Generational Dynamics
Fourth Turning Forum Archive


Popular links:
Generational Dynamics Web Site
Generational Dynamics Forum
Fourth Turning Archive home page
New Fourth Turning Forum

Thread: Generational Boundaries - Page 63







Post#1551 at 07-14-2002 10:29 AM by Chicken Little [at western NC joined Jun 2002 #posts 1,211]
---
07-14-2002, 10:29 AM #1551
Join Date
Jun 2002
Location
western NC
Posts
1,211

Uh oh, here we go again.







Post#1552 at 07-14-2002 11:08 AM by Roadbldr '59 [at Vancouver, Washington joined Jul 2001 #posts 8,275]
---
07-14-2002, 11:08 AM #1552
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Vancouver, Washington
Posts
8,275

On 2002-07-13 22:55, Chet wrote:
Right-fucking-on.

I will say that I do wish stations would stop playing "classic rock." I thought FM used to be about playing album cuts, not playing "Carry on my Wayward Son" by Kansas 10 times a day.

And "Freebird" sucks. I'm tired of this twelve minute guitar solo shit.
Sure, FM radio DID used to be about album cuts...in 1975. Where have you been all your life, Justin?

That said, I would agree with you that "Freebird" and "Carry On" do pretty much suck. OTOH, I can always tune elsewhere, to the Top 40 and Adult Contemporary stations. To each his own.







Post#1553 at 07-14-2002 11:38 AM by Chicken Little [at western NC joined Jun 2002 #posts 1,211]
---
07-14-2002, 11:38 AM #1553
Join Date
Jun 2002
Location
western NC
Posts
1,211

On 2002-07-14 09:08, Kevin Parker '59 wrote:
On 2002-07-13 22:55, Chet wrote:
Right-fucking-on.

I will say that I do wish stations would stop playing "classic rock." I thought FM used to be about playing album cuts, not playing "Carry on my Wayward Son" by Kansas 10 times a day.

And "Freebird" sucks. I'm tired of this twelve minute guitar solo shit.
Sure, FM radio DID used to be about album cuts...in 1975. Where have you been all your life, Justin?

That said, I would agree with you that "Freebird" and "Carry On" do pretty much suck. OTOH, I can always tune elsewhere, to the Top 40 and Adult Contemporary stations. To each his own.
well, Kevin, he wasn't even born until 1979--so he wasn't alive in 1975!

It's like a bug high on the wall. You wait for it to come to you. When it gets close enough you reach out, slap out and kill it. Or if you like its looks, you make a pet out of it.
- Charles Bukowski







Post#1554 at 07-14-2002 12:57 PM by Justin'79 [at Copenhagen, Danmark joined Jul 2001 #posts 698]
---
07-14-2002, 12:57 PM #1554
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Copenhagen, Danmark
Posts
698

Even if I was born in 1970 I probably wouldn't have been an avid radio listener in 1975. One thing I remember about the early 80s is the music was more diverse on the radio. We'd hear things like Human League, and Journey, and The Romantics, and A-Ha, all mixed in. Plus I don't think they had this "best of the 80s and 90s" thing going on, so the format was a bit different.
One show I like is this psychedelic show they play around here. I LOVE that stuff.
Its fun to drive to guitar solos melting in your guitar.







Post#1555 at 07-14-2002 01:30 PM by Chicken Little [at western NC joined Jun 2002 #posts 1,211]
---
07-14-2002, 01:30 PM #1555
Join Date
Jun 2002
Location
western NC
Posts
1,211

I LOVE 1980s music.

IMHO, it was the only good thing about the decade.

_________________
We're all created from an act of love, so why is there so much hate?



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Heliotrope on 2002-07-14 11:31 ]</font>







Post#1556 at 07-14-2002 02:28 PM by AlexMnWi [at Minneapolis joined Jun 2002 #posts 1,622]
---
07-14-2002, 02:28 PM #1556
Join Date
Jun 2002
Location
Minneapolis
Posts
1,622

On 2002-07-14 09:38, Heliotrope wrote:
On 2002-07-14 09:08, Kevin Parker '59 wrote:
On 2002-07-13 22:55, Chet wrote:
Right-fucking-on.

I will say that I do wish stations would stop playing "classic rock." I thought FM used to be about playing album cuts, not playing "Carry on my Wayward Son" by Kansas 10 times a day.

And "Freebird" sucks. I'm tired of this twelve minute guitar solo shit.
Sure, FM radio DID used to be about album cuts...in 1975. Where have you been all your life, Justin?

