Posted on 07/12/2004 9:38:33 AM PDT by qam1
1946, 1964 classes don't always agree........
There's a great distance between Barry Manilow and Barry Bonds.
Manilow, the singer, was born in 1946, the first year of the postwar baby boom. About 76 million births later, Bonds, the baseball slugger, became one of America's last boomers. That was in 1964, when demographers say the boom ended.
Typically, those born within that period are lumped together as the "baby boom generation," as if their values, beliefs and habits are unified. In fact, as the "late-wave boomers" turn 40 this year, it's clear that the classes of 1946 and 1964 are often very different, at times resulting in alienation and even finger-pointing.
John Dieffenbach, a 40-year-old attorney in Pleasantville, N.Y., says many of the oldest boomers are "a self-aggrandizing" bunch who treat him like an auxiliary member of their generation. "I'm part of their club but don't get the benefits." He doesn't get the "benefit" of nostalgia - being able to say he recalls when Kennedy was shot or the Beatles arrived in America. And people his age might not receive full Social Security benefits when they retire because the oldest boomers may strain the system.
The oldest boomers came of age at a time of affordable housing, easier acceptance to colleges and better job markets. The youngest boomers struggled through deeper recessions, crowded workplaces and, now, outsourced jobs.
Younger boomers also worry that in the next decade or so, their 401(k) values will fall as retired older boomers cash out of stocks.
"I share very little culturally with a 58-year-old," Dieffenbach says. In 1986, when the media declared "Boomer Generation Turns 40," he was just 22. In 1996, when newspaper articles celebrated "Boomers Turn 50" - counting the candles on their cakes (400,000 a day) and the cash spent on their birthday presents ($1 billion that year) - Dieffenbach was just 32.
"I'm waiting for the 'Baby Boomers are Dead' stories," he says, only half-jokingly.
This month, a new book, "Kill Your Idols," features essays in which rock critics who are young boomers and Generation Xers tear down allegedly classic boomer albums such as "Tommy" by The Who, released in 1969, and "Pet Sounds" by the Beach Boys, out in 1966.
"I grew up with the notion that I missed out on the greatest party ever because I wasn't at Woodstock," says the book's co-editor, Jim DeRogatis, born in 1964. "Well, I've seen the movie, and it's a stone-cold bore."
In his essay, DeRogatis slices up The Beatles' "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band." He mocks one of the 1967 album's songs, "Fixing a Hole," which he says embodies the myopia and self-centeredness of older boomers: "It really doesn't matter/If I'm wrong I'm right/Where I belong I'm right."
The song reminds DeRogatis of two boomers born in 1946: Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. In his autobiography, "Clinton takes 957 pages to say he really didn't do anything wrong," DeRogatis says, while President Bush "still won't say he was wrong" about Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction.
Dennis Peterson and his daughter, Dee Ann Haibeck, are boomer bookends, born Jan. 1, 1946, and Oct. 28, 1964. Peterson of Bellevue, Wash., says people from his era "opened the door for a lot of discussions America hadn't been having" - about such divisive matters as race, women's rights, the Vietnam War. He says those of his daughter's era "didn't have the testosterone to get involved in social issues. I don't think they had our sense of responsibility."
Haibeck feels some of her dad's hippie contemporaries "changed our culture for the worse" by making society too liberal.
Dieffenbach has a suspicion about why he and others born in the early 1960s are counted in the boomer generation. As the oldest boomers continue to lobby for power and their legacy, they think there's strength in numbers, he says. "They're just using us to increase their volume.'
Well, that's something to look forward to, isn't it?
I can hardly wait for you guys to take over.
Nope, they're the same.
The first presidential election where 18 year olds could vote was 1972. The state where one lived had nothing to do with it.
Don't take it so personal? Some of you are ready for us to DIE!
Definitely! It's just common sense. Which is why I'm still hoping a movement to grandfather out SS will soon take root.
