SMA, I have no idea about the percentages except that four-year institutions had a record number of enrollments this year. So many more than anticipated that they are literally paying first years to take a year off and come back in the spring or in the following year. Millennials Rising probably has numbers as to the percentage of Millies expected to go to four year institutions and graduate in four years.

Strauss and Howe wrote that younger cohorts can have a gravitational attaraction on older cohorts. I believe that was in reference to the G.I. generation. If the cusp cohorts morph into Millies that would still leave Generation X with 18 or 19 birth years, about the same as Boomers and Silents.

Tim, SMA said exactly the same thing in different words on the Reactive Crisis thread.

I also think last wave Xers will morph into Millies due to the early crisis. I would set the first birth year of Millies at 1979 or 1980 at the latest.

If college students are able to graduate in four years that would be news, and probably indicates a generational shift. In most major universities in the 1990s the curriculum was set up so that it was practically impossible to get all the required courses in 8 semesters. Just another example of the short shrift Xers got, I guess.

I am not convinced that "morphing" is the most helpful way to look at the generational line up. S & H, for convenience sake, use January 1 as the birthdate for everybody born in a calendar year which is, in itself, a generalization, but a necessary one. The idea that somebody born on December 31 in one year is, ipso facto, generationally different from somebody born the next day is absurd on its face.

I have the found the most useful way to visualize generational boundaries is to see each generation, when you have delimited it, using whatever criteria you find appropriate and seems to work, laid out on a horizontal axis marked by year of birth and a vertical axis marked by archetypal generational behavior. Because my research on voting behavior in the British House of Commons between 1841 and 1859 indicates that generational differences are most pronounced between the middle two-thirds of a generation, I would expect that you would end up with normal distributions, or bell-shaped curves, which, if you superimposed them on each other would lead to a graph with overlapping behaviors on either end. That is, the tails of each generation fade into each other with the major generational differences peaking in the middle years. While this extrapolation is based on an admittedly small sample, it is based on the only empirical research that, as far as I know, has yet been done,

To personalize it, from which no extrapolation should be made, the differences between me (born 1942) and my sister (born 1944)are subtle rather than substantial. She is more like our brother (born 1948) than I am (he is a Boomer all the way), but we are both more similar to each other than either of us is to our brother. HTH

Pax,

Dave Krein '42

"The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ, Moves on; nor all your Piety nor Wit shall lure it back to cancel half a line, Nor all your Tears wash out a word of it." - Omar Khayyam.

Here's one to think about...

Scott Baio turns 40 today. Means he was born September 22, 1961. Can anyone see "Chachi" as a Boomer? When I think of a quintessential early Gen Xer, Scott Baio definitely comes to mind.

Wes

I was catching up on some earlier posts in this thread today. Justin, back on the 12th, you were commenting on the early years of the Reagan era, and how you saw the 3T beginning after Al Haig left. Now, for you, having been born in '79, I suspect most of your analysis is anecdotal and historical, just as I have no memories of the late '50s, except from what I've heard and read.

However, I did live through that period. And while I suspect the turning did take place in the early '80s, with the start of the Millennial generation coming around 1980/1981, or 2-3 years ahead of the turning, I take exception to your impressions of that 1979-1981 period and your take on the success of the Reagan years.

