4 ms·

Generations are a bullshit idea from the marketing/advertisement cesspool to give themselves makework. The idea that demographic trends are descrete or have som

Generations are a bullshit idea from the marketing/advertisement cesspool to give themselves makework. The idea that demographic trends are descrete or have some sort of constant period is ludicrous, but this stuff has so pervaded pseudo-intellectional relms of media that, yes, real scientists at the real US government have stooped to using them. Are they the original "fake news"? *I should point out that the "boomers" are real insofar that birthrates did rise and fall. The rest is bullshit. There's no "boomlet" caused by them. "Greatest" is more senial Regan shit still haunting us. X, Y, is being too lazy to even find a bullshit name, and millennial is believing that the way we count years somehow matters—actually probably does in a bunch of ways completely unrelated to the things marketing cares about.

dnautics 8y ago
Before you call gen x a bullshit name, I suggest you look up its origin.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> Generations are a bullshit idea from the marketing/advertisement cesspool to give themselves makework No that's not where they originated from. > The idea that demographic trends are descrete or have some sort of constant period is ludicrous Named generations don't have a constant period. (They tend to run between about 12 and 25 years.) > I should point out that the "boomers" are real insofar that birthrates did rise and fall. True. > There's no "boomlet" caused by them. Without attributing what caused it, there was a continuous nearly monotonic decline in US birthrates from the peak of the Baby Boom in 1954 through 1976 (Gen X is usually tagged as ending between 76 and 80, then a run up to a peak in 1990, followed by a drop back to the 1976 low in 1995, hovering around that point or slightly under through the end of the millennium, where it started dropping again. The Millennial/Gen Y group does correspond to a boomlet.
- Ericson2314 8y ago
  > 12 and 25 years Still a low spread. No overlap is also weird, insofar that generations are supposed to be real phenomena and not just an arbitrary division. > No that's not where they originated from. How much does their current incarnation owe to whatever came before? > The Millennial/Gen Y group does correspond to a boomlet. You need to look at that children/potential mother rate. Constant means pure echo. Secondary crest further either shows we have more mothers and they mimick their own mothers in having more kids, a true cultural inheritance, or it shows that there is enough variation in maternity age that generations are sufficiently convolved such that no 1 generation begets the next. Those two can maybe be teased apart by combining the per-whole-population and per-potential-mother rates to get the mothering/potential mother rate. Has anyone actually done any of these statistics?
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > No overlap is also weird Several generation labels have overlap (recently, the “Xennial” group overlapping Gen X and Millennials is an example), and the boundaries are recognized as fuzzy, anyway. > You need to look at that children/potential mother rate. For what end? The boomlet absolutely occurred (the attribution of it as an echo boom is occasionally made, but isn't really signficant or essential.)

dnautics 8y ago

Before you call gen x a bullshit name, I suggest you look up its origin.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> Generations are a bullshit idea from the marketing/advertisement cesspool to give themselves makework No that's not where they originated from. > The idea that demographic trends are descrete or have some sort of constant period is ludicrous Named generations don't have a constant period. (They tend to run between about 12 and 25 years.) > I should point out that the "boomers" are real insofar that birthrates did rise and fall. True. > There's no "boomlet" caused by them. Without attributing what caused it, there was a continuous nearly monotonic decline in US birthrates from the peak of the Baby Boom in 1954 through 1976 (Gen X is usually tagged as ending between 76 and 80, then a run up to a peak in 1990, followed by a drop back to the 1976 low in 1995, hovering around that point or slightly under through the end of the millennium, where it started dropping again. The Millennial/Gen Y group does correspond to a boomlet.

Ericson2314 8y ago
> 12 and 25 years Still a low spread. No overlap is also weird, insofar that generations are supposed to be real phenomena and not just an arbitrary division. > No that's not where they originated from. How much does their current incarnation owe to whatever came before? > The Millennial/Gen Y group does correspond to a boomlet. You need to look at that children/potential mother rate. Constant means pure echo. Secondary crest further either shows we have more mothers and they mimick their own mothers in having more kids, a true cultural inheritance, or it shows that there is enough variation in maternity age that generations are sufficiently convolved such that no 1 generation begets the next. Those two can maybe be teased apart by combining the per-whole-population and per-potential-mother rates to get the mothering/potential mother rate. Has anyone actually done any of these statistics?
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > No overlap is also weird Several generation labels have overlap (recently, the “Xennial” group overlapping Gen X and Millennials is an example), and the boundaries are recognized as fuzzy, anyway. > You need to look at that children/potential mother rate. For what end? The boomlet absolutely occurred (the attribution of it as an echo boom is occasionally made, but isn't really signficant or essential.)