That said, I would agree with you that "Freebird" and "Carry On" do pretty much suck. OTOH, I can always tune elsewhere, to the Top 40 and Adult Contemporary stations. To each his own.
well, Kevin, he wasn't even born until 1979--so he wasn't alive in 1975!

Wayward son does suck.. freebird is fine, though. Maybe I wasn't around then to get sick of it...







Post#1557 at 07-14-2002 02:29 PM by AlexMnWi [at Minneapolis joined Jun 2002 #posts 1,622]
---
07-14-2002, 02:29 PM #1557
Join Date
Jun 2002
Location
Minneapolis
Posts
1,622

On 2002-07-13 20:56, Ryan Stone wrote:
all you people are just lame.

Why spend so much time worrying about what generation you are? Why does it matter? The world still sucks no matter what location on the geneational ladder you happen to be standing on. You're gonna die no matter what.

I'm a person , you're a person. We all have our personal devils and angels. No two have the same ones. Don't lump me into a category that calls me a "slacker" or "disaffected" or "cynical" or whatever just because of the year I happen to be born in.
It's all stupid. my parents are boomers and sisters are millennials but it's all lame because when it comes down to it we're just people and all our shit still stinks.

Why not just categorize people by their astrology sign or tea leaves or something. That's all it is.

Bye.
God, what a pessimist!
(sarcasm)
Why don't you just go ahead and kill yourself, if we are all gonna die anyway?
(/sarcasm)







Post#1558 at 07-15-2002 03:31 PM by Ryan Stone [at tornado alley joined Jul 2002 #posts 12]
---
07-15-2002, 03:31 PM #1558
Join Date
Jul 2002
Location
tornado alley
Posts
12

hey justin, you are one cool dude. You get the whole point.

All these other people here, well most of them anyway, will believe anything their told. They can't think outside the box and have to put people into little boxes instead to compensate.

okay, okay, some people here are alright, like kiff, mark Y, stonewall (sometimes), heliotrope, hopefulCynic, and XoE, jenny, and jds. Marc, Eric, brian rush, all the rest of 'em, they make me want to scream in frustration --or just say whatever. As for you Alex, you are comletely lame. Well you're only 15 so i forgive you.

but you're the only dude here who really gets it.

I get tired of being told i must act a certain way becuase i was born in a certain birthyear (1977, to be exact). I'm a person like anyone else.

So is everyone else here but they dont know it.

we should hang out sometime.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Ryan Stone on 2002-07-15 13:35 ]</font>







Post#1559 at 07-17-2002 11:45 AM by zzyzx [at ????? joined Jan 2002 #posts 774]
---
07-17-2002, 11:45 AM #1559
Join Date
Jan 2002
Location
?????
Posts
774

Y'know...has anyone ever wondered that if the winters of 77 and 78 were not as extreme as they were that the baby "bust" which most people identify as "Generation 'X'" would have continued? I mean, what else is there to do when it's -10 outside and there's a perpetual blizzard? :smile:







Post#1560 at 07-17-2002 12:05 PM by Roadbldr '59 [at Vancouver, Washington joined Jul 2001 #posts 8,275]
---
07-17-2002, 12:05 PM #1560
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Vancouver, Washington
Posts
8,275

On 2002-07-17 09:45, Mark Y wrote:
Y'know...has anyone ever wondered that if the winters of 77 and 78 were not as extreme as they were that the baby "bust" which most people identify as "Generation 'X'" would have continued? I mean, what else is there to do when it's -10 outside and there's a perpetual blizzard? :smile:
Geez I wouldn't know, Mark...I was living in sunny Southern California those two winters with average highs of around 75F-- not to mention being several YEARS away from actually getting laid! :grin:







Post#1561 at 07-17-2002 12:24 PM by Number Two [at joined Jul 2002 #posts 446]
---
07-17-2002, 12:24 PM #1561
Join Date
Jul 2002
Posts
446

On 2002-07-17 09:45, Mark Y wrote:
Y'know...has anyone ever wondered that if the winters of 77 and 78 were not as extreme as they were that the baby "bust" which most people identify as "Generation 'X'" would have continued? I mean, what else is there to do when it's -10 outside and there's a perpetual blizzard? :smile:
Actually I thought that the birth rates didn't make much change one way or the other until 1979 when they jumped to 15.6; between 1979 and 1986 they stayed very close to that number, hitting it as late as 1984 or 1986 - so I'd say that the "baby bust" ended in 1978 and the "echo boom" began in 1987, but we all know how little that has to do with actual generations :smile:







