Talk:Boomerang Generation

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Boomerang Generation 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

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): JessiWalls303.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ilanitsimonov. Peer reviewers: Brenda le11, Ajohnston97, ElizabethFritz.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

I am no expert, but it seems to me that the article has merit. I do think it should be specific in terms of the racial and ethnic breakdown in terms of who is effected. I believe that in many cultures in the world the younger, or unmarried child will stay home and care for the parents. As well parents will move in with older more established parents in their old age as opposed to the Western prevalence in placing the elderly in a third party home. I believe what the writer was trying to convey was the ever increasing occurrence of "White" Western (specifically North American) Gen-Xer's and Gen-Yer's ambivalence to either move out on their own for fear of failure or because of failure and that these particular generations (between 23 and 39) have been accustom to a certain way of life that may not be readily available in our current economic climate. As students graduate from college and as Gen-Xer's get older and so do their parents I think we may see an uptick in more "boomerang" persons. I believe more research needs to be done on this subject, but I also feel that there is definitely enough here to take it off the disputed list... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nonniechan (talk • contribs) 20:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:06, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Old talk

I would like to see more cultural context in relation to "boomeranging". It is hardly uncommon, nor has it been for generations, for adult children in black and Latino households in the U.S. to live at home for extended periods. Many of these homes are parented by single mothers due to early death of the father (I believe more common in black and brown families, but this would need stats to back it up) or divorce. That the practice is now affecting white families to a greater degree may be reflective of all the factors in the article, but it is culturally isolationist to imply that it is a new occurrance in developed countries, because in segments of the U.S. it decidedly is not. It would be worth examining if in integrated neighborhoods, it is more common for white adults to continue to live at home than it is in all-white neighborhoods. It would also be interesting to compare rural areas to urban and suburban areas. Another factor that should be explored is the greater need for higher education today. A college degree is much more necessary to even low-level jobs, and a masters degree is required for many. This neccessitates keeping ties to home longer. Lmonteros 15:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think your excellent observation about this term's connection with white households is in effect a comment on its middle-class-ness. I added a caveat to that effect to the introduction. If we *had* the kind of in-depth studies/comparisons you mention, I'd be all for referencing them, but in lieu of that does the caveat work for you?UserAccount001 01:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The caveat does help, and I notice the article is better researched and written than it was when I commented two years ago. However, observationally, I do see an ethnic component. My town is a predominantly middle-class suburb of 46,000, with a much higher percentage of blacks, Latinos, and Armenians than the U.S. or state averages. These middle-class families tend to be more multigenerational than white middle-class families; thus, I think it is more acceptable for white middle-class families to be multigenerational here.Lmonteros (talk) 03:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am part of this generation, and I think the explination is incorrect. Most of the people who move back with their parents move back because of either money, or the fact that that they were not sufficiently prepaired to live on their own. The fact is that it is much harded to get started in the 00s than it was in previous decades.

This is a very strange entry. People born during these particular five years consists of a generation due to one single trait? Anyway, I live in Sweden, but I agree that it seems harder to establish your own life now than it has been before. I only speak from my experience in Stockholm, but living/rent is expensive, jobs and apartments are hard to get by, and the competition is tough. 惑乱分からん 20:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The term is in general use because of the rough boundaries of this generation and the observation of unusual numbers of recent college graduates returning home. It does seem the term is unfortunate. Perhaps another term related to scarcity in times of wealth or some other common feature might work? Alternatives could stick if presented here. Just some thoughts from a former "twentysomething" back in the day. --M0llusk 00:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can people born in 1986 be considered part of this generation? They're only freshmen and sophomores in college, so by definition, they can't be boomerangers...

