Talk:Generation Jones
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Generation Jones article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Other names for Generation Jones
[edit]After seeing this edit, I searched for "Trailing-Edge Boomers" on Google, and a few other search engines. It has very little usage; much less than "Generation Jones". So I removed it for accuracy sake. -- 23:48, 11 June 2021 69.3.119.202
Generation Jones is still baby boomer.
[edit]Cusp years of Generation X and Baby Boomers - Generation Jones - Get off my lawn, it's better than yours! 2603:7000:B901:8500:F117:BC30:9BDE:FBC7 (talk) 15:29, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
- Tail-end baby boomers had different experiences from middle-of-the-bulge baby boomers -- they were in elementary school or junior high during the 1960s etc. etc. AnonMoos (talk) 07:28, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
- Your bulge is exaggerated, only 10 million of these baby boomers were born bettween 1940 and 1950. Most of the earnings of people having babies were in the years of 1979 to 1990. The birth numbers were slightly lower but there wasn't a ten year gap of babies being born like in the boomers case - exaggerated numbers. https://www.infoplease.com/us/population/live-births-and-birth-rates-year 2603:7000:B901:8500:845C:77C2:E3C0:C58F (talk) 01:08, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
- Generation Jones was sort-of seen as a compromise to moving early '60s births to Generation X. A sub-Generation was created to connect them to those born in the late '50s which they likely have things in common with. Either way Generation Jones is a sub-Generation and not a Generation of it's own.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B00A:CD93:71AA:8F9D:1307:F3C3 (talk) 05:39, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
- "Moving early '60s births to Generation X"? AFAICR, that was the original definition of Generation X!
- For one thing, that was what all the talk was about when Coupland's original novel of the same name came out. Can't recall if it was mentioned in the novel itself, or some collateral material like back-of-cover blurbs or interviews with the author, or whatever, but that was how the then-new concept was originally defined. For another, as I recall it back in 2008-09, the media were full of articles hailing Obama as "the first Gen-X President". He was born in, what, 1961? 62?
- So, whether there is a "Generation Jones" or not, if it is a sub-Generation of anything, it's of Generation X, not the Baby Boomers. And if it doesn't exist, then we're just plain Generation X-ers like the rest of them -- certainly not fucking Boomers.
- There is nothing to "move"; that's where those years have always belonged. At most, move them back to their proper place. -- CRConrad (talk) 18:41, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- The McJob generation. 64.194.162.43 (talk) 17:14, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Generation Jones was sort-of seen as a compromise to moving early '60s births to Generation X. A sub-Generation was created to connect them to those born in the late '50s which they likely have things in common with. Either way Generation Jones is a sub-Generation and not a Generation of it's own.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B00A:CD93:71AA:8F9D:1307:F3C3 (talk) 05:39, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
- Your bulge is exaggerated, only 10 million of these baby boomers were born bettween 1940 and 1950. Most of the earnings of people having babies were in the years of 1979 to 1990. The birth numbers were slightly lower but there wasn't a ten year gap of babies being born like in the boomers case - exaggerated numbers. https://www.infoplease.com/us/population/live-births-and-birth-rates-year 2603:7000:B901:8500:845C:77C2:E3C0:C58F (talk) 01:08, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
This article has gotten a ton of extra attention due to Harris trying to distance herself from the label Boomer
[edit]First off let's not let Bias color this discussion. And second of all for the record if we're including cusp and disputed generations there has never been a boomer president. Trump, Clinton, and Bush Jr would all be Swing Generation/Beatnik Generation/Schoomers(and in fact so would Biden who is super late Silent Generation) and Obama would also be with Harris even though he's usually considered a Boomer. You can be both part of the larger main generation and a smaller transitional generation.
I'd also like to note disagreements between earlier and later parts of a generation during times of great change are not unheard of. Most notably with Gen Z, the 1997-2004 section views themselves widely differently from the 2005-2012 section and often compare themselves more closely to their neighbors Millenials and Gen Alpha than eachother, so it's not something unique to Boomers. Zalpha and Zillenials exist too.
