# Gen Z start date



## Willtip98

What is the best Gen Z start date in your opinion and why?


----------



## karlpalaka

2000, because they were the first full year to be born in a world with 6 billion people, the first to still be in secondary school after worldwide internet usage hit 50% and fortnite's release. They were the first to start primary after Hurricane Katrina, one of the most fatal Category 5 hurricanes. It is weird how so many people vote 1997 as the first. Well that is their opinion, and this is my opinion.


----------



## Blazkovitz

Greta Thunberg and the Parkland kids are good examples of a Civic generation, i.e. Millennials. They excel at using teamwork and rationality to solve practical problems like gun violence and climate change and bring on more security.

Remember that in the 90s Millennials were considered to have started in the 70s, later the date moved. Same thing will happen with the next generation. Eventually all generations end up lasting about 20 years. BTW this means gen Z and gen Alpha will eventually merge.

So we can posit:
the Postwar Cycle (Electronic Age)
1925-45 Silent
1945-65 Boomer
1965-85 Xer
1985-2005 Millennial

the Next Cycle (Interplanetary Age)
2005-25 Alpha
2025-45 Beta
2045-65 Gamma
2065-85 Delta


----------



## q543frodomar

Blazkovitz said:


> Greta Thunberg and the Parkland kids are good examples of a Civic generation, i.e. Millennials. They excel at using teamwork and rationality to solve practical problems like gun violence and climate change and bring on more security.
> 
> Remember that in the 90s Millennials were considered to have started in the 70s, later the date moved. Same thing will happen with the next generation. Eventually all generations end up lasting about 20 years. BTW this means gen Z and gen Alpha will eventually merge.
> 
> So we can posit:
> the Postwar Cycle (Electronic Age)
> 1925-45 Silent
> 1945-65 Boomer
> 1965-85 Xer
> 1985-2005 Millennial
> 
> the Next Cycle (Interplanetary Age)
> 2005-25 Alpha
> 2025-45 Beta
> 2045-65 Gamma
> 2065-85 Delta


2004 is not a Millennial, fuck they aren't even Early Z. They can't even drive in most states, how the hell are they Early Z?


----------



## exodus08

Blazkovitz said:


> Greta Thunberg and the Parkland kids are good examples of a Civic generation, i.e. Millennials. They excel at using teamwork and rationality to solve practical problems like gun violence and climate change and bring on more security.
> 
> Remember that in the 90s Millennials were considered to have started in the 70s, later the date moved. Same thing will happen with the next generation. Eventually all generations end up lasting about 20 years. BTW this means gen Z and gen Alpha will eventually merge.
> 
> So we can posit:
> the Postwar Cycle (Electronic Age)
> 1925-45 Silent
> 1945-65 Boomer
> 1965-85 Xer
> 1985-2005 Millennial
> 
> the Next Cycle (Interplanetary Age)
> 2005-25 Alpha
> 2025-45 Beta
> 2045-65 Gamma
> 2065-85 Delta


Millennials start in the early 80s, Gen z starts either in the mid or late 90s and Alpha starts either in the early or mid 2010s.


----------



## Blazkovitz

q543frodomar said:


> 2004 is not a Millennial, fuck they aren't even Early Z. They can't even drive in most states, how the hell are they Early Z?


They will be 30 and 40 some day, I see you didn't really read the post. It's about the future's perspective. 

Neil Howe, a renowned expert on generations, agrees with my definitions:
https://www.lifecourse.com/about/method/def/millennial-gen.html


----------



## Belzy

Willtip98 said:


> What is the best Gen Z start date in your opinion and why?


What makes Gen Z Gen Z?


----------



## q543frodomar

Blazkovitz said:


> They will be 30 and 40 some day, I see you didn't really read the post. It's about the future's perspective.
> 
> Neil Howe, a renowned expert on generations, agrees with my definitions:
> https://www.lifecourse.com/about/method/def/millennial-gen.html


That doesn't make 2004 Early Z. EVERYONE will be 30 eventually!

Neil Howe doesn't understand what he's saying. Nobody would agree that 2004 babies are Millennials. They're 100% Gen Z with no Y traits, like anyone born in 2003-2009.


----------



## karlpalaka

Blazkovitz said:


> They will be 30 and 40 some day, I see you didn't really read the post. It's about the future's perspective.
> 
> Neil Howe, a renowned expert on generations, agrees with my definitions:
> https://www.lifecourse.com/about/method/def/millennial-gen.html


If he is an expert, why does he have a repulsive definition for baby boomers?


----------



## karlpalaka

It is depressing how more than half of the people who voted voted for 1997. Also, why are 1992-1994 not included in the options? I mean I get that only a couple sources would start it before 1995, but still? 2000-2005 is early Gen Z to me.


----------



## karlpalaka

Blazkovitz said:


> Greta Thunberg and the Parkland kids are good examples of a Civic generation, i.e. Millennials. They excel at using teamwork and rationality to solve practical problems like gun violence and climate change and bring on more security.
> 
> Remember that in the 90s Millennials were considered to have started in the 70s, later the date moved. Same thing will happen with the next generation. Eventually all generations end up lasting about 20 years. BTW this means gen Z and gen Alpha will eventually merge.
> 
> So we can posit:
> the Postwar Cycle (Electronic Age)
> 1925-45 Silent
> 1945-65 Boomer
> 1965-85 Xer
> 1985-2005 Millennial
> 
> the Next Cycle (Interplanetary Age)
> 2005-25 Alpha
> 2025-45 Beta
> 2045-65 Gamma
> 2065-85 Delta


I go by this.

