (talk) 09:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Fred, what I think has sealed our fate as Generation Y, is Generation Z. Gen Z is the only name that seems to be sticking for the generation after us, all the rest are those bullshit terms coined by marketers that have a habit of sticking in articles like these. And you can't very well have Generation X, the Millennial Generation, and Generation Z. There is a generation missing. Personally, I think it's pretty cool: Generations X, Y, and Z. Hopefully something very profound will have happened to humanity after Generation Z. Posthumans, perhaps. Kevin143 (talk) 10:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I like that. The United Generations, X, Y, & Z, who together will shape the first half of the 21st century and kick off the New Millenium. A bit narcissistic, though.bob bobato (talk) 00:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, 3 things - 1) The "minor" thing was a mistake. Didn't mean to select that. Sorry. My bad. 2) You're probably right that people use Gen Y more. I accept the move back. HOWEVER 3) Naming Gen Y because we had a Gen X, and then naming Gen Z (who we really don't even know yet) because we had an X and Y, AND THEN insisting on the name "Gen Y" because we have an X and (sortof) a Z already is the dumbest reasoning on earth (and personal preference in general is also not how Wikipedia works, which is why as I said I'm okay with the move back even though I like "Millennials" better). Personally I think it reeks of post-Baby Boomer generational naming laziness, and if they had their way I'm sure they'd just call everyone born after 1970 the "Damn Kids and their Music" Generation(s). Unfortunately simplistic intergenerational sniping is in vogue at the moment, and Gen Z isn't yet old enough to defend themselves, so you're right, you (happily, for some reason) and I are stuck with it, Gen Y it is. *sigh* At least I've got my crisp Santana Champ, and also the president, for whom I turned out to vote in record numbers. Fredgoat (talk) 20:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I don't mean to be a jackass. I do like the idea of using the term "millennials" as the primary demonym. It flows better than "Gen Y-ers", I agree. Fredgoat (talk) 21:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Books on Generation Y

Sorry, I'm just a little confused... if Gen Y is the most protected generation, then who exactly is fighting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that have been going on for the greater part of this decade? Any clarification would be appreciated.

Also, I'm confused as to how the Millenials can be so demanding in the workplace if they do not have jobs. Perhaps this could be clarified as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Croato87 (talk • contribs) 05:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Obama Generation??

Is it fair to say that Gen Y is the Obama generation? An overwhelming majority of these voters voted for Obama, first in the Democratic Primary, then even more so in the general election. Since it says on the Gen X page that it is associated with Ronald Reagan, I think it is worth pointing out that this generation has been associated with Obama. It goes along with the theme of multiculturalism already mentioned in the article. It is quite symbolic that 2008 was the first presidential election that many Gen Y members could vote in.

Only if mainstream sources (Like the New York Times) have used the term and have used it INSTEAD of Gen Y or Millennial. --Knulclunk (talk) 22:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

When does it start?

I've always heard that Generation Y started on January 1, 1982. This makes sense because I've always heard that Gen Xers become adults before the turn of the millennium (So you'd have to be born before 12-31-81 to be an Xer)

Where is the line drawn...I've also heard 1976, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1985, and even 1986...Where is the distinction? I think it ought to be January 1-1982 to September 11, 1996 as Gen Y. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.152.66.130 (talk) 00:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Good ideas are irrelevant. Sources are what matters. And the fact is, even if you find a source that says, "Gen Y starts at 1980," some other source is going to say "1985," so don't worry. It's ambiguous, and that's okay. If you really want to, you can compile a series of sources that make different date claims, and then in the article, say, "here are the proposed starting dates and here are their proponents." Fredgoat (talk) 15:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

What is up with this: The Baby Boomers Are the Parnents of Gen Y???

I was born in 1995. Under most definitions, this is Generation Y. My mother and father were born in 1970 and 1971, that makes them, under most definitions, a member of Generation X. So, why are the parents of Generation Y called the baby boomers? My grandmother's a boomer (she was born 1950). THERE IS NO GAP!!! You can't make generalizations like that... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.152.66.130 (talk) 00:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I was born in 1987. Under all definitions, this is Generation Y. My mother and father were born in 1956 and 1953, that makes them, under most definitions, Baby Boomers. So, this is why the parents of Generation Y are called Baby Boomers (but also Generation Joneses and Generation Xers). The article doesn't state that Baby Boomers are the only parents of Generation Y, but that they are parents of Generation Y. The article says this because it is true. -- R'son-W _{(speak to me/breathe)} 07:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, your parents and grandmother had children at a younger age than most people; that's just bound to skew your whole take on how generations are named. -- R'son-W _{(speak to me/breathe)} 07:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, this is all very interesting, but unfortunately completely anecdotal. We need verifiable sources. Personally, I don't really see how relevant this topic is, unless we can attach some sort of extra significance to it. Of course those born 20-40 years before a given generation, in this case, roughly ca. 1940 - 1980 depending on your definition, will be the parents of a given generation, here meaning boom, jones, X. What does that really tell us? Unless we find some sources laying out theories as to what the implications are, I suggest dropping the topic altogether, as it it seems kind of banal. Peregrine981 (talk) 22:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Queer propaganda

Why is so-called "homophobia" (a misnomer itself) labeled as a "problem"? If some Y-ers are reluctant to accept the notion that queer sexual perversions are to be considered perfectly natural or normal, can't that reluctance be due to a perfectly natural and normal revulsion that 98% of the world's people experience at the thought of such practices? Isn't there a more neutral term to use here, rather than calling statistically normal thinking a "problem"? Aren't our children being inundated with enough queer propaganda already, by all forms of media, without Wikipedia contributing to the problem? Naas-T (talk) 20:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not a misnomer; at least 10% of the world's persons are homosexual (which is not to say that they might not have self-revulsion, but the 98% figure you quote is obviously bogus), etc. I suppose I'll need to check your edits to see if you're adding homophobic propaganda to Wikipedia articles. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Hah. It got deleted anyway, prolly because it was uncited fluff. So there you go, another victory for normal-thinking people and protectors of children like Naas-T against the horrible, perverted, extra-gay media and its queer propaganda. Fredgoat (talk) 16:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Chime In If You Agree With Me

I've been doing my homework on these Generations...and these are the definitions I have concluded that best represent the generations...

• • The Baby Boomers (1945-1953)
  • Generation Jones (1954-1964) I think the line between Boomer and Jones is that Boomers were old enough to fight in Vietnam, Jonesers witnessed it as children.
  • Generation X (1965-1981)Xers became adults before December 31, 1999.
  • Cold Y Generation (1982-1986) People who are too young to be an Xer, but can remeber the fall of the Soviet Union, which occured in 1991.
  • Generation Y (1986-1996)Generation Y can remeber the 90s and the 9-11 attacks.
  • Generation Z (1996-?) Gen Z cannot remember the 9-11 attacks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.105.128.58 (talk) 02:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

No; you haven't been doing your homework. "Cold Y" is a subset of GenX or GenY, depending on who you talk to. Any independent identity seems to be WP:OR. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

No, since it cannot be officially classified into X or Y it deserves to be considered its own segment, not a generation, but a segment that doesn't belong to either X or Y. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.105.128.36 (talk) 13:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Not Relevant; Logic is Meaningless! Citation is Truth! Big Wiki is Watching! Obey! Seriously, though, it doesn't matter what's a "good idea" - that's not how this works. Fredgoat (talk) 15:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes I do agree with you. jlh629 (talk) 23:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Change of Thoughts - 1977-1981 is late Generation X

Generation Y starts in the 1980s. Beginning year of 1982 or 1983 is still debatable in my opinion. If you ask most people born in 1982-84 they would classify themselves as Generation X, or a cusper. Technically Generation Y starts in 1985 or 1986, ending the 20-year span of Generation X (1965-1984).

Those born between 1965-1984 are also called the Hip Hop Generation.

1977-1981 is the tail end of Generation X, as well as the first half of the cusper group Generation XY (1977-84), similar to Generation Jones (1960-1964).

Generation XY are the first college graduates at the turn of the millennium (2000-2006).
Generation Y are the first high school graduates at the turn of the millennium (2000-2006).

Late Gen-Xers are the "silent" digital natives, predominantly ignored in mass media.

They are the original social networkers - the first Myspace members (back in 2004, before it became extremely popular), and now they dominate Twitter.

As they are Generation X, they possess characteristics similar to the next generation, (or shall I say the next generation possesses characteristics similar to young Gen-Xers, as they did come first.) This phenomenon is seen across history, as with Generation Jones (1960-1964) - they act very similar to Generation X, but are Baby Boomers.

I don't really have an opinion on the tail end of GenX birth years, but to clarify facts about GenJones: its birth years are 1954-1965 (not 1960-1964), and Jonesers are not Boomers who act like Xers, but rather GenJones is an entirely distinct generation, with its own unique collective personality.TreadingWater (talk) 15:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm Genration X and you can't call us the "Hip Hop"Generation, that is absurd, obviously written by someone who didn't experience the late 70's and 80's (Punk Rock, New Romantics need I go? Generation X was one of the most diverse. Might as well call Generation Y the Emo Genertion--Pandaplodder (talk) 12:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Generation Jones (by the popular definition) is really a sub-set, or second wave, of the Baby Boomer generation. It is not a separate generation to itself. I believe that is mere propaganda to divide up the Baby Boomer generation.

Cuspers born between 1960-64 (and some cases 1959) are the "true" Generation Jones because their experiences are an amalgam of both BB and Gen X. They act very similar to Gen Xers.

Famouse Gen Jonesers for example:

Eddie Murphy

Charlie Murphy

Janeane Garofalo

Demi Moore

Courteney Cox

Martha Quinn

Jean-Michel Basquiat

As a matter of fact, I was confused for a long time and considered them to be Gen Xers growing up.

Another example, is President Obama. He is a cusper of BB and Gen X.
jlh629 (talk) 16:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome to your view that GenJones is 1960-1964, but you are the only person, book, article or organization which I've ever seen use those birth years, and I follow these matters carefully. GenJones is always defined by experts and others who are knowledgeable about this as 1954-1965, give or take a year or two.TreadingWater (talk) 16:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

In fact, I am not the only source with this opinion. There are plenty of sources that do not include 1950's-born as a cusper group. They are squarely Baby Boomers. I will add them.

The concept of those born between 1954 and 1959 as some "ambiguous" generation, I don't buy it. From 60's counter-culture to Disco to 80's Pop (up to about 1985) is Baby Boomer's territory. Their contributions to American pop culture dominated during this time span. They were the thirty-somethings in the 80's TV show. It starts to overlap and get fuzzy around 1986-90, when Generation X started to dominate American culture. This is also BB/Gen X cusper territory. And I should know, because I LIVED it. Be weary of "experts" they try to fit their demographic so their research can make "sense". jlh629 (talk) 17:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome to place the high level of importance which you do to your own and others anecdotal experiences, and to disparage the views of experts. Personally, I place a much higher level of importance to actual research and data and experts than to tiny samples of anecdotal evidence. I LIVED through it also, and I have a very different take than you do. I wholeheartedly believe that GenJones is a full unique generation between Boom & X. But the opinions of you or me or a few of our friends doesn't begin to carry the weight of scientifically designed, nationally representative polling of thousands which has provided mountains of data supportive of the concept of GenJones as a distinct generation, not some kind of "cusper" 5 year cohort. And I don't know what you mean about "those born between 1954 and 1959 as some "ambiguous" generation". All I know is that there is a clearly seperate generation born between approximately 1954 to 1965. The data and experts make a compelling case for Generation Jones.TreadingWater (talk) 17:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

You CANNOT be serious that there is a WHOLE other generation separate from Baby Boomers called Generation Jones. This is just propaganda, and Baby Boomer's attempt to push the marker "a little to the right of the time line" by making themselves appear to be a "separate AND younger generation" than their fellow Boomer counterparts. Consistent with other propaganda tactics and attempts to mask the reality that the BB's are not the latest new "hip" adult group ages 35-45, that, for example, are changing the political climate to one focused on pragmatism (a core Generation X trait) - i.e. Gen X is (quietly) leading the Green Movement. Now that Generation X has gained political power, we are starting to hear about a new-fangled Baby Boom Generation called "Jones" that's changing America. No, it is Generation X that is changing America, albeit quietly! There is NO separate "Jones" Generation by that particular definition.

I have nothing against Baby Boomers. I love Baby Boomers, love their music, everything. They never got in "our way" in particular - which seems to be a source of core Gen-Xers resentment. But now that I am 30, I can understand Gen-Xer's issue with the Boomers. I just think BB's should learn to share, and respect the natural process of making way for the next generation. I don't like that immature "glory boy" attitude typical of the BB generation. But I digress...

