• Boomers are having their last dance in charge.
  • Gen X leaders are stepping up to replace the last of them.
  • Younger leaders are taking charge of politics and corporate giants such as Boeing, HSBC, and Costco.
  • ThePyroPython@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Cool great so if we’re making generalisations, the generation who was nothing but snarky, cynical, and too lazy to stand for anything is taking over from the spoilt brat boomers.

    At least it’s a slight improvement.

    As a millennial (only just though) maybe we should just skip Gen X and millennials and hand everything over to Gen Z. Maybe a generation who are generally consuming less and care about the environment would do a much better job of making sure the world doesn’t burn.

  • computerscientistII@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Kamala was born in 64. She’s a boomer. Also, GTFO with Generation Jones. She’s a boomer. X-ers are those who came after the pill became omnipresent after the mid 60s. I am one of those (born in 77). We are relatively few in numbers in comparison to the boomers. Because of the pill. Also GTFO with Generation Jones. She’s a boomer.

    Trump and Biden also aren’t boomers. They predate the boomers. They were born during or shortly after WW2. That’s usually called the silent generation. Trump being part of the silent generation is of course ridiculous. But he’s the exception of the rule, I guess. But both are born very late in that generation, so they are its last remnants I guess. Soon they will all be gone.

    • Nastybutler@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Boomers is short for Baby Boomers which were literally the babies born after WW2 vets came home and had families. I don’t know why your misinformed comment has so many upvotes

      • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        What’s the fact you’re objecting to? The only thing wrong is Trump as a Silent as he’s born in the very first year of the Boomers. Everything else is following the common definitions.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          Where does the common definition of ‘Boomer’ say it starts after 1946 (the year Trump was born) and stops with the birth control pill (1960)?

          I have never seen such a definition anywhere. Certainly not one that says it starts at least two years after the end of WWII.

        • computerscientistII@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          You might be right there. I’m German. And many a man did come back later, after the war, here. A lot of refugees were forcefully relocated from what is today Poland. Also a lot of POWs came back long after the war was over. So the baby boom was a bit delayed over here.

    • merc@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      We are relatively few in numbers in comparison to the boomers

      That’s not true. The birth rate dropped slightly from the low 20s per 1000 in the 40s to the mid-60s, then dropped to the high teens in the Gen X era. Relatively few in numbers implies that there were twice as many boomers or something. The reality is that there were about 75 million baby boomers births, and about 65 million Gen X.

      Trump is a boomer (1946, same year as Clinton and Bush), Biden is a “silent generation” guy, born before the end of WWII. He’s actually the first (and presumably last) Silent Generation president. The ones before him were all boomers or “greatest” generation.

      • computerscientistII@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        While those facts might not be wrong in your neck of the woods, they are at least very, very US centric. That is of course ok, as we are talking about the US candidates here. But generally, keep in mind that the world is way bigger than the US. You make up a whole of 4% of the world’s population. And those numbers all vary from country to country.

      • PunnyName@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        I do appreciate this clarification. Granted it wasn’t my intent, as I was more focused on modern history.

        But hey, learn something new every day!

        • Akasazh@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          No I didn’t read that in your comment, but found it too interesting a tidbit not to share !

    • pyre@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      you’d think so, but boomers had it so good they hardly ever die. the amount of stress they left the newer generations while not giving a fuck themselves made them likely to outlast some millennials let alone xers.

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    I’m amused with all the people who think there’s some hard line where you have to be born before or after some exact year to be of a named generation as if this wasn’t all made up. A baby didn’t get labeled Gen-X if they were born after midnight on a certain day.

    As far as I’m concerned, she’s Gen-X. She was 13 when Star Wars came out.

    • razorwiregoatlick@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Maybe I am missing something but you do have to be born before or after some exact year to be of a named generation. That’s kind of the definition. Gen X is 1965 - 1980.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Dude, it’s all made up and there is no hard definition for the years of Gen X.

        I mean if you really want to be pedantic about it, the people we call Boomers these days are the original Gen X.

        The term Generation X has been used at various times to describe alienated youth. In the early 1950s, Hungarian photographer Robert Capa first used Generation X as the title for a photo-essay about young men and women growing up immediately following World War II. The term first appeared in print in a December 1952 issue of Holiday magazine announcing their upcoming publication of Capa’s photo-essay.

        Or maybe it’s people born in the 1950s and 1960s?

        The term acquired a modern application after the release of Generation X: Tales for an Accelerated Culture, a 1991 novel written by Canadian author Douglas Coupland; however, the definition used there is “born in the late 1950s and 1960s”, which is about ten years earlier than definitions that came later.[16][17][13][18] In 1987, Coupland had written a piece in Vancouver Magazine titled “Generation X” which was “the seed of what went on to become the book”.

        Or maybe it’s 1965-1980?

        In the U.S., the Pew Research Center, a non-partisan think-tank, delineates a Generation X period of 1965–1980 which has, albeit gradually, come to gain acceptance in academic circles.

        Or maybe it’s “Gen X is whatever we decide it is.”

        The Brookings Institution, another U.S. think-tank, sets the Gen X period as between 1965 and 1981.[31] The U.S. Federal Reserve Board uses 1965–1980 to define Gen X.[32] The U.S. Social Security Administration (SSA) defines the years for Gen X as between 1964 and 1979. The US Department of Defense (DoD), conversely, use dates 1965 to 1977.[33] In their 2002 book When Generations Collide, Lynne Lancaster and David Stillman use 1965 to 1980, while in 2012 authors Jain and Pant also used parameters of 1965 to 1980.[34] U.S. news outlets such as The New York Times[35][36] and The Washington Post[37] describe Generation X as people born between 1965 and 1980. Gallup,[38] Bloomberg,[39] Business Insider,[40] and Forbes[41][42] use 1965–1980. Time magazine states that Generation X is “roughly defined as anyone born between 1965 and 1980”.[43] George Masnick of the Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies puts this generation in the time-frame of 1965 to 1984, in order to satisfy the premise that boomers, Xers, and millennials “cover equal 20-year age spans”.[44]

        In Australia, the McCrindle Research Center uses 1965–1979.[45] In the UK, the Resolution Foundation think-tank defines Gen X as those born between 1966 and 1980.[46] PricewaterhouseCoopers, a multinational professional services network headquartered in London, describes Generation X employees as those born from 1965 to 1980.[47]

        But those are just think tanks. Surely other experts have a specific range, right?

        On the basis of the time it takes for a generation to mature, U.S. authors William Strauss and Neil Howe define Generation X as those born between 1961 and 1981 in their 1991 book titled Generations, and differentiate the cohort into an early and late wave.[48] Jeff Gordinier, in his 2008 book X Saves the World, include those born between 1961 and 1977 but possibly as late as 1980.[9] George Masnick of the Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies puts this generation in the time-frame of 1965 to 1984, in order to satisfy the premise that boomers, Xers, and millennials “cover equal 20-year age spans”.[44] In 2004, journalist J. Markert also acknowledged the 20-year increments but goes one step further and subdivides the generation into two 10-year cohorts with early and later members of the generation. The first begins in 1966 and ends in 1975 and the second begins in 1976 and ends in 1985; this thinking is applied to each generation (Silent, boomers, Gen X, millennials, etc.).[49]

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_X

        This isn’t science, it’s categorization based on pretty arbitrary stuff.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            I just showed you my point quite well. That there’s no agreed-upon definition of the term like you suggested. All I can think is that you read nothing I pasted.

            • razorwiregoatlick@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 months ago

              No, I didn’t suggest that. I asked for clarification because you said it amused you that people thought being born before or after some year made you part of a generation. That is literally the fucking definition! There are certainly different definitions of those generations but regardless they are all based on a person being born before or after a certain year.

              • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                2 months ago

                Your words:

                That’s kind of the definition. Gen X is 1965 - 1980.

                I showed you very clearly that it is one of many definitions of Gen X. Some of them apply to Harris.

    • Zoboomafoo@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      I agree. I think they do pop up every now and then, always for a cultural event. For example, I draw the line between Millennial and Gen Z at remembering 9/11.

    • tipicaldik@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      She’s Generation Jones. So am I (b. 1963)

      Damn, they even have her picture on the page 😆

      Generation Jones is noted for coming of age after a huge swath of their older siblings in the earlier portion of the Baby Boomer population; thus, many note that there was a paucity of resources and privileges available to them that were seemingly abundant to older Boomers. Therefore, there is a certain level of bitterness and “jonesing” for the level of doting and affluence granted to older Boomers but denied to them

      • EnderWiggin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        This reminds me of the Xennial generation that fell between X and Millennial. This also sort of shows how little we can really actually equate from these 20+ year generational spans. Really I am just happy she’s not old enough to collect SSI yet.

        • tigeruppercut@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          Hard cutoff dates for generations has always been a stupid concept. Imagine believing that an Xer born in 1980 has more in common with an Xer from '65 than a millennial from '82.

          • wjrii@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            Family context also plays a role. My wife and I are “officially” Xennials, born a year apart in the late 70s. I have a brother seven years older than me, and she was the first born. I skew way more Gen X than she does, to the point where she doesn’t see any point in describing herself as anything other than a Millennial.

            • bitwaba@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 months ago

              Yeah, I was born in 84 but I identify pop culture wise much closer to my step brothers that are 1.5 and 3.5 years older as Xennails than I would my millennial counterparts.

    • padge@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      I can’t tell if she looks young for her age, or if she looks super young compared to everyone else on stage wirh her

      • Catma@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Probably a combination of three things. First hate ages you terribly, example Laura Loomer, Alex Jones. Second she is a child compared to Biden/Trump. And third and finally as clichè as it is black dont crack

    • bitchkat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      The dates for these generations are not set in stone. Lots of organizations use 1965 to 1980 but the US SSA uses 1965 as the start.

      People born around the transition points are going to have more in common with each other than with people born earlier in the date range. Especially when you consider families having kids a few years apart but each is apparently a different “generation”.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_X#:~:text=U.S. news outlets such as,born between 1965 and 1980".

  • Boozilla@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Glad the boomers are on the way out. As a Gen X’er, not sure we care enough to take charge.

    • Rutty@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      As an aging millennial, I am surprised by how the process of time works.

      Like you spend your life acquiring skills and using your knowledge in an ever expanding cornucopia of experiences.

      Then followed by a gradual decline to be left only with your memories of who you once were. But then you realize you were only a small part of the existence of others, and ultimately the universe. Yep, the thought of faculties diminishing over time is enough to put the one into an extensional crisis.

      • Boozilla@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Yup. This is a wise time in your life to start your estate planning, medical directives, etc. Find yourself a good lawyer for this. I’m sure the cost varies by location and practice, but mine was only about $1,500 US.

          • wjrii@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            Millennials seem cool. They called bullshit on a lot of stuff that X just shrugged at and tried to slack our way around. I don’t usually know what Z is saying but they seem to at least have moved in a less overtly toxic direction, and they put weak but real taboos on stuff like bullying that no prior generation did.

            It’s all good. I’m gonna go let myself into the empty house and make a PB&J now.

        • Wytch@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          Watching helplessly for 40 or 50 years while your parents’ generation destroys everything will do that

  • sandbox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Generational cohorts are all just made up nonsense. It just exists to distract the working class from what we have in common with each other and what separates us from the working class. I, a millennial, have much more in common with a working class baby boomer, than I do with a rich and powerful millennial.

    Stop encouraging these artificial divides. Build solidarity across the working class of all ages. And stop playing into the media’s narratives.

    • spidermanchild@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      I think you’re conflating two different things. There are a variety of social factors that affect age cohorts differently, and a lot of that comes down to the experience during formative years. We are a product of our environment in many ways, and it’s not nonsense to study and opine on these shared experiences and how they shape us. Class solidarity is an entirely different subject. You likely do have more in common with your social class across generations, but that doesn’t mean you don’t have anything in common with wealthy millennials. I wouldn’t let lazy journalism own the concept of generations itself.

      • sandbox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        The lived experience of people differs as much, or more, within age cohorts, as it does between age cohorts. They are lazy and hasty generalisations, with very little benefit outside of garbage op-eds and zombie statistics.

        • Zoboomafoo@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          Do you often get your personal beliefs from garbage op-eds?

          If you would like to learn about generational cohorts from a higher quality source, I recommend The Fourth Turning, a rather prophetic book on generations.

          • sandbox@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            Oh, great, let’s swap garbage op-ed’s for garbage airport pop-science books. Why not recommend Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus, next? Or maybe Rich Dad, Poor Dad?

            Some lovely reviews about The Fourth Turning:

            many academic historians dismiss the book as about as scientific as astrology

            cyclical theories tend to end up in the Sargasso Sea of pseudoscience, circling endlessly (what else?). *The Fourth Turning is no exception.

            their predictions about the American future turn out to be as vague as those of fortune cookies

            as woolly as a newspaper horoscope

            • Zoboomafoo@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 months ago

              I haven’t read those books, so I don’t have an opinion on them. You haven’t read The Fourth Turning, so maybe you shouldn’t be so set on your opinion of the book.

    • Halcyon@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Yep, it’s similar to Astrology where certain psychological characteristics are attributed to the signs of the zodiac.