It's also notable that not all the cusp/transitional generations are spread equally. Sometimes they overlap a couple years on both sides and are cleanly fully transitional(Xillenials are usually split evenly between the final Gen X and first couple Millenial years, the dispute is mostly over when Millenial starts as it's been put anywhere from 78-81 over th years) and sometimes they lean mostly on one side(Zillenial is usually the last millenial year and then the first couple Gen Z years, Gen Jones is in a similar boat in reverse, mostly the last couple Boomer years plus the first Gen X year). 2604:3D09:1F7F:8B00:5974:B3D0:C74E:71D9 (talk) 17:37, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- This page is not a forum. Per WP:TALKNO, talk pages are only for discussions on how to improve the article, and that does NOT include doing original research (WP:OR) or giving ones personal musings about the subject. Marcus Markup (talk) 22:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- Do you have a cite for Kamala trying to distance herself from "Boomer"? Michaelmalak (talk) 23:15, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Generation Jones is clearly a Global Generation
[edit]Generation Jones is a global phenomenon, not just in the U.S. In fact, Gen Jones is better known and embraced more in some European countries than in the U.S. If you go to GenJones.net, you'll see many many examples of Gen Jones usage in other countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.80.7.2 (talk) 16:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- Gen Jones is obviously international. Here are just a few recent examples just from your part of the world:
- Long article about GJ in New Zealand publication from two months ago:
- https://www.waikatotimes.co.nz/nz-news/350445275/talkin-about-my-not-boomer-generation
- Article this year in Australian business magazine which points to Gen Jones as one of the top six trends of 2024:
- https://dynamicbusiness.com/sme/understanding-your-target-market-2024-trends-for-brands.html
- Thread on Twitter in past year started by iconic Australian musician Dave Graney, with many Australians enthusiastically embracing GJ. Graney has spoken and written about GJ literally dozens of times.
- https://x.com/davegraney/status/1737295280922636659
- Article in approximately last year by probably the most famous Australian economist (John Quiggin), who has written many times about his identification with GJ:
- https://les7duquebec.net/archives/289910
- Tweet by another top Australian economist (Nicki Hutley), who has expressed her identification with GJ several times: https://x.com/nickihutley/status/1485730040826728449
- Outside of your part of the world, GJ has become widely embraced by people and publications across the globe. Just a few recent examples:
- The New European:
- https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/joe-biden-bernie-sanders-age-in-amercian-politics/
- Long article this year about GJ in top publication in India:
- https://www.outlookindia.com/international/us/did-we-miss-out-on-generation-jones-a-microgeneration-that-bridges-boomers-gen-x
- Social media post about GJ this year from one of the most famous public figures (Tomás Jocelyn-Holt) in Chile, who has enthusiastically written about his membership in GJ many times:
- https://x.com/tjholt/status/1759788179236814952
- This is just a tiny fraction of the literally thousands of articles, soicla media posts, etc. etc. from many people and publications from many countries around the world. Spending only a few minutes on any search engine will show many such international results about GJ, especially in Europe, but also even in Africa and Asia. Gen Jones is not an American generation, it is an international generation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GlassLadyBug (talk • contribs) 16:12, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- How come this Australian of 76 years has never heard of it apart from here on Wikipedia? HiLo48 (talk) 01:24, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Gen Jones is definitely NOT a cusp generation
[edit]If you research Generation Jones, you find that it is almost always described as a distinct generation, NOT a cusp generation. Easily over 90% of articles and other reliable sources refer to Gen Jones as a generation. That there are a few rare, isolated examples of Gen Jones referred to as a cusp generation doesn’t change the clear and unequivocal fact that almost all experts, writers, sociologists, demographers, journalists, etc., etc., refer to Gen Jones as a distinct generation. I could list literally hundreds of articles here describing Gen Jones as a generation, while very few credible publications ever refer to it as a cusp generation. Here are just a few examples of major mainstream credible publications referring to Gen Jones as a generation. The word “cusp” doesn’t appear in any of these articles:
https://www.newsweek.com/boomers-might-generation-jones-1936495
https://www.upworthy.com/what-is-generation-jones-the-unique-qualities-of-the-not-quite-gen-xer
https://www.mcknightsseniorliving.com/home/columns/guest-columns/who-is-generation-jones/
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/10/17/opinion/essay-older-women-voters-kamala-harris/
https://www.politico.eu/article/generation-jones-and-the-new-era-in-global-leadership/
https://www.timesunion.com/opinion/article/Boomer-wants-to-hop-over-to-Gen-Jones-16006838.php
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/23/opinion/baby-boomers-trump.html
https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2024/07/the-lies-nostalgia-tells-us/679269/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by GlassLadyBug (talk • contribs) 22:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- The article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_boomers cites many references for 1946-1964. Of all the generational ranges, that one is the least controversial and really is the one from which all others use as a reference. Since "cusper" is controversial, the controversy and the differing opinions should be laid out in this article. Michaelmalak (talk) 23:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Actually, the 1946-1964 traditional baby boom birth years have become very controversial in recent years. Among the top experts, like sociologists who specialize in generations, those birth years are widely-discredited because they were based on birth rates. But generations stem from shared formative experiences, not head counts. No generation before or since the Boomers was ever based on birth rates. Most experts see gens now as approximately 10 to 15 years long. Most of these experts see Gen Jones (12 years, 1954-1965) as a bona fide distinct gen, but there are some in the media who see Gen Jones differently. In the lead paragraph of this article, it accurately explains the options: distinct gen, subset of Boomers, or micro/cusp gen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GlassLadyBug (talk • contribs) 21:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC)