Generation X

www.geocities.com/chrysler813/Generations.html ^ | October 23, 2004 | Curtis Ryan Baginski

[Chrysler813]

I'm tired of Liberals trying to move the dates of Generation X. The only reason they push the ending date back into the 70s is to make Bush looke bad.

The smaller Generation X is the harder it will be for us to support the Baby Boomers. And the harder it is the worse a problem George Bush has created.

I've heard many Generation Xers very upset that they get lumped into the "Boomer" Generation (again to make them look bigger & us smaller)

And on the other end, some people try to push the ending date up. I've heard 1972, 1973, 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979 & 1980.

The real dates are 1962 - 1981. Believe me I spent over A YEAR researching this stuff!!!

That makes 70 million Gen Xers & 63 million Baby Boomers (1946 - 1961)

Don't get me wrong, we still got a problem. In 2011 the Baby Boomers will start retiring. When Roosevelt (AKA: America's Socialist King) started Social Security there were 30 working people to 1 retired person. With 70 million to 63 million it's ALMOST 1 to 1

And on top of that we got Generation Y in the workforce (1982 - )

But don't listen to the Liberals: the REAL dates 4 Generation X are 1962 - 1981.

[kenth]

ping

[qam1]

Xer Ping

Ping list for the discussion of the politics and social aspects that directly effects Generation Reagan / Generation-X (Those born from 1965-1981) including all the spending previous generations (i.e. The Baby Boomers) are doing that Gen-X and Y will end up paying for.

Freep mail me to be added or dropped. See my home page for details and previous articles.  

[qam1]

Xer Ping

Ping list for the discussion of the politics and social aspects that directly effects Generation Reagan / Generation-X (Those born from 1965-1981) including all the spending previous generations (i.e. The Baby Boomers) are doing that Gen-X and Y will end up paying for.

Freep mail me to be added or dropped. See my home page for details and previous articles.  

[Siouxz]

Can I please be an honorary Gen X-er? I was born in June 1961, and am just six months shy of the cut-off date. I have nothing in common the baby boomers!!

[oblomov]

I always thought it was 1965-1981. At least that's how Strauss and Howe (authors of Generations and other similar books) define it, and they have no obvious political axe to grind.

[seowulf]

So, are you saying the boom started at the beginning of WWII and not the end? I had always heard the boom started when the men came home from the war (with all of that pent up demand) and was a 20 year phenomenon, making Gen X 1965-1985.

[tiamat]

I was born in late 1960.

I have nothing in common with Boomers either, and far more in common with Gen X.

You're not alone.

[AM2000]

The real dates?

You mean like the real value of g is 9.8 m/s^2 or the real number of centimeters in one meter is 100?

That kind of real?

Of course you don't. Labels like "Generation X" and "Baby Boomers" are just that - labels. They're not "real". This argument is just plain silly.

[Alkhin]

Can you give us the data on your research for the dates 1962-1981. Although I was born in 1967 and feel blessed by the tag of Generation X, I am a bit confoozed as to why the off-beat numbers of '62-'81. But then I always have played it loose with numbers and rounded things out just to make it simple for myself.

Is '62 the year of a marked birth-rate drop? And is '81 a year of marked birth-rate increase? Just curious, because it would seem to me that things would fluctuate in a 2-4 year pattern rather than a 20 year gap.

Just curious about a subject I know little about (statistics).

[Alkhin]

aaaaaand how about the labels 'liberal' vs 'conservative'? Are those too icky to deal with too?

[AM2000]

They're ambigous. They defy scientific definition. You can't define the real boundaries of either term.

Both terms change with time and the shifts in the sociological and political sands. What was liberal once may be conservative tomorrow, and vice versa.

[Logophile]

Stereotyping about Generation-This and Generation-That is based on the spurious idea that a person's beliefs, tastes, and preferences are determined primarily by his birth date. It is a way of setting one group of Americans against another, much like the Marxists' pernicious "theories" of class warfare.

[x]

I always thought it was 1965-1981.

That's what I'd heard. Someone born in say, 1964, though, probably looks at the world very differently from someone born in 1946. Early boomers and late are very different animals, as kids born in the late Fifties and early Sixties didn't come of age until after the early boomers had had their day and made such a stir.

Those born after 1955 or so didn't have Viet Nam or the draft to worry about and the bloom was off the drug culture, sexual revolution, and the economy. They were often the younger children in the families of returning veterans and there was some condescension from their older siblings. Late boomers returned the favor with resentment at the Woodstock generation for getting all the publicity (and perhaps for having all the "fun" of youth rebellion).

By 1965 or so most kids were born to "silent generation" parents. A wave of divorces was beginning, as were the more troublesome conditions we associate with the 1960s, so one could say that a new generation had truly begun.

I wonder whether early and late x-ers have similar internal dissentions, or whether smaller families make such sibling rivalries less common. The grunge generation of about 1991, if it really existed, was different from the stereotype of the young people of the Reagan and Clinton years. Those looking for slackers as the Nineties continued must have been surprised when everyone was trying to make millions on the Internet, just as any one trying to find hippies and radicals had a hard time of it as we got deeper into the Seventies.

