4 ms·

>> the parents of millennials (boomers) OI. The parents of the millenials are the X-gens mate. Sometimes known as the lost generation, or latch-key-kids etc.

>> the parents of millennials (boomers) OI. The parents of the millenials are the X-gens mate. Sometimes known as the lost generation, or latch-key-kids etc. The boomers are _our_ parents! And don't you forget it. Now, get off my lawn :)

fsckboy 4y ago
no, the millenials are a very large group because their parents were an even larger group, the boomers.
saghm 4y ago
> OI. The parents of the millennials are the X-gens mate. Usually, yes, but not always! I'm 29 (born in 1993), which I think is pretty clearly in the range of millennial (definitions vary, and I've seen cutoffs anywhere between 1994 and 1997, but I don't think anyone would put me in Gen Z by any reasonable stretch of the imagination). My parents were born in late 1958 and early 1959, which is probably not within the most common definition of boomer, but I've met other people my age with parents born a few years before mine. I don't think anyone would consider someone born in, say, 1955, to be Gen X, and having a kid at 39 in 1994 would have been somewhat unusual but not really that crazy (especially if the other parent happened to be a few years younger). If that still doesn't convince you, I don't think I have anything else I could say, but maybe reading this comic might provide a compelling argument: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EOdaSW2XUAE1Pxm?format=png&name=900x900 https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EOdaSW2XUAE1Pxm?format=png&name=...
neltnerb 4y ago
I am an old millennial (39), both of my parents are square in the middle of boomer, and had me when they were 23 (they are in their early 60s now, so born at the tail end of the boomers). Still, it's not like they had me at 35, they were 23 and still entirely skipped gen X. They'd could have been born even earlier and had me later in life without much risk. I get where you're coming from but I think maybe relax a bit there...

fsckboy 4y ago

no, the millenials are a very large group because their parents were an even larger group, the boomers.

saghm 4y ago

> OI. The parents of the millennials are the X-gens mate. Usually, yes, but not always! I'm 29 (born in 1993), which I think is pretty clearly in the range of millennial (definitions vary, and I've seen cutoffs anywhere between 1994 and 1997, but I don't think anyone would put me in Gen Z by any reasonable stretch of the imagination). My parents were born in late 1958 and early 1959, which is probably not within the most common definition of boomer, but I've met other people my age with parents born a few years before mine. I don't think anyone would consider someone born in, say, 1955, to be Gen X, and having a kid at 39 in 1994 would have been somewhat unusual but not really that crazy (especially if the other parent happened to be a few years younger). If that still doesn't convince you, I don't think I have anything else I could say, but maybe reading this comic might provide a compelling argument: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EOdaSW2XUAE1Pxm?format=png&name=900x900 https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EOdaSW2XUAE1Pxm?format=png&name=...

neltnerb 4y ago

I am an old millennial (39), both of my parents are square in the middle of boomer, and had me when they were 23 (they are in their early 60s now, so born at the tail end of the boomers). Still, it's not like they had me at 35, they were 23 and still entirely skipped gen X. They'd could have been born even earlier and had me later in life without much risk. I get where you're coming from but I think maybe relax a bit there...