i sort of came to this conclusion a long time ago, but i'll repeat it: this gen-x gen-y generational trend thing is horseshit. it's bizarrely general and useless. so read that piece and then tell me: is it empirical? is it interesting? what does it mean? first off what, really, is the ground for the divisions? let's say that you did, specifically, show demographic trends within each group, or polling etc. ok why not 1969-1991 or whatever? you can declare a generation at any moment you feel like it, and get equally interesting and totally incompatible results. in other words the problem, as always, is that the results actually follow from the problematic initial taxonomy. but this case is basically worse because the taxonomy is so obviously arbitrary. really it all follows from the idea of the baby bom and the arbitrary declaration of its end etc.

Comments

[Steve Gimbel]

While there certain ground shifting cultural events and demographic irregularities that will cause generations to grow up in different Americas, there really hasn't been one since the tailing off of the baby boom. There is, however, a marketing reason to try to draw such a distinction whether it's there or not.

It will be interesting to see in retrospect whether 9/11-Bush II will have caused a cultural shift which allows for such a distinction. Folks were trying their hardest at the time to make it happen -- the age of irony is over -- but perhaps the premature reporting of the death of irony was simply mean ironically.

[Lamya]

i am still confused which is which, and which of these two is the zero generation.

[Standard Anthony]

In another demographic we would call this a cold reading. This is why I dropped out of Sociology and became a cinematographer. Best mistake I ever made.