See post 87, in 1990 the boomers ranged in age from 26 to 44, they hadn’t been running much before then, 30 something is not really the age of a nation’s leaders.
When you read post 87, it reminds you of just how hard at work the pre boomers were during the most destructive period in American history, 1930 to 1975. In 1975, a 55 year old Senator would have been born in 1920.
You are so hell-bent on defending the so-called Boomers. You are like a 1-man Civil War thread on this forum, wherein usually there are a few zealots on both sides talking endlessly about the same things.
I have to ask your age again. 1 time you told us you were born in 1970, then you write posts implying you are considerably older than that.
Anyway, why the umbrage over the definition of “Baby Boomer”?
1st, this is an English writer.
2nd, I agree with the people who demonstrate it makes no sense to couple a person with someone 20 years older or younger. They have little in common.
3rd, when was a “generation” ever named before? Seriously. It seems none of this defined generation stuff turned up until people noticed how many babies came around RIGHT AFTER (not 20 years) WWII.
4th, I suspect you’re afraid if we split the “generation” into real Boomers (post-’46) and Disco kids, perhaps it won’t look as “conservative” as you insist for the dregs at Woodstock? Not saying it would be so, but it’s a possibility.