Post#1562 at 07-17-2002 01:45 PM by Justin'79 [at Copenhagen, Danmark joined Jul 2001 #posts 698]
---
07-17-2002, 01:45 PM #1562
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Copenhagen, Danmark
Posts
698

I don't think a slight birth increase really says much. More Boomers were reaching breeding age, its very simple.
You should probably look for bigger signs, like Baby on Board signs.
I agree that that is a interesting marker. And I was 3. Could walk and talk. Definitely not a Baby on Board.
I think baby climates can change quite rapidly.
Like these 2001 babies.
I just see them as different. Maybe it has something to do with 9-11. I know Xers that had kids back in 95 and 96, but I see these newborns as just a bit different.
My perception of babies has at least changed. And I feel kind of a kinship with the little kids, that I didn't feel before.
Just as Ryan pointed out, this means very little, but I think just as in 1982-83 there was a change in the perception of children, I think we have just undergone one, or have begun to undergo one.
I do believe its that climate that creates your peer group.







Post#1563 at 07-17-2002 02:40 PM by Chicken Little [at western NC joined Jun 2002 #posts 1,211]
---
07-17-2002, 02:40 PM #1563
Join Date
Jun 2002
Location
western NC
Posts
1,211

On 2002-07-17 11:45, Chet wrote:
I don't think a slight birth increase really says much. More Boomers were reaching breeding age, its very simple.
You should probably look for bigger signs, like Baby on Board signs.
I agree that that is a interesting marker. And I was 3. Could walk and talk. Definitely not a Baby on Board.
I think baby climates can change quite rapidly.
Like these 2001 babies.
I just see them as different. Maybe it has something to do with 9-11. I know Xers that had kids back in 95 and 96, but I see these newborns as just a bit different.
My perception of babies has at least changed. And I feel kind of a kinship with the little kids, that I didn't feel before.
Just as Ryan pointed out, this means very little, but I think just as in 1982-83 there was a change in the perception of children, I think we have just undergone one, or have begun to undergo one.
I do believe its that climate that creates your peer group.
I got the same feeling about babies born after 911. I don't why, the mood is just different. You also see babies again with mosquito netting over their cribs and carriages...that was something that hasn't been around since Silents were babies.

I think there's a difference between early Xer parenting and the kids now being born to Nintendo-wavers. Early Xers raised their kids in more Boomerish fashion, if only according to dictates and expectations Boomers had of them. Now that the vast majority of new parents are no longer Boomers, you see a return to old-fashioned no-nonsense strictness and physical protectiveness.


It's like a bug high on the wall. You wait for it to come to you. When it gets close enough you reach out, slap out and kill it. Or if you like its looks, you make a pet out of it.
- Charles Bukowski







Post#1564 at 07-17-2002 04:53 PM by zzyzx [at ????? joined Jan 2002 #posts 774]
---
07-17-2002, 04:53 PM #1564
Join Date
Jan 2002
Location
?????
Posts
774

On 2002-07-17 10:24, Number Two wrote:
On 2002-07-17 09:45, Mark Y wrote:
Y'know...has anyone ever wondered that if the winters of 77 and 78 were not as extreme as they were that the baby "bust" which most people identify as "Generation 'X'" would have continued? I mean, what else is there to do when it's -10 outside and there's a perpetual blizzard? :smile:
Actually I thought that the birth rates didn't make much change one way or the other until 1979 when they jumped to 15.6; between 1979 and 1986 they stayed very close to that number, hitting it as late as 1984 or 1986 - so I'd say that the "baby bust" ended in 1978 and the "echo boom" began in 1987, but we all know how little that has to do with actual generations :smile:







Post#1565 at 07-17-2002 05:14 PM by zzyzx [at ????? joined Jan 2002 #posts 774]
---
07-17-2002, 05:14 PM #1565
Join Date
Jan 2002
Location
?????
Posts
774

On 2002-07-17 10:24, Number Two wrote:
On 2002-07-17 09:45, Mark Y wrote:
Y'know...has anyone ever wondered that if the winters of 77 and 78 were not as extreme as they were that the baby "bust" which most people identify as "Generation 'X'" would have continued? I mean, what else is there to do when it's -10 outside and there's a perpetual blizzard? :smile:
Actually I thought that the birth rates didn't make much change one way or the other until 1979 when they jumped to 15.6; between 1979 and 1986 they stayed very close to that number, hitting it as late as 1984 or 1986 - so I'd say that the "baby bust" ended in 1978 and the "echo boom" began in 1987, but we all know how little that has to do with actual generations :smile:
Well, actually, there was a fairly big jump between 76 and 77 of 0.5 births per 1,000 (15.1 from 14.6), which translates to a 3% increase. Granted, it doesn't look huge, but on the birthrate chart, it's certainly at a local maximum:

Year % Inc Birth Rate from Prev. Year
1931 -5.164319249
1932 -3.465346535
1933 -5.641025641
1934 3.260869565
1935 -1.578947368
1936 -1.604278075
1937 1.630434783
1938 2.673796791
1939 -2.083333333
1940 3.191489362
1941 4.639175258
1942 9.359605911
1943 2.252252252
1944 -6.607929515
1945 -3.773584906
1946 18.1372549
1947 10.37344398
1948 -6.390977444
1949 -1.606425703
1950 -1.632653061
1951 3.319502075
1952 0.803212851
1953 -0.398406375
1954 1.2
1955 -1.185770751
1956 0.8
1957 0.396825397
1958 -3.162055336
1959 -2.040816327
1960 -1.25
1961 -1.687763713
1962 -3.862660944
1963 -3.125
1964 -3.225806452
1965 -7.619047619
1966 -5.154639175
1967 -3.260869565
1968 -1.685393258
1969 1.714285714
1970 3.370786517
1971 -6.52173913
1972 -9.302325581
1973 -5.128205128
1974 0
1975 -1.351351351
1976 0
1977 3.424657534
1978 -0.662251656
1979 4
1980 1.923076923
1981 -0.628930818
1982 0.632911392
1983 -2.51572327
1984 0
1985 1.935483871
1986 -1.265822785
1987 0.641025641
1988 1.910828025
1989 2.5
1990 1.829268293
1991 -2.395209581
1992 -2.45398773
1993 -2.51572327
1994 -1.935483871
1995 -2.631578947
1996 -0.675675676
1997 -1.360544218
1998 0.689655172
1999 -0.684931507
2000 1.379310345

Interesting to see that the Big Boom of '46 shows up very nicely here, although there was a "mini-boom" four years prior in '42...Also the big decrease in the birthrate in '65 shows up nice, plus another smaller decline in the early '70s.







Post#1566 at 07-17-2002 06:49 PM by AlexMnWi [at Minneapolis joined Jun 2002 #posts 1,622]
---
07-17-2002, 06:49 PM #1566
Join Date
Jun 2002
Location
Minneapolis
Posts
1,622

On 2002-07-15 13:31, Ryan Stone wrote:
hey justin, you are one cool dude. You get the whole point.

All these other people here, well most of them anyway, will believe anything their told. They can't think outside the box and have to put people into little boxes instead to compensate.

okay, okay, some people here are alright, like kiff, mark Y, stonewall (sometimes), heliotrope, hopefulCynic, and XoE, jenny, and jds. Marc, Eric, brian rush, all the rest of 'em, they make me want to scream in frustration --or just say whatever. As for you Alex, you are comletely lame. Well you're only 15 so i forgive you.

but you're the only dude here who really gets it.

I get tired of being told i must act a certain way becuase i was born in a certain birthyear (1977, to be exact). I'm a person like anyone else.

So is everyone else here but they dont know it.

we should hang out sometime.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Ryan Stone on 2002-07-15 13:35 ]</font>
And some people, like you, believe absolutely nothing they are told, even if it makes sense.

Nobody says you have to act a certain way. It says that people your age are more likely to act a certain way, not that they have to act a certain way. You are the only one who doesn't get it.







Post#1567 at 07-17-2002 07:02 PM by Number Two [at joined Jul 2002 #posts 446]
---
07-17-2002, 07:02 PM #1567
Join Date
Jul 2002
Posts
446

Time for a little more fun...
Year % Inc Birth Rate from Prev. Year
1931 -5.164319249
1932 -3.465346535
1933 -5.641025641
1934 3.260869565
1935 -1.578947368
1936 -1.604278075
1937 1.630434783
1938 2.673796791
1939 -2.083333333
Generally dropping for the most of the mid to late Silent years with a random increase thrown in every couple of years
1940 3.191489362
1941 4.639175258
Here's the start of Brancato's baby boom! :smile:
1942 9.359605911
There's that big leap in 1942
1943 2.252252252
1944 -6.607929515
1945 -3.773584906
1943 has an increase, but the smallest in four years! It *IS* a peak, but it doesn't look too special here and is dwarfed by the declines of the next two years
1946 18.1372549
The baby boom gets in full throttle here! (post WWII babies anyone? :smile
1947 10.37344398
This is followed by an increase that's still pretty damn large...
1948 -6.390977444
1949 -1.606425703
1950 -1.632653061
A three-year "mini-bust", just like April showers :smile:
1951 3.319502075
1952 0.803212851
1953 -0.398406375
1954 1.2
1955 -1.185770751
1956 0.8
1957 0.396825397
After an increase in 1951 they stay pretty much constant for a while...
1958 -3.162055336
Here we have the beginning of Brancato's "Baby Bust" :smile:
1959 -2.040816327
1960 -1.25
1961 -1.687763713
1962 -3.862660944
1963 -3.125
1964 -3.225806452
Keeps on busting, adding up little by little...
1965 -7.619047619
Yowch! And the Baby Boom is officially over :smile:
1966 -5.154639175
1967 -3.260869565
1968 -1.685393258
The decreases slow down a bit until they bottom out for a bit with the Summer of Love babies...
1969 1.714285714
1970 3.370786517
Two year increase - can anyone say Woodstock? :smile:
1971 -6.52173913
1972 -9.302325581
1973 -5.128205128
Ouch, ouch, and ouch! :smile:
1974 0
1975 -1.351351351
1976 0
Birthrates are pretty stable here, but they have reached their bottom
1977 3.424657534
1978 -0.662251656
A medium sized increase followed by a small decrease... not saying much
1979 4
1980 1.923076923
A larger increase followed by... ANOTHER increase almost half the size! *THIS* is the point where we know the Baby Bust is over
1981 -0.628930818
1982 0.632911392
1983 -2.51572327
1984 0
1985 1.935483871
1986 -1.265822785
Small decrease, small increase, decrease, constant, increase, decrease... only 1 change of more than two points but the birthrate doesn't fluctuate that much (you can take either 84 or 86 as the end of the period of stagnation)
1987 0.641025641
1988 1.910828025
1989 2.5
1990 1.829268293
Holy smokes! Four increases in a row as we move towards another peak...
1991 -2.395209581
1992 -2.45398773
1993 -2.51572327
1994 -1.935483871
1995 -2.631578947
1996 -0.675675676
1997 -1.360544218
Followed by seven decreases as we recede from the peak of the Echo Boom
1998 0.689655172
1999 -0.684931507
1998 and 1999 cancel each other quite nicely :smile:
2000 1.379310345
A decent-sized increase... the start of a trend?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Number Two on 2002-07-20 20:14 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Number Two on 2002-07-20 20:15 ]</font>







Post#1568 at 07-20-2002 10:05 PM by [at joined #posts ]
---
07-20-2002, 10:05 PM #1568
Guest

My ex-husband is a Joneser. I need you to help me figure out if he is a Boomer or an X-er.

He was born November 15, 1960 into a middle-class family. Dad, an engineer, was born in 1929; Mom, a housewife, was born in 1930. An older sister was born in 1957. No other kids.

Family intact -- the parents celebrated their 50th birthday last spring. As the baby of the family, ex was protected and cherished.

So far, a Boomer story. But more follows.

Because of late birthday, parents had him repeat kindergarten, so he ended up graduating from high school in 1979, with 1961 cohorts.

Alienating event happened in 1980, during the summer between freshman and junior year. Ex had a job stocking shelves at the local pharmacy and somehow developed chronic pain. This pain ended up disabling him from 1981-1984. During this period, he saw just about every specialist in San Diego (where he and his family lived) and they failed to provide either an effective treatment or even a diagnosis.

Chronic pain abated significantly during the 1984-1996 period so that ex could resume life. However, pain still present, just not as bad. Returned back to school, me me in graduate school. Now a few years behind his 1960 cohorts, he mostly associated with X-ers. Yet in public policy school, managed to fall in love with one of the few female Boomers in the class.

(Pain worsened throughout second half of 90's, and was probably a major factor of the breakup of our marriage -- ex because bitter, angry, and depressed, would not seek help. His attitude was, if they can't help my pain, then they can't help my mood -- so I had to get out of the marriage).

So my question is -- Boomer or X-er?

By the way, ex read "Generations" in 1993 and could not figure out his own Gen!



_________________
Living begins not on the day you are born
but on the day you recognize your consciousness -- Prem Rawat

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Jenny Genser on 2002-07-20 20:06 ]</font>







Post#1569 at 07-20-2002 10:41 PM by zzyzx [at ????? joined Jan 2002 #posts 774]
---
07-20-2002, 10:41 PM #1569
Join Date
Jan 2002
Location
?????
Posts
774

On 2002-07-20 20:05, Jenny Genser wrote:
My ex-husband is a Joneser. I need you to help me figure out if he is a Boomer or an X-er.