1920-1939: Silent
1940-1959: Boomer
1960-1979: X
1980-1999: Y
2000-2019: Z
2020-2039: Alpha


----------



## Blazkovitz

karlpalaka said:


> If he is an expert, why does he have a repulsive definition for baby boomers?


He is a boomer himself, and he is quite critical of his generation. It was the boomers who started normalizing drugs and launched the culture wars.


----------



## q543frodomar

karlpalaka said:


> It is depressing how more than half of the people who voted voted for 1997. Also, why are 1992-1994 not included in the options? I mean I get that only a couple sources would start it before 1995, but still? 2000-2005 is early Gen Z to me.


You have a problem with an opinion?


----------



## karlpalaka

q543frodomar said:


> You have a problem with an opinion?


Its funny actually. I was looking up sources that start Gen Z at 1998, and this is what I found. I saw a few saying 1998-2016 is Gen Z, and its weird how a few sources put 1977-1997 as millennials. 


1998-2016 Gen Z 
https://www.occstrategy.com/media/1806/a-generation-without-borders.pdf

1977-1997 Millennial
https://www.ibm.com/blogs/insights-...millennials-making-the-generation-gap-work-2/

Another thing thats funny is that you have a problem with my opinions that I see age 2 as the start of childhood and 1999 and 2000 as seperate generations. I keep laughing to myself every time I think about your comments.


----------



## karlpalaka

Blazkovitz said:


> He is a boomer himself, and he is quite critical of his generation. It was the boomers who started normalizing drugs and launched the culture wars.


Yep, I realized that from this video of Jason Dorsey, born 1978, who was acting high on drugs just to say millennials start in 1977 so that he could be with the younger crowd and of course, have one year older than him. He is a Gen X trying to say he is a full millennial. While he would fall under the xennial, (1977-1980)-(1983-1985), he is Gen X.


----------



## karlpalaka

Blazkovitz said:


> He is a boomer himself, and he is quite critical of his generation. It was the boomers who started normalizing drugs and launched the culture wars.


1943 is a terrible year to start the boomer generation anyways and 1960 is the worst year to end it. I think they should rename this whole generation and base it off actual experiences. For me, 1939, 1940,1945, and 1946 are the only sensible years to start it, with 1939 and 1940 being the WWII starting years and 1945 and 1946 being the WWII ending years. For ending year, I would see it best as 1959, since 1960 were all born after the world population hit 3 billion, the US received its 50th and final state, and after NASA's first space mission, Project Mercury, and they were the first to still be teenagers after the world's first cellular network.


----------



## karlpalaka

q543frodomar said:


> You have a problem with an opinion?


Trying picturing a person born in 1977 giving birth to a baby in 1994. According to Jason Dorsey, the 1994 baby would be in the same generation as its mom. Same with a 1946 born giving birth in 1964 to a baby. The 1964 born baby would be in the same generation as its mom. The boomer, who is the child of another boomer. The millennial, who is the child of another millennial. To be honest, generations are based off the hierarchy between you, your parents, your grandparents, your (x(great)) grandparents, your children, your grandchildren, and your (x(great)) grandchildren. These baby boomer, gen x, gen y, and gen z better describe birth groups, not actual generations.


----------



## q543frodomar

karlpalaka said:


> Its funny actually. I was looking up sources that start Gen Z at 1998, and this is what I found. I saw a few saying 1998-2016 is Gen Z, and its weird how a few sources put 1977-1997 as millennials.
> 
> 
> 1998-2016 Gen Z
> https://www.occstrategy.com/media/1806/a-generation-without-borders.pdf
> 
> 1977-1997 Millennial
> https://www.ibm.com/blogs/insights-...millennials-making-the-generation-gap-work-2/
> 
> Another thing thats funny is that you have a problem with my opinions that I see age 2 as the start of childhood and 1999 and 2000 as seperate generations. I keep laughing to myself every time I think about your comments.


I don't have a problem with you saying 1999 is Y and 2000 isn't. What I DO have a problem with is your completely stupid logic that they grew up differently, and that they had differences in childhood which is false.


----------



## karlpalaka

q543frodomar said:


> I don't have a problem with you saying 1999 is Y and 2000 isn't. What I DO have a problem with is your completely stupid logic that they grew up differently, and that they had differences in childhood which is false.


I think it would be more ridiculous to say that 1996 and 1997 grew up differently than 1999 and 2000. Michael69 would write a book about how 1996 and 1997 grew up completely difference as if everyone born before 1997 had great memory, but those born from 1997 onwards had terrible memory. 1999 (except late 99) well had their childhood in 9/11 while 2000 did not


----------



## q543frodomar

karlpalaka said:


> I think it would be more ridiculous to say that 1996 and 1997 grew up differently than 1999 and 2000. Michael69 would write a book about how 1996 and 1997 grew up completely difference as if everyone born before 1997 had great memory, but those born from 1997 onwards had terrible memory. 1999 (except late 99) well had their childhood in 9/11 while 2000 did not


You keep going on about age 2 being a "kid" age. Ask 100 people born in 1999. Now ask them if ANY of them remember 9/11.


----------