Gosh... so everything IS all your fault ;-)
Seriously, the Baby Boom delineation was one derived from an inexact science. The problem I have is that this thread is trying to layer additional inexact science on top of these soft figures or dates... that's always dangerous to do and come up with worthwhile information, especially when some folks are using thick permament black markers to draw correlations and responsibility.
okay, well then, don't speak in terms of boomers attitudes towards SS, talk about LIBERALS attitudes toward SS bc they are not one and the same.
http://www.fourthturning.com/
It's really an interesting read. These guys have charted personality types alongside periods in history, and each set affects the next in a very specific way.
In fact, there are only 4 cycles of each - in an 80-100 year period.
I highly recommend it.
Thanks! I'll check it out.
Each era has a different view of the world that shapes their thought process, if you can pin point the view (generalized) differences you can bring your views to their attention within their context.
The trend is moving in 1960 and very becomes a very well established uptrend by 1965.
There's got to be a way to grandfather out the system. You think family, churches, and charities can't help our elders in place of SS?
All that "theory" is nice -- and I agree with some of it -- but try to live in the world we are in and the situation we are in -- in other words, you play the cards you're dealt.
Do you agree or not that SS is a socialist program? If so, are you willing to live with that and pass it on to future generations?
I'm sure there is somebody in your family who is receiving SS. Try to think about them, eh?
I think in one way you understand the "theory". Families should be providing for family members rather than taxpayers providing for all.
Your a boomer. I hat boomers.
It's your fault.
The divorce rate in 1960 was LOWER than it was in 1950, for goodness sake.
And in 1965 it's the SAME as it was in 1950!
What the hell kind of trend is that?
Shaddup, you! :-)
I can read also, The thread starts out with Baby Boomers bashing the WWII generation, The late Boomers separating themselves from early Boomers than you bashing me. The Xers didn't show up until later.
I don't get where you see this as a Boomer bashing thread, The article is about differences between late and early boomers and that's it.
where did I say that; I said that qam seeks and out and posts the worst articles about its "elders".
Yeah, My recent Go, Go Godzilla and Gadget Geeks Unite In Techno-Sexual Movement Xer pings were real Baby Boomer Bash-fest
But just to note, I passed on posting this one For Baby Boomers, Greatest Moments Disappeared in a New York Minute when it came out. It doesn't get any worse than that
Incessantly.
I would hardly call typing in the words "Generation X" in the Google news search "Incessantly"
If you must know the reason I posted this was because in almost all my Xer pings there is always debate (And unlike your posts it's usually civil) on if those born from 1960-1964 are late boomers or Gen-Xers, I thought we could discuss it here so in the future when it came up I could link back to this thread, But I guess not.
You forgot that one important thing....
It was the Baby Boomers who started the Run up in divorces
http://www.divorcereform.org/03statab.html
Year Divorces per 1,000 population
1950 ........... 2.6
1955 ........... 2.3
1957 ...........2.2
1960 ........... 2.2
1965 ........... 2.5
1970 ........... 3.5
1971 ........... 3.7
1972 ........... 4.0
1973 ........... 4.3
1974 ........... 4.6
1975 ........... 4.8
1976 ........... 5.0
1977 ........... 5.0
1978 ........... 5.1
1979 ........... 5.3
1980 ........... 5.2
1981 ........... 5.3
1982 ........... 5.1
1983 ........... 5.0
1984 ........... 5.0
1985 ........... 5.0
1986 ........... 4.9
1987 ........... 4.8
1988 ........... 4.8
1989 ........... 4.7
1990 ........... 4.7
1991 ........... 4.7
1992 ........... 4.8
1993 ........... 4.6
1994 ........... 4.6
1995 ........... 4.4
1996 ........... 4.3
1997 ........... 4.3
1998 .......... 4.2
1999 .......... 4.1
2000 .......... 4.2
2001 .......... 4.0
Generations are molded by what proceeds them. Much of it is shaped by events.
Boomers have their faults. So do X-ers and those of WWII.
I don't like to see generational warfare fomented here. It is counterproductive.
1950 10.3, 1955 9.3, 1960 9.2, 1965 10.6, 1970 14.9.
The 1950 stats could possibly be explained by post-war divorces. We've got a large jump between 1960 and 1965 and the trend is very well established by 1970.
There's no way this can be reasonably explained as "baby boomers" because they are simply too young to make up the bulk of this statistic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.