He was born November 15, 1960 into a middle-class family. Dad, an engineer, was born in 1929; Mom, a housewife, was born in 1930. An older sister was born in 1957. No other kids.

Family intact -- the parents celebrated their 50th birthday last spring. As the baby of the family, ex was protected and cherished.

So far, a Boomer story. But more follows.

Because of late birthday, parents had him repeat kindergarten, so he ended up graduating from high school in 1979, with 1961 cohorts.

Alienating event happened in 1980, during the summer between freshman and junior year. Ex had a job stocking shelves at the local pharmacy and somehow developed chronic pain. This pain ended up disabling him from 1981-1984. During this period, he saw just about every specialist in San Diego (where he and his family lived) and they failed to provide either an effective treatment or even a diagnosis.

Chronic pain abated significantly during the 1984-1996 period so that ex could resume life. However, pain still present, just not as bad. Returned back to school, me me in graduate school. Now a few years behind his 1960 cohorts, he mostly associated with X-ers. Yet in public policy school, managed to fall in love with one of the few female Boomers in the class.

(Pain worsened throughout second half of 90's, and was probably a major factor of the breakup of our marriage -- ex because bitter, angry, and depressed, would not seek help. His attitude was, if they can't help my pain, then they can't help my mood -- so I had to get out of the marriage).

So my question is -- Boomer or X-er?

By the way, ex read "Generations" in 1993 and could not figure out his own Gen!



_________________
Living begins not on the day you are born
but on the day you recognize your consciousness -- Prem Rawat

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Jenny Genser on 2002-07-20 20:06 ]</font>
First of all, sorry about your X and his pain.

Second, a quick question: His PARENTS made him repeat Kindergarten? Was that recommended by the school?

Anyway, I don't know if the information you gave really allows me to determine whether they're in Generation "X" or "Boom". Just because someone is in a college at a certain time doesn't necessarily contribute to their generation. It's kind of like the college class of 2000 argument. Some people may say that the college class of 2000 is the first year of "Y". But what about the 25 or 26 year olds (which are almost as common on campuses as the 18 year olds outside Jarvard and Jail)?

I really need more info on this...







Post#1570 at 07-20-2002 10:43 PM by [at joined #posts ]
---
07-20-2002, 10:43 PM #1570
Guest



Just some thoughts (from a previous post) about those years, of which 1960 falls closely into...


On Strauss and Howe... Here's a good one:

Generations page 305, "By almost any standard of social pathology, the Boom is a generation of worsening trends. From first-wave to last-wave teenagers, death rates for every form of accidental death rose sharply--and the rates of drunk driving, suicide etc... etc..."

But back on page 52, they examine, in depth, why the 1961-64 cohorts are not Boomers: "The portrait that emerges of the 1961-1964 cohort group is vivid and unflattering. Over the post-war period, at each age through 24, this group has generated all of America's lost aptitude test scores; the highest high school senior drug and alcohol abuse; all but one of America's highest drunk driving rates... record rates for many other pathologies, including suicide."

This reader says, huh? What's going on here? The Boom is "worsening", while the Xers are off the charts? :lol:

Help, anybody?


To wit Ms. Kiff replied...
On 2002-06-21 15:20, Kiff '61 wrote:
Marc, basically we 1961-64 cohorts bottomed out. We are Generation Limbo, stuck in that eternal purgatory between Boom and X. Read any Doug Coupland book and you'll see us.

I especially recommend Girlfriend in a Coma.










Post#1571 at 07-21-2002 12:00 AM by Ryan Stone [at tornado alley joined Jul 2002 #posts 12]
---
07-21-2002, 12:00 AM #1571
Join Date
Jul 2002
Location
tornado alley
Posts
12

what's wrong with all you people?
you're all a bunch of number crunching anal retentive neurotics.
why do you care so much what year a generation is or isn't or which one so and so is in or isn't.
you all need to grab some ice house or heinekin, listen to some strokes or blondie tunes or bjork and just chill.
don't forget elvis costello and sleater-kinney, those girls rock!
All that matters is the music, everything else is just garbage.
Music can set you free if you let it.
Groovy.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Ryan Stone on 2002-07-20 22:04 ]</font>







