It’s all made up horse shit to draw lines between us. People don’t neatly fit into a line or graph and it’s really lame people keep repeating this crap.
It’s not some complicated plot to drive conflict… it’s literally just a metric that has turned out to be somewhat useful as we can talk about what major life events different generations experienced at what approximate age.
For example most Gen Y was a teen when 9/11 happened and most Gen X was a teen when the challenger explosion happened and most boomers were a teen when we landed on the moon
This kind of seems like a meaningless statistic without some more context (such as what % of US citizens were boomers, and what % of US citizens served in Vietnam). On its own, it doesn’t really say anything.
I think a more useful statistic would be the percent of people who served in Vietnam that were boomers.
It matters because if you are going to say that a defining factor of that generation is that they went to Vietnam when less than 1/25 people did it’s misleading. It’s like saying that a defining factor of millennials was being in nyc when the twin towers went down
A lot of boomers missed Vietnam as even in 1975 some boomers were only 11 years old
Those would be gen X.
Baby boomers are 1946-1964 Gen X is 1965-1980 Gen Y is 1981-1996 Gen Z is 1997-2012 Gen alpha is 2013- present
It’s all made up horse shit to draw lines between us. People don’t neatly fit into a line or graph and it’s really lame people keep repeating this crap.
It’s not some complicated plot to drive conflict… it’s literally just a metric that has turned out to be somewhat useful as we can talk about what major life events different generations experienced at what approximate age.
For example most Gen Y was a teen when 9/11 happened and most Gen X was a teen when the challenger explosion happened and most boomers were a teen when we landed on the moon
Those from the actual baby boom right after WW2 weren’t
Less than 4% of boomers served in Vietnam.
This kind of seems like a meaningless statistic without some more context (such as what % of US citizens were boomers, and what % of US citizens served in Vietnam). On its own, it doesn’t really say anything.
I think a more useful statistic would be the percent of people who served in Vietnam that were boomers.
It matters because if you are going to say that a defining factor of that generation is that they went to Vietnam when less than 1/25 people did it’s misleading. It’s like saying that a defining factor of millennials was being in nyc when the twin towers went down
Fair enough… I wasn’t the one who said that, and I do not agree. Vietnam itself was a defining factor of the generation, but not “going to Vietnam”