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.