Replies

If you want to start making up names and divisions then “boomer” needs to disappear from language altogether.

First of all "I" did not make up anything. Sociologists who study generational cohorts did.

"Boomer" has it's place. It's original place that starts at the end of World War II and accurately groups a generational cohort for the next 10 years that grew up, for example, listening to Buddy Holly while in Junior High.

Those of us in high school when "American Pie" came out in 1971 had no idea who the hell Buddy Holly was. The Boomers, our younger high school teachers who we considered "grown ups", had to explain the song to us. We did not know Buddy Holly from Fatty Arbuckle.

We also need to erase decades of data, and shaped public opinion that had all been based on the official definition of boomer.

Please explain how "data" that assumes that John, who earned his Combat Infantryman's Badge at age 19 in 1965 in Vietnam, is culturally interchangeable with Timmy, who earned his "I Was Potty Trained Today" Certificate from Mommy in 1965, has any sociological worth whatsoever.

In regards to predicting cultural behavior, such "data" is GIGO: Garbage In - Garbage Out.

Those that are traditionally though of as "Boomers" are the cohort that became politically active by supporting JFK in large numbers. We in Generation Jones became politically active by supporting Ronald Reagan in large numbers.

Any research firm that advises a client to treat the Ronald Reagan Generation Jones cohort as if they were the J.F.K. Boomer cohort will get it dead wrong.

When the GAO for instance does a study like this they use the official government definition for boomers..... “United States Government Accountability Office GAO Report to Congressional Committees”.... “Why GAO Did This Study.... The first wave of baby boomers(born between 1946 and 1964) will become eligible for Social Securityearly retirement benefits in 2008. Inaddition to concerns about how the boomers’ retirement will strain the nation’s retirement and healthsystems, concerns also have been raised about the possibility

You are confusing behavioral analysis studies with carrying capacity studies. The two issues are apples and oranges.

In the study you cite, you are dealing with how numbers affect an outcome, not how cultural behavior affects an outcome.

You might as well be counting the numbers of herbivours weighing over 300 pound at the City Zoo and determining how the numbers will affect your feeding costs. Such a study is meaningless when trying to study how a zebra will behave differently from a hipopotamus.

The article in this thread deals with behavior, not sheer tonnage of biomass.

In regards to analysing a specific behaviorral cohort, the author has it correct and you do not.

Breaking up any generation into marketing niches and such does not change the category, it is a little late for the pop culture and marketing people to change the definition of a generation that ended 46 years ago.

Your point is valid for many things, sales and marketing like that kind of niche work, but it does not change the official generational definition which the “baby boomers” that was the period from 1946 to 1964.

The first and last of no generation, has the exact same cultural experiences or memories, no two people of the same exact age have the same experiences, if you want separation then look at a variety of people of the same age, but in totally different lives.

You cannot start a discussion about the boomer generation and then after a while change the definition. The formal definition is still 1946-1964. What do we call the “silent generation” now, the ones born 1925-1945, after discussing and measuring them for many decades, do we suddenly decide that we meant a 8 year piece of them? The boomer generation has always been defined by dates, not who the current pop stars were, or what movies were showing.