Your post nails why it’s such a stupid designation for me, and people of my age in general.
In 1972 I was 8 years away from being able to vote in a Presidential election.
When I turned 18, there was no draft registration, and the military was sharply downsizing.
I would maintain that if shared experience is what defines a generation, then the whole concept got blown out of the water due to the rapid pace of events in the latter half of the 20th Century. And much of this was technology-driven, so we were seeing changes faster than previous eras.
It doesn’t nail it at all, there are different types of conversations, if two or 4 boomers want to discuss differences within their generation that is one thing, but they can’t just erase the generation.
Do you think that all generations of roughly 18-20 years are supposed to be the same exact culture during that period?
The silent generation was 1925 to 1945, the roaring twenties to Frank Sinatra and the end of a World War, do you think much changed culturally in that 20 year period?
You can’t discuss boomers for many decades and then after a while decide that they are only the people born 1946 to 1951. If you want to do that then they barely exist and had very little effect and their social security needs are insignificant, all the data and information on the “generation” is meaningless, in other words, what is there to talk about? Do you know anything about the people born during that five year period of significance for general discussions or for the government to track? I don’t.
Why not just tell tell everyone that from now on we are going to lump them in with the silent generation, and restrict the boomer definition to 1951 to 1964?
I don't know who told you that, it sounds like something that Brokaw would say.