Talk:Baby boomers

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Baby boomers article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3: 90 days

History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Culture Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CultureWikipedia:WikiProject CultureTemplate:WikiProject Cultureculture articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sociology Mid‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Statistics Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Statistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of statistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.StatisticsWikipedia:WikiProject StatisticsTemplate:WikiProject StatisticsStatistics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Demographics (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Demographics, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.DemographicsWikipedia:WikiProject DemographicsTemplate:WikiProject DemographicsDemographics articles

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2022 and 6 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Walkman316 (article contribs).

On 14 March 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved to Boomers. The result of the discussion was not moved.

Generational Conflict, and Legacy with regards to climate-change

With climate change at hand, it's more and more important to highlight the somewhat permanent and disproportionate greenhouse gas impact this generation has had. Perhaps under legacy or with discussions of it in several places — for example, with regards to the political views, especially as they've aged. Nandofan (talk) 05:11, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Too soon. And besides, even if you actually lived in an environmentally conscious world, whether or not people actually care is a different story. For example, some pollsters tell us Generation Z care a great deal about the environment, yet sales numbers show they love "fast fashion" delivered to their doors. Similarly, back in the 2000s and 2010s, Millennials apparently abandoned car-culture, only to catch up with their elders as time went by. It was not because of concerns about climate change, but cost. Nerd271 (talk) 14:29, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find sources about it, I think this is a good thing to include. The economic behaviors of generations are largely irrelevant to legacy. BappleBusiness^[talk] 19:13, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BappleBusiness: You might want to reconsider this one. If environment impacts are deemed significant, then economic behaviors actually matter. How else would a demographic cohort affect the environment? Nerd271 (talk) 22:14, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I'm not saying that individual economic behaviors aren't significant to environmental impacts - they absolutely are. Although it is important to keep in mind that individual choices are not the only factor; governments have enabled the economic behaviors causing climate change, and baby boomers have dominated positions of power for the past few decades. What I was saying is that if there is a significant conception of baby boomers as causing climate change, it may be worthy to include, regardless of their actual impact (but of course we wouldn't reproduce falsehoods, we would provide supplementary information if their actual impact does not align with the popular conception). BappleBusiness^[talk] 19:07, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I think it would add a lot of important and relevant contemporary context. Collecting some resources.

[1]https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/baby-boomers-greenhouse-gas-emissions-b2043755.html

[2]https://www.theguardian.com/books/2010/feb/07/the-pinch-david-willetts

[3]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIxvX_8Gr3U

[4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuXzvjBYW8A

[5]https://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/bitstream/handle/document/62008/ssoar-igjr-2010-1-rez-schwarzberg.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y&lnkname=ssoar-igjr-2010-1-rez-schwarzberg.pdf

[6]https://www.jstor.org/stable/25749231

I'm hoping Willet's criticisms could perhaps form the bases for wider discussion within the article with regards to whether such a generational conflict exists, and to what extent, while linking to other relevant topics within wikipedia.

- Nandofan (talk) 18:25, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This seems a weirdly specific tangent to me. What is the special link that boomers in particular have to the climate change issue? Why is that issue any more relevant to their generation than it is to other groups? The article can't cover every possible attitude toward every existent subject, so why pick so random a topic to comment on? It gives a false impression of correlation where there is none. JBrownIII (talk) 19:59, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because they've had an enormous impact on total emissions and have set many of the policy directions leading to further climate deterioration and the institutionalized momentum keeping us from changing course. I've referenced some materials that shows what the link is and it is definitely noteworthy. That's not to mention that the article discusses all sorts of things with regards to boomers. There shouldn't be such surprise at the suggestion that a crucial, all encompassing, enormously important issue like climate change be discussed as well. After all, the article very much is discussing the emergence, importance, and various impacts of this particular generation. What else is the article if not that? It's very much the type of thing that gets included in a comprehensive encyclopedia entry. Nandofan (talk) 04:28, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1965?

can the year 1965 be very last demographic cohort of baby boomer? 2404:8000:1027:B639:DDA6:3ACB:E0D9:33AE (talk) 05:14, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, the last year of Generation Jones for sure but not the last Baby Boomer year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B026:BDAA:5D54:D2C5:3808:F8C5 (talk) 23:11, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't there be sources cited for the graphs? Not having any implies that there is some kind of consensus for the numbers involved, which of course there isn't. So I think the graphs should be labeled with whatever group or individual created them. JBrownIII (talk) 19:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See the Wikimedia pages for the graphs. Nerd271 (talk) 20:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That in no way addresses my question. JBrownIII (talk) 04:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which graphs? Dan Bloch (talk) 06:31, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Like Danbloch said, which graphs? Again, you can always check the Wikimedia pages for any image. Just click on them. Nerd271 (talk) 12:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We should probably challenge and define, again, what "baby boom" actually means

Defining generations by the year they were born is pretty silly, but so is astrology and there you go.

I think it's time to revise the timeline a bit. Boomers may feel a bit unloved in this but that's not the point being made. the point is that people born in 1946 had a very different experience than Generation Jones who were actually born during major social unrest, societal stressors both political and economic throughout their teens and young adult lives. Their experience was completely different.

"Baby Boomer" Generation: 1946-1954 1) People tend to agree that the Baby Boomer timeline begins in 1946 when the US birth rate spiked from 20.4% in 1945 up to 26.6% by 1947.

2) After WWII men and women returned home to start families, the war was over. This was a time of national pride, parades, and getting busy at home. This period carried on for almost 8 years through the Korean Conflict (1950-1953) and was a distinct period up until 1954 when two things happened. a) We realized we weren't invincible at war and that not all was roses and parades at home. b) When the Supreme court ruled on Brown versus Board of Education and civil society started to tangle with each other over how we treat each other in this country, the mood had changed across the US.

By 1954 the changing times were now bold headlines, and the US was transitioning as a society with big generational change. By 1954 the birthrate declined from the boom of 26.6% down to 25% and held there for several years there after only to decline further over time. Enter the next generation:

"Generation Jones": 1955-1964 3) Between 1956 and 1964 Generation Jones is either a distinct generation of its own, or it is a new branch of the Boomers. Gen Jones is the group that was born during major civil unrest in the US, they experienced as children and teens, assassinations, political unrest, social unrest, and a major division in the country. They aren't really part of the WWII boom because birthrates are dropping. The birthrate is slowly declining year over year during this period, and By 1964 the birth rate has declined almost to where it was just before the baby boom of 1946.

"Generation X": 1965-1980 Where is all of this concern coming from? Some would like to see the Gen X group start in 1961. Others say it starts in 1965 and try to cite all kinds of sources to prove that the dates are accurate. Of the Gen Xers that challenges the idea that 1965 is the start date, one idea that infrequently rises to the top is that the Boomer generation simply cannot be the Prince's, the George Michaels, the REM's, the U2's, or the Police's of their music collections. It may seem overly simplified as an argument, but it makes sense when you really look at how we have not only over looked Gen X, worse the Generation Jones was completely assimilated and all their efforts were claimed by the "Me Generation". Hmmm TraderJohn3000 (talk) 03:04, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]