This cohort called "Generation Jones" may not have experience the Beatle craze or President Kennedy, but they are still Baby Boomers - Boomers who did Disco, Boomers who created Hip-Hop for the Hip-Hop generation, Boomers who lead the Contemporary Neo-Jazz movement of the 1980's (Bradford & Winton Marsalis, Kenny G, etc.). You can have different waves of a generation, and the first wave can seem different than the second, but they are STILL a part of the SAME generation.

The reason "Generation Jones" is so popular is because of the shear volume of Baby Boomers purporting this idea. That is a large bunch of voices. But this theory is unfounded and because a bunch of "experts" say it is so does not make it true.

The baby bust did not happen until around 1965, when Generation X was born. Generation X has 2 waves: The first wave, born from 1965-1974 (10 years), and the second wave, born from 1974-1984 (10 years). They are ALL part of Generation X.

jlh629 (talk) 18:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Cusper group were raised during major cultural shifts, and possess identities attached to both the previous and new cultures. In the case of those born in 1977 through 1984, they are "analog" as well as "digital" natives.

Cuspers also tend to notice, by their mid-late twenties, that their cultural tastes are drastically different than their slightly younger counterparts (early 20's/teens), and vice versa. This is only experienced by members on the edge of a generation. Core members of a generation do not experience this particular "cultural divide" between people close in age to them.

For example "true" Gen Jonesers were mostly in their mid-late 20's when hip-hop entered its Golden Age (1986-94), which was a sharp cultural change. Late Gen-Xers (or Generation XY), mostly in their late teens and early 20's, experienced the same type of "shift" around (1997-2004), from 90's culture to the Boy Band craze and more saccharin Britney Spears-type pop music that began to dominate popular culture. It was quite shocking for both cusper groups, and many Gen XY members resent the commercialization of popular music during that time of their early adult years (from my own experience, and based on accounts from members of Gen Jones).

MTV's "false brand" of Hip-Hop
One example is MTV's branding of Hip-Hop culture as the "composition of 5 elements". The hip-hop generation did not view their culture in this way, and did not appreciate MTV pushing this "discretized" image of a culture (they did not, and still do not, understand) for monetary profits. Late Gen-Xers (1977-81) were too young to influence the direction of hip-hop and therefore had to "suffer" through its commercialization helped by artists such as Puff Daddy, 50-Cent, Eminem, Jay-Z, and Notorious BIG. These artists along with their simplistic lyrics and rampant materialism were not a welcomed presence, especially among Late Gen-Xers. Late Xers knew the "Golden Era" (celebrated by core Gen-Xers) was prematurely coming to an end, and fought hard to keep the culture alive and deeply mourned the Golden Era's passing (basis for the "mainstream vs. underground" struggle). Contrary to those slightly younger (second half of Gen XY and some Millenials (1981-85)) welcomed these artists into hip-hop culture with relatively little resistance, and in general were less adverse to the artist's celebration of monetary greed and material excess. This abrupt shift from highly intellectual lyrics, and community-oriented values to rampant materialism was quite shocking, especially for Late Xers as their "adult" personalities and musical tastes began to coalesce, heavily influenced by hip-hop music produced during the Golden Era.

For example many Gen Y members love Jay-Z because they came of age during his rise to fame (in the wake of Tupac's and Biggy's deaths). However Jay-Z does not represent the values of the hip hop generation, and is not liked by its core members in general.

One person who commented in response to the Boston Globe Generations article (sited in my earlier post), articulated the late Gen-Xers (1976-82) well:

As quoted: "...If I had to quibble, I'd put the birth ages at 1976-1982, which would lead to rational thinking beginning around 1987-1993. That was an era not just of radical global transformation, which was piped directly into our brains as a profound object lesson, but also of a bi-level culture: the mainstream was a wasteland of washed-out decadence and dorky earnestness, but under the radar was the last rich underground, and just as many Netters were clued into that as there were playing Nintendo. This two-tier culture led to a sort of dual citizenship for Netters. Add to that the birth of the web and the concept of cyberspace, another world opening up within the "real" one, and you've got a recipe for the psychological multidimensionalism that you can see in this generation. If GenX is flexible, I'd say Netters are fluid. We're less a "lost" generation than a "stealth" one.

I think you underestimate our memories of pre-internet days, though. Similar to our perceptions of the dying industrial economy, our perceptions of the analog era were that of a child growing up with an old dog--we knew we'd missed some mysterious heyday, we perceived it wouldn't be around much longer, and so we appreciated it. I was born in 1978 and I remember pre-computer-popularity and pre-internet days clearly. I think part of this sub-gen's enthusiasm for and ability with tech is that we *came of age as it began*, and our psyches are thus amenable to technological adaptation *itself*. We didn't necessarily create it, or watch it begin from afar; but we also didn't "wake up" already floating dumbly in a sea of it. We saw it start, were given opportunities to merge with it, and did so. And the rewards of that adaptation stamp a kind of optimism and possibility on us that Xers seem to lack, and a kind of appreciation and perspective that Yers don't seem to grasp..."

I will add more information, and sources, to support my conclusion.

I struggled with the beginning birth years (1976-83) for a long time because of the transition this particular group experienced. I think the person quoted summed it up best.

jlh629 (talk) 23:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Check This Idea Out

Okay, it seems like every time someone tries to define a generation, you can always give or take a few years. For example, if you were born in 1981 but you had siblings born in 1974, 1977, and 1979 you would most likely be considered Generation X due to the influence of your siblings. However, if you were born in 1979 and had siblings born in 1982, 1984, and 1986 you would most likely be considered Generation Y. And even yet still, some people reject that notion that they are a member of the Generation they are a member of, for example an only child born in 1985 but he identifies more with Generation X themes despite being born in the middle of Generation Y. So, in my opinion, we need a definition of Generations where some generations overlap others. Those born in those "cusp" years could be a member of any generation. This is what I came up with, and I think it turned out pretty good.

Silent-Boomer Cusp 1941-1947 Hard Core Boomer 1948-1954 Boomer-Jones Cusp 1955-1961 Hard Core Jones 1962-1968 Jones-X Cusp 1969-1975 Hard Core X 1976-1982 X-Y Cusp 1983-1989 Hard Core Y 1990-1996 Y-Z Cusp 1997-2003 Hard Core Z 2003-2009

So, in the above idea, we have 5 distinct generation (Boomers, Jones, X, Y, and Z) but some generations overlap in these cusp years. Example:

The Baby Boomer Generation 1941-1961 Generation Jones 1955-1975 Generation X 1969-1989 Generation Y 1983-2003 Generation Z 1997-2017

So, what do you think? Does this solve the "cusp" problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.222.84.169 (talk) 19:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Remove Multiculturalism section?

it's totally unsourced and seems politically biased. Mygen89 (talk) 21:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The Generation Y Issues

We, the UWEC class are on study with the Generation Y period (which would really begin at 1976 and conclude at 1991). the article is being declared for rewriting for whatever reason? Also, there's no official period for Baby Boomer, Generation X and Gen Y, although we should address the reality the Baby Boomer is usually supposedly beginning around 1946, ending 1964 (though it might have actually begun during 1944). Can anybody please give closer perspective to this issue while we study these generations? Some people estimate Gen Y at any years from 1976 upward to 1983 as the beginning date of the Generation Y era, somewhere between 1960 and 1968 for the Generation X era as starting dates, but no official date has been set into stone.

Birth years for Generation Ys

WRT Generation Y People, for Generation Xers and for Baby Boomers, the beginning years for the generations in the United States, regarding whatever we UWEC students heard, studied, it would be extremely likely that for Generation Y may have really begun during 1976 but no later than 1983, and for Generation X the beginning of that would be very likely 1960 but not later than 1967. For the Baby Boomers, the famous generation, the Baby Boomers' beginning may have likely started Jan 1944 but no later than Jan 1948, although it's hardly likely that the generation lasted past Dec 1959 (1961 at latest in the United States). Please give some closer perspective about these generations. The UWEC at 173.19.119.172 (talk) 21:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The UWEC Class at 173.19.119.172 (talk) 20:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC) (previous IPs are mentioned on our talk pages).

• I have seen various years cited for the beginning of Gen Y, from 1977 all the way through the early 1980s. Unitanode 23:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Also, from what I've read, Gen X extends basically from the early 60s to the late 70s or early 80s. Boomers are a bit nebulous as well. I don't think that the generationalist literature really clears things up much, though, as there are disagreements even there. Unitanode 23:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The Parents of Generation Y

On the page it states that the parents of Generation Y were primarily the Baby Boomers, the author has provided no sources/references to back this claim up. The claim that the Boomers are the parents of Gen Y is true, but you cannot include them without at least mentioning Gen Jones and the oldest members of Gen X.

Those born in the 40's and 50's (Boomers) mainly had children in the 70s, making the Boomers the parents of Gen X, not Y. However, some of the later baby boomers (1950-1953) could of had children in the early to mid 80s, making them the parents of some older members of Generation Y. Generation Jones (1954-1964) could of had children in the 80s or 90s, because from 1980 and 1996 the members of Generation Jones were somewhere between the ages of 16 and 42, well within child bearing age. And the oldest members of Gen X could of had children born in the 90s. Young Gen X being defined as those born between 1965 and 1971 they could of had children between 1990 and 1996.

This definition would cover all cohorts of Gen Y.

I don't understand why the author supposes that people have children in their 40s and 50s, however, most people actually have kids in their 20s and 30s, making the Baby Boomers, Gen Jones, and some Gen X'ers the parents of Gen Y. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.233.213.47 (talk) 16:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• Generation Jones is a fringe theory, that -- while it does (barely) maintain its own article -- does not need to be placed into other articles on non-fringe generational articles. Unitanode 16:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
• Gen Jones is by no means a fringe theory! If it has its own article in wikipedia, then wikipedia must not consider fringe, therefore it can be used in other articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.233.213.47 (talk) 22:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  • It is a fringe theory, and does not have the standing of the normal generational categorizations. While it (barely, at this point) merits its own article, it by no means should be shoved into other articles as if it had the same standing amongst generational scholars (not pundits and commentators, but scholars) as the mainstays like Boomers, X, and Y. Any attempts to do so will be reverted. Unitanode 23:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Millenials versus Generation Y

I've heard several people refer to the Millennials and Generation Y as if they are same, and some that they are not.

I've heard some people say that the Millennials are actually are actually a Cohort of Generation Y that means those that graduated high school in the first decade of the new millennium (or those born between 1981 and 1992). Anyone after 1992 is a Post-Millennial and are the "stepping stone" between Y and Z, so those born between about 1992 and 2001.

Anyone born between 1977 and 1982 is a "Silent Digital Native", or those who were teenagers and young adults in the 1990s and first adapted to new technologies.

All together, the Silent Digital Natives, Millennials, and Post-Millennials make up "Generation Y", which spans 1977 to 2001.

This is what by Sociology Teacher Says.

My major questions are:

What do you personally think of this idea?

And

Are their any reliable sources that support this idea?

---

If there is, we might have to rewrite the whole darn thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.233.213.47 (talk) 23:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that there is not consensus on what Generation Y is or when its birth years truly are. It is a fairly amorphous concept. I have no idea if there are any reliable sources to support your sociology teacher's idea. Perhaps you could ask them. For the moment we are listing generation Y as an amalgalm of ideas presented across the main stream media, plus a scattering of quasi-academic articles and books. Peregrine981 (talk) 12:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Merger of MTV Generation into this article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was No merge --Law Lord (talk) 20:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

---

After reviewing MTV Generation, I find that not a single one of the listed sources actually talks about MTV Generation as a phenomenon wholly separate from Generation Y. They all either say that MTV Gen and Gen Y are interchangeable, or in many cases don't mention MTV Generation at all. In my scanning of google hits, I really can't find any sources that don't use it as a synonym for Gen Y, or as a sort of catch all for any young person. It really doesn't seem to be a stand alone concept. I propose we merge it into Generation Y. Peregrine981 (talk) 14:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

They also don't talk about the MTV Generation as a phenomenon wholly separate from Generation X. That's kind of the point. --Skrapion (talk) 20:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I mean that they don't treat MTV Gen as an entity of its own, in any way distinct from Y. Generation X is a completely different concept, there's no confusion there, but in most sources Y and MTV are treated as interchangeable terms.Peregrine981 (talk) 20:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the bigger problem is that only one of those sources actually mentions the MTV generation. (And, as such, you're being a little misleading with phrases like 'not a single one'.)

The real problem here is that a quick Google search will show that people use the term 'MTV Generation' to refer to lots of different things, and there doesn't seem to be an authoritative definition (although wikiality seems to be affecting that).

The MTV Generation page is clearly talking about the XY-Cusp, so it doesn't make sense to merge it into the Generation Y page. Whether or not the term 'MTV Generation' usually refers to the XY-Cusp is, however, debatable, and a different argument. --Skrapion (talk) 05:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

If you're referring to this source [19], then I don't think I'm being dishonest, as all it says is, "These young people, born between 1975 and 1981, are categorized as generation Xers and those born after 1981 as generation Yers or MTV generation." It uses the two terms interchangeably, which is exactly what I said. I admit as well that I haven't been able to find a copy of "When Generations Collide- Who they are. Why they clash. How to solve the generational puzzle at work. Lancaster, Stillman. 2002" So I'm not sure what it says, but the online reviews and so on don't seem to mention MTV generation at all, suggesting it was a very minor part of the book. Even if it does mention MTV generation, we need more than one pop-sociology book to make a wiki article.

My problem is that this article is talking about a concept, "the XY cusp" that really doesn't seem to be discussed anywhere else. If you can locate some real sources talking about MTV generation in this way, then let's keep it. But I haven't been able to find any such sources.

By merging it into Y, I would suggest we take whatever useful sources or info we have here, merge it, and discard the fluff. Since most of the sources are really talking about millenials/Gen Y, I would think most of the info would be most appropriate to that article.Peregrine981 (talk) 08:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to prove my point I will list some of the most prominent sources that I can find:

• [20] People Magazine, throw away term for young people.
• [21] another throw away term for young people.
• [22] seems to be referring more to the fact that the event was on MTV
• [23] talks about MTV itself, more so than a generation. Seems really to be referring to Generation X if anything.
• [24] Referring to 2008's undergraduates, clearly gen Y.
• [25] Again, Generation Y.

Peregrine981 (talk) 20:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

So, shall I just nominate it for deletion then? I'm not exactly sensing a swell of support for MTV generation. Peregrine981 (talk) 13:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't around. I do object to the theory that "MTV Generation" == "Generation Y" (in fact, I object to your last two references, which were clearly just using the term to refer to young adults) so I've changed the redirect to a disambiguation page. --Skrapion (talk) 06:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. This is probably correct. Although I am not exactly versed on wikipedia policy toward this kind of term, that means many different things to different people. I notice that it isn't a "true" disambiguation page right now. Should we change it? Peregrine981 (talk) 08:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Although I thought that consensus was reached, looking closely at this discussion, it's not clear. An anon has been reverting MTV Generation to a pre-merged state, and I cannot really be sure that it's not the right thing to do. Reopening the merge discussion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose I am opposed on several grounds. First, I see two pretty distinct generations in spite of the overlap. Second, I think Generation Y needs a major overhaul for quality before any merge is reasonable. Based on the tag at the top of the article, I gather I am not the only one who thinks so. --Law Lord (talk) 17:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Could you be a bit more specific, and provide reliable sources? Thanks Peregrine981 (talk) 15:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose OK, Gen Y includes but is not limited to the MTV Generation. The latter is a distinctive subclass of the former, since not everyone in Gen Y is "is perceived to have been heavily influenced by 1990s era popular culture in general and mass media in particular". And not all in Gen Y belong "in a peculiar, homogenous youth culture defined by a deep appreciation of the fashion trends, perspective, attitude and music popularized by MTV and similar media (Viva, Triple J etc.) that rose to prominence in the late 1980s." I believe it shouldn't be merged and the template should be deleted. (Text copied from a previous discussion.) Gregorik (talk) 17:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dubious

I find the nostalgia claim to be of dubious interest and hard to prove. First of all, it seems like a massive and unwarranted generalisation. How can one really say that a certain generation is nostalgic for the 1990s? What about those too young to really remember the 90s? What about those that aren't? Secondly, even if I grant you that a large proportion of Y'ers are nostalgic for the 90s, how is that of any interest? Wouldn't any generation be nostalgic for their youth? Isn't that just a fairly universal feature of humanity, that depends more on personality than generation? I think we should cut it, but am willing to entertain arguments for keeping it.Peregrine981 (talk) 11:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I actually agree with you. I wanted to improve upon, or at least attempt in vain to make the information reflect more accurately popular culture that Generation Y was associated with. The nostalgia claims are probably dubious and even so, only reflect a time earlier on in their generation which doesn't even define Generation Y as it is now. (the early 60s is pretty primitive compared to all that followed afterwords and defined the boomers) A lot of the information is citations and isn't really encyclopedic. For example in the Emo article on Wikipedia there is a source of Gerard Butler of My Chemical Romance pretty much rejecting the Emo moniker both as a fad and as a legitimate musical genre, yet here it is considered such, thus conflicting the information. Equally if not more rediculous is the claim of Generation X grunge bands having influence on an entirely subsequent generation. Even if it were so, wouldn't it conflict with the seperate image Generation Y reputation of being the next Greatest Generation of nation builders and such? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.200.60 (talk) 21:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

early vs. late 1990s

I have been asked to address this issue on the talk page. My contention is that 1999/2000 constitutes the late 1990s, as opposed to early. The much vaunted Strauss and Howe, among many other sources ([26] for one) all cite the late 1990s as an end for Gen Y. If you have reason to believe these sources are unreliable, please provide them. Peregrine981 (talk) 21:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The much vaunted Strauss and Howe also believe that that there is a repeating cycle of American Generation archetypes, which is of course ludicrous.bob bobato (talk) 00:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Cold Y

Merger of Cold Y. Apparently the discussion of cold Y has determined, that we should merge it into this article. However, I see absolutely nothing on that page that is properly sourced, or that we don't already have here. I suggest we don't import anything, and turn it into a redirect.Peregrine981 (talk) 10:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Just redirect -- I second that...Cold Y is very poorly sourced. Nasa-verve (talk) 17:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I do think there should be a distinction between those in Gen Y that do remember the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 and those who do not remember it. I think someone born in 1984 would have more in common to someone born in 1979 than 1989 for example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.251.101.83 (talk) 23:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Hat notes

In regard Generación Y; as long as we have an article there, it seems reasonable that someone looking for it would look here. I have no objection to deleting that article entirely, but while it's in Wikipedia, I think there should be a hat note pointing to it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

generation y(1982-1996) the new greatest generation

I was born in 1995 ,and I have been wanting to be part of the greatest generation. I'm not but as you see in the news terrorism, the worst economy downside since THE GREAT DEPRESSION I have done some study and found only few generations will fight for the greatest cause and their children manage to screw it all up cough baby boomers cough .To me the baby boomers suck they ruined what the greatest generation gave to them but now people are changing the ways we think but now as nuclear war increases with North Korea ,Generation Y seems to be going into ww3 although I wish it doesn't happen it seems to be coming true and if we win we would be called the 2nd greatest generation and I would be proud that the greatest generation has found it's rightful successor so do you agree with me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.28.100.117 (talk) 04:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

We are not the greatest generation. That is just a pipe dream Howe and Strauss came up so they can convert the new generation into neo-conservatives. I am curious, being born in 1995, how old your parents are? It seems a bit late for baby boomers to have children in 95. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.251.101.83 (talk) 16:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

What you have to remember is that most people who have careers leave starting a family till they are in their 30's now, before they would have been in their 20's. It is totally irrelevant in some respects to what Generation your parents belong to as this will not necessarily have any bearing what Generation their children are.--Pandaplodder (talk) 12:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Play-station/Diva Generation

No mention of these, Play-station Generation was coined by the UK media when studies found that kids (in Gen Y) rarely undertook any form of worthwhile exercise.

Diva Generation

This has been mentioned in part, the getting rid of being competitive, having unrealistic expectations, the "I'm special because my mommy says so"

In the UK the Big Brother Generation, you don't need to have talent to be famous, you can be famous just for being....famous

--Pandaplodder (talk) 12:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Post-close post made in the merge discussion

This article does not say that Gen Y is limited to the MTV Generation, and a redirect does not imply that. The problem is that MTV Generation is not a coherent concept, and should not have an article of its own. Please either find valid independent sources citing it as a coherent idea in its own right, or suggest an acceptable idea for the article on MTV Generation that doesn't make it into a redirect. Peregrine981 (talk) 03:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Most GenYers are the offspring of GenJonesers, not Boomers, as many experts have pointed out. So of course, GenJones should be mentioned here. The concept and name “Generation Jones” has achieved widespread acceptance and usage, especially in the last year or so. The Associated Press’ annual Trend Report chose The Rise of Generation Jones as the #1 trend of 2009. Many very influential experts, pundits, and analysts have publicly supported the GenJones constructs, from media outlets including The New York Times, Newsweek, NBC, Time Magazine, CNN, MSNBC, etc. Books about generations now almost always automatically treat GenJones as a full bona fide generation. If you for any reason want to revert this edit, let's please avoid an edit war and discuss possible changes here on the talk page; please give detailed and sourced reasons why you think this edit should be reverted. Thank you.TreadingWater (talk) 23:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)