Self disclosure here. I grew up in a very traditional, Republican household, with a mother active in local politics. I've had a passion for politics since I got into junior high. I can remember doing lit drops for Clark McGregor's campaign in 1970 (I was in 9th grade), being part of Young Republicans thru High School, going to my first caucus in 1974, running the Finance Drive for the City of Anoka Republican Party (Neighbor-to-Neighbor) in 1976 (post-Watergate, and yet we raised the most money ever), when I was just 20, and going to the Conventions in 1978, while a member of College Republicans. However, I was also beginning to change. I was a rare, conformist, non-rebellious Boomer all the way through my college years-- my Silent parents were very protective, supportive people, and I reflected a lot more of their attitudes than my peers' attitudes and choices. Politically, Watergate was the first point of departure for me-- I was a big Nixon fan, who felt fully betrayed. And despite staying active in the Republican Party, I voted for Carter in '76, not Ford-- as my protest over the pardon. My liberal Republican, Rockefeller-wing began to disintegrate in 1976. Remember how close Reagan-- who I already opposed strongly-- came in '76 to beating Ford? By 1980, I was an early John Anderson (with George Bush or Howard Baker as my back-up choices) supporter. When Anderson went to the Independent campaign, I went with him. I basically sat out 1982, and by 1984, I committed to the Democrats, and my home state guy, Walter Mondale. I've stayed a social liberal, fiscal moderate the rest of the way, and have been a fairly active Democrat until the present.

The mood of the country was about as lousy as it could be in the year you were born, Justin. 1979-- the malaise speech, memories of long gas lines, high inflation, and then the Hostage crisis. But I had no time for Ronald Reagan either. Social issues mattered a lot then. Many of us feared Reagan's hand on the button. The Democrats were split-- Ted Kennedy's campaign ended any hopes of Carter winning a second term, and the Anderson campaign took more from Carter than Reagan. Reagan's victory was very comfortable. And on Inauguration Day, Iran stuck it in Carter's face, and released those hostages to President Reagan, not President Carter. That was the first real moment of change. Reagan came in with real problems to face, but that one was solved. I truly think the other key moment came just weeks later when John Hinckley nearly killed the President. Reagan dealt with it heroically, and the nation rallied behind him. I don't think even his bitterest foes took as harsh a line against Reagan after that. Certainly he exceeded the expectations of those he had worried the most, and he was a true leader in a time of shifting international and domestic sands. Reagan's presidency truly does stand out in comparison to the two before him, and the two who followed. Even for those of us who never did support his domestic programs, he legimately earned our respect, and historically deserves to be recognized as a near-great, on par with Polk, Kennedy, Wilson, Truman, and TR.

Looking back, 1981 ushered in real change from a historical perspective, but having lived it, the Reagan presidency changed things right away. There was no great epiphany when Al Haig exited in 1982-- I doubt it even registered then or now as a huge event.

If the events of the winter of 1981 stand out for others as it did for me, then perhaps that 3T has run its 20 year course, and we might have to re-consider that Millennial birth year-- I still lean to 1980, but that creates difficulty doesn't it? I'd love to hear if any of these other creative minds can help to sort these thoughts-- especially some of you who experienced the 1979-1981 period at roughly the same point in our lives as I did-- Vince? Marc? Peter? Anthony? Kevin? Jenny? You're some of the ones who I recall being born in those late Eisenhower years, too.

Wes

Well, I was living in an ashram (spiritual commune) from 1978 to 1982, so my perspective of those years is skewed.

I think the transition from a 2T to a 3T is probably the most gradual, but I would put 3T as starting in 1982-1983, rather than 1984. I was at the 1983 march in Washington (20th anniversary of MLK and in general a march against Reagan's policies) and the mood was completely different from those marches I participated in against the Vietnam War and Nixon in the late 60s and early 70s (I grew up in the DC area and had politically liberal parents, so as a teenager, I was hauled to these events and anyway, participated very willingly).

If we do indeed get involved in anything even resembling a "conventional" war, the ramifications as to the location - or, more to the point, relocation - of generational boundaries are endless: For one thing, it would lend a great deal of credence to my division of the Nomad generation into "Baby Busters" (born 1958-68) and "Post-Busters" (born 1969-80) in that the oldest of the latter are now 32 years old - which is right about how old most of the senior enlisted personnel in the various branches of the armed forces would be. A similar phenomenon occurred in World War II, with the 1911 cohort just past 30 when Pearl Harbor hit (as you know I observe a twofold division of that archetype as well - the "Interbellum Generation" born 1901-1910 and the GIs born 1911-1924).

Another "winner" in all this - as far as winning arguments go - could be Jonathan Pontell; his 1954 post-Boomer start date may take on more merit, as 47-year-olds don't figure very prominently in all the policy-making decisions now being handed down from Washington (and this cohort boundary is already linked to a previous war, as the 1953 cohort was the last to see any action in Vietnam). Going against this, however, is the fact that the youngest member of George W. Bush's cabinet was born in 1957!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Anthony '58 on 2001-09-23 01:32 ]</font>

The largest protest ever in America was a no nukes protest in Central Park in 1982 that drew 200,000.
You guys really arent hitting the other side of this debate over the start of the third turning, and thats the fact that the awakening can be traced back to 1964.
A turn in 1980 would leave you with a 16 year awakening, which is pretty short.
It would also leave you with a 16 year 13er generation.
I doubt if the kindegarteners of 1964 can somehow debate their way out of saying they entered childhood in an awakening, and not a high.
Those first 6 years are pretty influential.

As for the college enrollment, Millies do dominate everything.
They dominated high school when I was a senior. I dont find myself getting sucked in.
I find myself alienated.
They are so big and such task masters, youre only choice is to shut up and get out of the way.
And every person ive seen with a 79 birthdate that went down in the WTC was working there.
They were employed because they graduated from college.
Others of us are spread around. Im in a international program with loads of real Xers, Xers whose birthdates cant be debated, because they were born in 1976 and 1977, and well, the theory just doesnt work out.
I live in a kollegium here, next door to a 23 year old, across the hall from a 24 year old and a 29 year old.
Last night I went to a party with a 27 year old and a 26 year old.
Its really hard for me to find a case of any millies anywhere, let alone them sucking me in.
Instead i talk about the crisis with people in my hall in our kitchen.
It seems like everybody thinks every 13er should look and do the same as someone born in 1966. Thats not true.
Theres a whole second wave of us, and right now, where going through this together.
Strauss and Howe wrote that the Millies were born in the "80s and 90s"
So perhaps thats true. Again, if your going to say that there are some 79ers on campus today...you also have to accept that there are some 78ers and 77ers there too.
And what about grad students.
You have to admit this is kind of a dumb argument.
Instead of saying 1982, which seems a little early (maybe a brisk september morning)
why not just 1983.
As for the events that pushed us into a Third Turning...how about AIDS, How about Studio 54 closing down.
Im sorry but people were still snorting spoonfuls, and mating like rabbits well into the very early 80s.

Justin, do you feel that there is a difference between the '79ers, on the one hand, and the '80 and '81 cohorts on the other?

In response to Tim.
Most people that have had this conversation with me have come to the conclusion that 1981 was the last year of anything Gen X.
I dont know how Boomers can see the difference with Xers, but for us, it was very apparent as we were leaving high school that the grades below us were very alien. They were a really good looking group. When I went to a store, instead of having some one my age bitching and moaning about work, they wanted to help me and looked me in the eye. It was a little dissarming.
I think that the class of 1997 at my high school was a very GenX class. They were splintered, didnt get along, brought alot of bad elements into the school (drugs,violence)
and had a reputation as being one of the worst classes the school district had ever seen.
This was the last class where I actually saw nerds, skaters,punks, jocks...very distinct groups.
The 1980 cohorts got along alot better.
I think they were more independently minded and less into public community affairs than the classes that came after them, they were the first time our high school had seen any type of unity in a long time.
Still they were very individualistic, and very wild. The class of 1998 was known as a party class.
Id say the most of them were Xers, especially if they had older siblings.
1999 was the year that struck me.
Following this big individualistic party class, was a quiet, better dressed and more uniformly dressed class, that automatically restored our school with "school spirit" that had been lacking since the early 90s when the last of those big 80s classes went out and were replaced with us isolated negative last wave Xers.
This was the first time I heard a rift.
From an 81 cohort I heard "your class has no spirit, and they arent as smart as my class"
my response was "your class has no sense of humour and theyre no fun"
Do you see the difference.
People in 79 80 cohorts really didnt care, because they hadnt been played as well by their parents into becoming perfect like the Millennials just below us.
For the record, in my experience, 1981 is the start of the new generation and the last gasp of the old one.
The 81 kids are very different, and I think even the late 80 kids are fairly Millennial in some ways.
But Id place 1981 as a big turning point.
Historically I cant place why.
But I do know that when it comes to a room full of 1981 kids and one 66 cohort---Id rather talk to the 66 cohort, because hes the one with the same gross sense of humour and similar take on life, and theyre the ones comparing notes on internships.
Hes the one that will talk to me about Friday the 13th movies.
They dont even know who Jason is.

I know its dumb, but in high school we went through a "school spirit crisis"
no one would go to the games. No one would go to the pep rallies. people that wore school oriented clothing were seen as losers.
It was actually a dialogue in the papers and community. Then they closed campus because the community got sick of ugly Xers smoking in frot of the school. (this was the year I entered high school)
Then in the midst of this crisis, the 81 and 82 cohorts entered the high school, and like breath of fresh air or a bunch of carebears, the clubs began to fill up, the pep rallies began to be packed, and people were proud of their high school.
It was really bizarre.
So theres a tremendous difference between the 1981 cohorts and 79 cohorts.
1980 is like point zero.
Theres an 82 cohort at my college.
shes involved in activism and has always been involved in community service.
I knew her older brother (another 79 cohort) and asked if hes involved.
No hes not.
Why isnt he involved alison?
"because jeffs a dumb ass justin"
Jeffs not a dumb ass...hes just in a different generation with a different mindset.
These boundaries arent sealed in stone but they can definitely be felt.
When I went to college, we were known as the class that sent the most kids to the emergency room the first week with alcohol poisoning.
When the 81 kids entered the community service orgs were busting, and the student government was alive again, after an impeachment trial, and an election where late wave Xers actually had "bringing coke to campus" as part of their platform.
Can I also add that The class of 99 kids make me feel really old.
Like a washed up human.
They send me scrambling for my Xer friends from the past, so we can watch cartoons and relax.

I wonder if the 1980 cohort will end up as a split cohort, with some identifying with Xers and some identifying with Millies. And what about the Boom/X cusp? Are people now too set in their ways to shift?

On 2001-09-24 07:24, Tim Walker wrote:
I wonder if the 1980 cohort will end up as a split cohort, with some identifying with Xers and some identifying with Millies. And what about the Boom/X cusp? Are people now too set in their ways to shift?

In the Millennial YOB topic, I suggested the same idea--that the Xer/Millie boundary could be pushed back to include all of the Class of '99, which would split the 1980 birth cohort into a large Xer segment born during Jan-Sept/Oct that entered the Class of 98 and a smaller Millie segment born late in the year.

As for the Boomer/Xer boundary, I've always found that one porous. Several of the people with whom I went to grad school considered themselves Boomers, even if they were born 1961-1964. Two of them definitely had Boomer mindsets, while one was definitely a "dress-for-success" early wave Xer. My girlfriend, also born early in 1964, considers herself a Boomer, but she has had a very Xer childhood and led a Nomadic lifestyle. Going the other direction from S&H's boundary, there are a few of us on this site born 1958-1960 that acknowledge the Nomadic sides of our natures. And then there's Anthony '58 :smile:

As for whether the crisis will push the Boomer/Xer boundary back, I have my doubts. I suspect that it will convince the '61-'64 cohorts who think that they are Boomers that they really are Xers. Those of us born '58-'60 who think we're Boomers (like me) will remain Boomers. So, paradoxically, will the "Jones/Buster" people born the same years. They may have a Nomadic mindset, but they are still part of the Boomers whether they like it or not! The result will not be a shifted boundary, but a much firmer one.