[dljordan]

You've got it right. Divide and conquer. Make the children hate the parents and they're all easy to control.

[Alkhin]

Make the children hate the parents and they're all easy to control.

I wish you'd tell that to the Boomers then. A good portion of them created their whole mythology around overturning and dissing THEIR parents...and then got PO'd when their children didnt reinforce their antagonism against the Establishment. That's the whole point of the distinction. I think you'll find among those born in the time periods discussed people who looked up to the WWII generation as heros and people of wisdom. Why do you think we loved Reagan so much??!!

Im not all that worried about the divide and conquer. Generations have been against each other for time immemorial. Even ancient Greek philosophers used to whine about the younger set as not having the same morals as they...and the question always comes around to "well, why didn't YOU teach them such?" This is the same question Generation Reagan is asking of the Boomer set : if you think we are so apathetic and clueless, where the hell were you??? Cause we sure as hell can answer that question...and we know who WAS there when we needed answers : the WWII generation.

[Logophile]

I wish you'd tell that to the Boomers then. A good portion of them created their whole mythology around overturning and dissing THEIR parents...and then got PO'd when their children didnt reinforce their antagonism against the Establishment. That's the whole point of the distinction. I think you'll find among those born in the time periods discussed people who looked up to the WWII generation as heros and people of wisdom. Why do you think we loved Reagan so much??!!

You paint a false picture. Most of the so-called "Boomers" did not rebel against their parents, most did not become hippies, most did not attack the Establishment. And yes, many "Boomers" loved Reagan.

Im not all that worried about the divide and conquer. Generations have been against each other for time immemorial. Even ancient Greek philosophers used to whine about the younger set as not having the same morals as they...

Well, perhaps you should be a bit worried about the divide-and-conquer techniques of the Left. It may be true that parents tend to worry about their children and grandchildren. They want to see that their civilization continues and flourishes.

However, we may be seeing something new: the deliberate attempt to drive a wedge between children and parents, to destroy the family and, ultimately, Western civilization itself.

...and the question always comes around to "well, why didn't YOU teach them such?" This is the same question Generation Reagan is asking of the Boomer set : if you think we are so apathetic and clueless, where the hell were you??? Cause we sure as hell can answer that question...and we know who WAS there when we needed answers : the WWII generation.

Well, perhaps your experience has been different, but my parents taught me well and were always available when I had questions. I honored, respected, and loved them—and still do. The snake-oil salesmen of the Left were never able to convince me to reject my parents' values. Now I am trying to pass those same values to my children.

Your complaint should not be against members of a particular generation, but the purveyors of a corrosive ideology, who come in all ages.

[Chrysler813]

I spent A YEAR researching this. Over the last year I have LONG ago forgotten where I got the 1962 - 1981 dates. I have gotten information for my website from hundreds, maybe thousands of sources.

If you check out my webpage www.geocities.com/chrysler813/Generations.html I have separate pages for all the living Generaions. During my research I found out that America changed GREATLY between 1962 & 1965 (which would make all Generation Xers too young to remember or not born yet) So that may be why it's 1962.

As far as 1981, America changed A LOT again from 1982 - the mid 80s.

As far as the birth years, I checked with the National Center for Health Statistics & the birth rate started dropping in 1958 & the drop continued untill 1968. So you could use ANY YEAR from 1958 - 1968 as the starting date for Generation X.

1981 was DEFINATLY part of the Baby Bust (Generation X) because birth rates were lower in 1981 then they were in 1970 (smack dab in the middle of the "Bust")

1982 was a spike in births so that MAY be why they're Generation Y

Sorry I couldn't remember the sources 4 ya. Hope you enjoy my website

[Chrysler813]

Well according to Strass & Howe you are Generation X!!!

Strass & Howe says 1961 - 1981

Allthough you "have nothing in common with the Baby Boomers" if they ever did move the date back to 1961 that would leave only 14 years for Booomers (1946 - 1960). That isn't enough for a Generation (unless you consider 14 year olds havin kids normal!!!) & because of the sharp hike in births in 1946 VERY FEW people dispute the 46 date.

I feel bad 4 ya bein stuck with a label you don't want but you're the 1st person born in 1961 I've EVER met who feels this way. Every other person I met born in 1961 is proud to be a Baby Boomer

I am like you bein right by the cut off line. I was born in August 1981 (just under 5 months from the X/Y cutoff) I have always felt like I was "the last" of people like me & I now I know why. I have ALWAYS had more in common wtih people born in the 60s then people born in my own decade

[Chrysler813]

I have rarely heard someone extend Generation X all the way to 1985.

My sister was born in 1984 & proudly claims Generation Y

Also people born in 1985 wern't born when CDs, personal computers, VCRs & minivans were invented. They wern't even born when Pepsi started calling themselves "the Next Generation). They weren't even born when The Cosby Show went of the air (& 4 that matter they'd be the same age as Cosby's TV grandduaghter Olivia)

Also I never said the Baby Boom started at the Beginning of World War 2. Check my webpage www.geocities.com/chrysler813/Generations.html
I say 1946 just like everyone else