Post#1572 at 07-21-2002 04:19 AM by Number Two [at joined Jul 2002 #posts 446]
---
07-21-2002, 04:19 AM #1572
Join Date
Jul 2002
Posts
446

On 2002-07-20 22:00, Ryan Stone wrote:
what's wrong with all you people?
you're all a bunch of number crunching anal retentive neurotics.
why do you care so much what year a generation is or isn't or which one so and so is in or isn't.
you all need to grab some ice house or heinekin, listen to some strokes or blondie tunes or bjork and just chill.
don't forget elvis costello and sleater-kinney, those girls rock!
All that matters is the music, everything else is just garbage.
Music can set you free if you let it.
Groovy.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Ryan Stone on 2002-07-20 22:04 ]</font>
i don't know about the rest of them, but i do it because it's *fun*! call me a freak, etc; i don't care... for some reason, i get a kick out of it all (most likely, so do the 9 others in the thousand-post-plus club and the people who've been posting for years) and this is our place to hang, relax, and get a nice refreshing mental workout!

think what you like about this place; i, for one, totally enjoy this enclave :smile:







Post#1573 at 07-21-2002 08:09 AM by Chicken Little [at western NC joined Jun 2002 #posts 1,211]
---
07-21-2002, 08:09 AM #1573
Join Date
Jun 2002
Location
western NC
Posts
1,211

On 2002-07-20 22:00, Ryan Stone wrote:
what's wrong with all you people?
you're all a bunch of number crunching anal retentive neurotics.
why do you care so much what year a generation is or isn't or which one so and so is in or isn't.
you all need to grab some ice house or heinekin, listen to some strokes or blondie tunes or bjork and just chill.
don't forget elvis costello and sleater-kinney, those girls rock!
All that matters is the music, everything else is just garbage.
Music can set you free if you let it.
Groovy.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Ryan Stone on 2002-07-20 22:04 ]</font>
If you think it's a waste of time why do you bother posting here?
It's like a bug high on the wall. You wait for it to come to you. When it gets close enough you reach out, slap out and kill it. Or if you like its looks, you make a pet out of it.
- Charles Bukowski







Post#1574 at 07-21-2002 08:29 AM by [at joined #posts ]
---
07-21-2002, 08:29 AM #1574
Guest

On 2002-07-17 15:14, Mark Y wrote:
On 2002-07-17 10:24, Number Two wrote:
On 2002-07-17 09:45, Mark Y wrote:
Y'know...has anyone ever wondered that if the winters of 77 and 78 were not as extreme as they were that the baby "bust" which most people identify as "Generation 'X'" would have continued? I mean, what else is there to do when it's -10 outside and there's a perpetual blizzard? :smile:
Actually I thought that the birth rates didn't make much change one way or the other until 1979 when they jumped to 15.6; between 1979 and 1986 they stayed very close to that number, hitting it as late as 1984 or 1986 - so I'd say that the "baby bust" ended in 1978 and the "echo boom" began in 1987, but we all know how little that has to do with actual generations :smile:
Well, actually, there was a fairly big jump between 76 and 77 of 0.5 births per 1,000 (15.1 from 14.6), which translates to a 3% increase. Granted, it doesn't look huge, but on the birthrate chart, it's certainly at a local maximum:

Year % Inc Birth Rate from Prev. Year
1931 -5.164319249
1932 -3.465346535
1933 -5.641025641
1934 3.260869565
1935 -1.578947368
1936 -1.604278075
1937 1.630434783
1938 2.673796791
1939 -2.083333333
1940 3.191489362
1941 4.639175258
1942 9.359605911
1943 2.252252252
1944 -6.607929515
1945 -3.773584906
1946 18.1372549
1947 10.37344398
1948 -6.390977444
1949 -1.606425703
1950 -1.632653061
1951 3.319502075
1952 0.803212851
1953 -0.398406375
1954 1.2
1955 -1.185770751
1956 0.8
1957 0.396825397
1958 -3.162055336
1959 -2.040816327
1960 -1.25
1961 -1.687763713
1962 -3.862660944
1963 -3.125
1964 -3.225806452
1965 -7.619047619
1966 -5.154639175
1967 -3.260869565
1968 -1.685393258
1969 1.714285714
1970 3.370786517
1971 -6.52173913
1972 -9.302325581
1973 -5.128205128
1974 0
1975 -1.351351351
1976 0
1977 3.424657534
1978 -0.662251656
1979 4
1980 1.923076923
1981 -0.628930818
1982 0.632911392
1983 -2.51572327
1984 0
1985 1.935483871
1986 -1.265822785
1987 0.641025641
1988 1.910828025
1989 2.5
1990 1.829268293
1991 -2.395209581
1992 -2.45398773
1993 -2.51572327
1994 -1.935483871
1995 -2.631578947
1996 -0.675675676
1997 -1.360544218
1998 0.689655172
1999 -0.684931507
2000 1.379310345

Interesting to see that the Big Boom of '46 shows up very nicely here, although there was a "mini-boom" four years prior in '42...Also the big decrease in the birthrate in '65 shows up nice, plus another smaller decline in the early '70s.

That "mini-boom" is a lot more significant that you give it "credit" for; from 1940 through 1943, the birth rate went up four consecutive years for the first time since at least the 1790s! Even more interestingly, there was actually a good reason why it should have gone down during this period, as the first of the modern antibiotics - the sulfanomides - appeared on the market in November 1938. One of the key reasons for the steady birth-rate decline from 1800 until 1940 was the steadily declining infant-mortality rate - brought about by the steady progress in medical technology (women got pregnant less and less often as the percentage of their babies who survived infancy and early childhood got higher and higher). Yet the introduction of the greatest breakthrough in combatting infectious diseases in history up to that point was met with a rise in the birth rate. Why?

Another thing to keep in mind here: The fall in the birth rate from 1800-1939 was almost monotonously uniform, rarely deviating much in any significant period from an average of approximately 1 per cent per year. Yet from 1958 through 1968, the birth rate fell a staggering 30.4 per cent (from 25.3 in 1957 to 17.6 in 1968) - more than twice as fast as the average decline of 1800-1939; then, from 1969 through about 1980 (the birth years of the "Post-Busters"), the birth rate merely reverted to the original pattern of slow decline. The more recent rise is purely "mechanical" - caused by Boomers filling the age brackets most commonly associated with child-bearing; then, after 1990, Busters replaced them in those age brackets - and sure enough there was an "Echo Bust," with the birth rate falling every single year from 1991 through 1997 (the second longest unbroken streak ever, exceeded in length only by the eleven-year bust of 1958-68).

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Anthony '58 on 2002-07-21 06:39 ]</font>







Post#1575 at 07-21-2002 08:52 AM by AlexMnWi [at Minneapolis joined Jun 2002 #posts 1,622]
---
07-21-2002, 08:52 AM #1575
Join Date
Jun 2002
Location
Minneapolis
Posts
1,622

On 2002-07-20 20:05, Jenny Genser wrote:
My ex-husband is a Joneser. I need you to help me figure out if he is a Boomer or an X-er.

He was born November 15, 1960 into a middle-class family. Dad, an engineer, was born in 1929; Mom, a housewife, was born in 1930. An older sister was born in 1957. No other kids.

Family intact -- the parents celebrated their 50th birthday last spring. As the baby of the family, ex was protected and cherished.

So far, a Boomer story. But more follows.

Because of late birthday, parents had him repeat kindergarten, so he ended up graduating from high school in 1979, with 1961 cohorts.

Alienating event happened in 1980, during the summer between freshman and junior year. Ex had a job stocking shelves at the local pharmacy and somehow developed chronic pain. This pain ended up disabling him from 1981-1984. During this period, he saw just about every specialist in San Diego (where he and his family lived) and they failed to provide either an effective treatment or even a diagnosis.

Chronic pain abated significantly during the 1984-1996 period so that ex could resume life. However, pain still present, just not as bad. Returned back to school, me me in graduate school. Now a few years behind his 1960 cohorts, he mostly associated with X-ers. Yet in public policy school, managed to fall in love with one of the few female Boomers in the class.

(Pain worsened throughout second half of 90's, and was probably a major factor of the breakup of our marriage -- ex because bitter, angry, and depressed, would not seek help. His attitude was, if they can't help my pain, then they can't help my mood -- so I had to get out of the marriage).

So my question is -- Boomer or X-er?

By the way, ex read "Generations" in 1993 and could not figure out his own Gen!



_________________
Living begins not on the day you are born
but on the day you recognize your consciousness -- Prem Rawat

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Jenny Genser on 2002-07-20 20:06 ]</font>
Heck, in most places a person born on his birthday would have graduated with the class of '79 anyway. For example, my mom born on 12/16/1961 graduated with the class of 1980 (although she is more of a "boomer*" simply due to multiple factors. I would say that your husband is definitely an "Xer" or a "boomer*" because high school graduation year is, in my opinion, the best way to define a person's generation (beginning with the G.I.).
-----------------------------------------