Justin, total agreement from this 69 cohort. Yes, we're pulling together now as a country, and we're getting all friendly, but...

I still find myself much more comfortable talking with the cynics than any other group. In another thread, I said that I thought the boundary might move back toward 1978 or so, but here I'll retract that statement. We had a kid working here who was born in 1980, and he was still an Xer, cynical and realistic.

The Millies are too goody for my tastes. I did hope for my kids to be Millies, though, but it turns out they'll probably be (ugh!) adaptives, 1998 and forward.

On 2001-09-24 03:04, Justin'79 wrote:
I know its dumb, but in high school we went through a "school spirit crisis"
no one would go to the games. No one would go to the pep rallies. people that wore school oriented clothing were seen as losers.
It was actually a dialogue in the papers and community. Then they closed campus because the community got sick of ugly Xers smoking in frot of the school. (this was the year I entered high school)

Justin, I love it, a "school spirit crisis." We had these in my high school, too. I remember hearing from teachers and from "official" statistics that our class (class of 90) was the least school spirited, lowest achieving, most apathetic they'd ever seen. But there were no Millies to compare us to, it was always that we were worse than what had come before.

I got a chuckle from the post on this thread a couple days ago about Scott Baio turning 40. Of course "Chacci" wasn't a Boomer or an Xer; he was a teenager in the 50s ("Happy Days" was set in that decade). But Scott Baio the actor is a Joneser. Notwithstanding a couple recent posts on this board, many of us emphatically believe that Generation Jones is a distinct generation (go through the archives on this thread, for example, and you will find many posters who strongly agree with this) and our movement continues to grow by leaps and bounds. One of many recent examples of the spread of the Jones movement-- Yale University (YALE!) is currently offering a course entitled "Managing a Multiple Generation Workforce". The course description says it will "address the three prevailing workplace generations: Baby Boomers, Generation Jones, and Generation X." As time goes on, Generation Jones becomes more and more an entrenched part of American culture...

Hey all,

I'm a little confused about how everyone is defining "Generation Jones." I got the impression from reading S&H that the Jonesers cover roughly the '55 to '65 cohorts. (Which, of course, puts me right in there!)

So am I right? Straighten me out if I'm not, please.

Kiff '61

Me too, if I recall correctly, I'm an Xer and a Buster, but not a Joneser, right?

Jonathan Pontell, who coined the term "Generation Jones," (see http://www.generationjones.com for more info) defined them as those born between 1954 and 1965, so you are almost right, Kiff. Actually, my feeling is 1954 is a few years too early. People 3-4 years older than myself were definitely Boomers in every way and were also able to catch the tail end of the Woodstock era as young teens. Therefore, I think of Jonesers as those born 1956-1965, and if you go with Anthony's Busters, we're born 1958-1968.

Appreciate the link, Susan. Yep, Jonesers are my kind.

Kiff'61

Susan, I agree w/your idea that '54 is too early to be a "Joneser." One of my aunts is a '54 cohort & she's *definitely* not a 13er in any way.

FWIW, based on my observations I would push the Boomer/13er boundary the other way--to '61 or even '62. At my high school, the class of '80 was considered golden. *Everyone* was smart, *everyone* did something athletic (& pretty well, too--except in football), & *everyone* was a "good kid," like a Happy Days character. My class was continually weighed in the balance & found wanting. My French teacher went into labor early at the end of the year & we said that it was the shock of having, for the first time, some of her students fail the Regents exam.

I also have wondered about the 13er/Millenial boundary. One of my cousins is an '82 & the prototypical Millie; another is an '84 & much more like an Xer. And I'm curious as to when exactly the Millie/Next Adaptive boundary will be set. If 9/11 is really the start of the next Crisis, then will the children born '97-'98 (my daughter's a '98) & later be part of the Adaptive generation? S&H say that the first years of a generation are born before a turning... What do y'all think?

