I honestly don’t think that’s the case. Generational divides aren’t that strongly defined that they have a specific cutoff date and time, people don’t really agree on exact moments. Some people who were born after said cutoff are better described by the previous generation, and vice-versa. For example, if you go strictly by date of birth, by most definitions of the term, my father is a (very late) boomer, but his life experience is much more similar to what defined Gen X’ers.
Plus all that stuff Einstein went on about, curved space time and stuff.
For cusp people, it has more to do with what generation YOUR parents identify with the strictly your own birth date.
There’s certainly some interesting stuff to consider there. For instance, my wife and I are less than one year apart, but I have a brother seven years older than me, and she is the first born in her family. We’re both in between, kind of, but I have a lot more Gen X memories and experiences, while she has more Millennial ones.
Funny, my father was born to what was considered pretty old parents, for the time. But grandma in particular really wasn’t very representative of the Silent Generation lol
My wife would technically be Gen X while I’m a Millennial. We’re 6 years apart but there’s still a lot of overlap in life experiences.
The definition of these “generations” is arbitrary and subjective. The reality of the matter is no such person exists. So, I completely disagree.
Even if everyone in the world agreed that Gen Z is all people born between 1995 and 2010 (which would require you to be ignorant, naive, or just plain stupid), it ignores the reality of things like geography, culture, time zones, etc. Literally hundreds (if not thousands) of people could have been born at the exact same moment of time, but due to the magic of time zones, some would be Gen Z, others would not. That’s super arbitrary if you ask me.
So, it’s more like theoretically some person is the oldest member of Gen Z, for some given interpretation of what “Gen Z” means. But in practice, there’s no such thing. In some ways it’s like a mathematical limit. There’s no smallest number greater than 0, because you can always devise a smaller fraction. But, if you artificially and arbitrarily limit your resolution (let’s say to 1/10th), only then can you declare some number the smallest (ex: .1).
Total agreement. I was born in 96 yet grew up with a mega drive, a big bulky Compaq PC with roller coaster tycoon, tomb raider 3 or 4 and bugs bunny and taz time busters and a need for speed game all played with a joystick. maps being used, phone books, floppy disks, video tapes, cassettes and other things “90’s kids” would get yet my family didn’t have a lot of money so we had old stuff when I was young.
all these ‘generation’ labels are such hogwaash
IMHO, when taken simply as a group of people who have experienced a common set of cultural/societal defining events in their formative years, it’s a pretty useful generalization. For example I have no trouble believing literally born with the internet has had a significantly different effect on Zoomers than it had on us Millenials who learned to use it at the same time as our parents.
Or smart phones. Most people under 20 probably don’t remember the world without smart phones but I can remember 20 years without them.
This is my understanding too. Historically we refer to time periods where life was different. People in the 1500s lived differently than people in the 1800s. It’s mostly technological advances that separate time periods. There used to be large gaps of time before technological advances caused changes in society, but that isn’t the case anymore. The 1980s were much different than the 2010s. People who were born in those time periods have much different life experiences even if they’re close in age.
It kind of applied with the Baby Boomers because there really was an explosion in births after WW2 ended. The GIs came home and their sweethearts were ready to settle down and be Mommies.
But I agree; you can’t arbitrarily say that someone born Dec. 31, 1999 is different from someone born Jan 1, 2000.
It’s such a silly concept. This massive superstructure of division to replace the simple idea that “I have a lot in common with peers in my age cohort”.
As soon as somebody says “technically you are a member of generation___”, you can ignore them. Anyone who puts a generation label at the center of their identity probably doesn’t have a lot else going on.
Wait there is a hogwash generation now. I will never be able to keep up
Contemporary generation labels are the new astrology, categories that use vague Barnum statements that can apply to anyone. Generational labels applied in an historic context can provide new insights, but the more arbitrary the boundary for inclusion the more arbitrary the properties of the group and more likely to confirm bias than provide new ideas about common beliefs or characteristics within the group not experienced or shared by others.
This also depends on which definition is used, so there may be a first/oldest for each definition
It’s as useful as asking which is the first stone that’s part of Mount Everest. Some things are vague and do not have definite boundaries.
It’s likely someone born in Kiribati on Jan 1st in the year 2000. Given the small population of the island, it probably isn’t even too hard to find out.
Thing is these generation labels are not as common outside the US. I doubt they know or care.
deleted by creator
Only if someone was born in Kiribati in the first hour of Jan 1. According to Google in 2000 its population was only 89000 and its birth rate was 31 per 1000 people per year. That gives an average of one person being born every 3.18 hours. I’m not sure what the population of the countries in GMT+13 is, but I think they’re also a likely candidate.