Sherry63 wrote:

FWIW, based on my observations I would push the Boomer/13er boundary the other way--to '61 or even '62. At my high school, the class of '80 was considered golden. *Everyone* was smart, *everyone* did something athletic (& pretty well, too--except in football), & *everyone* was a "good kid," like a Happy Days character. My class was continually weighed in the balance & found wanting. My French teacher went into labor early at the end of the year & we said that it was the shock of having, for the first time, some of her students fail the Regents exam.

My while my class ('80) was not found "golden", we were considered much better than the class immediately following us (your cohort of '81). I believe the golden class came a few years before ('76) at my high school.

I think my class was something of a transition. Some of us were very boomer-like in high school before growing out of it. A large percentage were already into the nomad archtype.

Sherry63 also wrote:

I also have wondered about the 13er/Millenial boundary. One of my cousins is an '82 & the prototypical Millie; another is an '84 & much more like an Xer. And I'm curious as to when exactly the Millie/Next Adaptive boundary will be set. If 9/11 is really the start of the next Crisis, then will the children born '97-'98 (my daughter's a '98) & later be part of the Adaptive generation? S&H say that the first years of a generation are born before a turning... What do y'all think?

I think these boundaries are somewhat amorphous. Remember we are talking about generations, not individuals. A hero type can exist in a prophet generation, just as a prophet can exist in a nomad generation. They are just the exception rather than the rule, and will probably be very frustrated.

There is also a lot of blending at the cusps. I know of people born in the mid-sixties who identify with boomers, and individuals born in the late 50's who relate to Xers.

I think some of this depends on environment. The generation of one's parents plays an important role, as does the age of one's siblings. Also, despite similar occurances in our high schools (yours in New York, I think, and mine in Houston), geographical location plays a role. (Or used to.)

At some point, however, the overwhelming majority of individuals born after a certain date fit a particular archtype, and a new generation clearly emerges.

By the way, I worry about my two sons. One born in late 1999, the other this summer. If I am right and we have not yet reached 4T, they will probably be late heroes. In this case, I fear for their survival. If I am wrong and this is the 4T, they are early adaptives, and I fear they will go through life feeling they just missed out and don't quite measure up (like many Korean War veterans).

I think the issue of exactly what birth years define Generation Jones is an interesting one. I would differ from Pontell's '54-'65 definition slightly--My thought being that our generation begins in '55 instead, although I'm not convinced that '54 is too early. I think he draws the line at '54 partly because that is the cutoff with guys who went to Vietnam and those who didn't, and also because the first writers/singers that came out in the '70s with declarations (which were largely ignored) that we were a different generation than the Woodstock/Love/Now Generation were born in '54. There are at least a couple other main reasons for the '54 startpoint that I heard Pontell say on a talk show once, but I'm totally spacing on what they are. I question the '54 startpoint only because the one close friend I have born that year is definitely more Boom than Jones, but I'm not sure a sample of one is exactly scientific. Sherry, your aunt born in '54 doesn't seem like a 13er because she's not--Jonesers aren't 13ers, they are in-between Boomers and 13ers/Xers/Busters. I feel those born in '55 are definitely Jonesers, however--they are quite different from Boomers in my experience. I'm not so sure where I stand on the younger end of the generation. I think we may extend to '66 but certainly no later. Anthony's belief that Jonesers were born through '68 is, I believe, clearly wrong--there was a major shift in generational mindset by then. (Kiff, in case you're confused with terminology as a newcomer--Anthony is the only person I've seen here or anywhere who uses the name Baby Buster, which is a synonym for Gen Xer, to describe this age group between the Boomers and Xers. Otherwise, the name Generation Jones has become the widely used moniker for this group.) I find trying to draw the exact lines between generations fascinating and frustrating--there is an underlying sense of futility to the exercise since the subtleties are such that exactness is never possible, yet those same subtleties make the search a helluva lotta fun sometimes.