Most people born in 1986 would be starting their 3rd year in a 4-year college now, or would have just graduated with an associate degree from a 2-year college. I think they are included because of the latter possibility. Also, I think there is a consensus between the attitudes of a great chunk (at least) of people born in 1986 and the (apparent) 'defining' attribute of this generation regarding living with one's parents after being on your own for a few years. I, along with most of my friends were born in 1986, and there is generally lacking any stigma that was once associated in American culture with living at home after you graduate. There tends to be a feeling that returning home after school (or never leaving in the first place) is financially, as well as emotionally a good idea. So, I think perhaps a few more years will be added yet to the boundaries of this generation, as more people graduate and fit into this generation's 'definition' (also, the span of this generation is pretty small).--D izzygirl 22:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and think that perhaps it could be extended to a lot of today's college students who will return home after college or stay at home during college. It seems that this is happening a lot. shijeru 22:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have some friends who did not go to college right out of high school, moved in with their parents later, and got their bachelors degree a couple years later than most people do. Not everyone gets a bachelors degree. Some people only get an associates and other go for the doctorate. One could boomerang at any time, regardless of getting a degree or not. I have another friend who went to school for six years to get his bachelors degree and then moved back in with his family, so the classical four-year degree does not always fit into a model. Even someone who left home for a good job but then was later laid off due to the economic problems could boomerang back to their family. To stray from the topic just a little, Gauss and Weinberg, a couple of software engineers, have coined the idea about how a "map" is a way for people involved in a discussion to understand the terrain. They got it from the Swedish Army, "When the map and the territory don't agree, always believe he territory." The ideas change and sometimes the name changes also. In this case, this is me having a discussion about the "map" to bring everyone up to speed. For now I think "The Boomerang Generation" is a perfectly good name for the early 1980s to mid 1990s generation. But that might change. Trakon (talk) 17:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

<shehn> I was born in '80, graduated from undergrad in '02, and we were already headlong into the recession (minor depression?) that began probably in early '01. My suggestion would be to move these years slightly back, so that the entry reads '1978-1984', at least for now. But even though the middle class contributes to shrink as a demographic percentile of all American households, it's hard to argue that we're still in a recession. So - depending on how we are defining 'Boomerang Generation', it could either be crisply and permanently terminated around '84, or it could continue indefinitely until the Baby Boomers cease to comprise the bulk of the middle class - which could be another 10-20 years with progressively later retirement ages and continued public health improvements. </shehn>

Please don't add citation needed markers where they're not needed. There's plenty of evidence to support the claims made in this article -- and a plethora of citations have now been provided to back up these claims. Three different citation needed markers in a single sentence seems a bit execessive. Sometimes I get the feeling people add citation needed markers just to cast doubt upon statements they believe are detrimental to favored political powers. We're here to write an encyclopedia -- not help one political party look better than another. The fact that there have been periodic economic downturns affecting some generations should not be questioned just because it might make somebody's given politics look bad. Plenty of evidence backs up the statements made in this article. Some negative economic factors affected the Boomerang Generation. If you have something to add, please feel free to add it (and cite your sources). That's much more helpful and constructive than just casting doubts on two or three statements per sentence in an effort to make the whole article appear biased and suspect. Thanks! 66.17.118.207 14:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to add that the boomerangers are called 'Generation Internship' (Generation Praktikum) in Germany and `Generation in danger' (génération précaire) in France. So it seems to be an international phenomenon. (Joerg Tremmel)

I think the article overemphasizes the impact of "outsourcing." All the references given for this statement are from the media, and studies referenced in the linked articles (if they reference hard data at all) cite numbers like 45k to 400k jobs lost to outsourcing in a 3 month period. Bureau of Labor Statistics reports gross private-sector job losses and gains to be on the order of 6 to 9 million per quarter between '96 and '06. 6% or so of job losses loosely attributable to outsourcing is hardly a staggering statistic. DirectEON 07:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definition

I see no evidence for the definition of the term at all. DGG (talk) 06:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If none is forthcoming, the article should be deleted. DGG (talk) 17:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

alternatively, if the topic is interesting--and probably it is--perhaps there is a better title--one that does not represent the work of a isolated fringe theory?

This article should stay. I can vouch that the term boomerang children for example is used relatively widely in the studies of the sociology of the family ([1]), but boomerang generation is also quite popular. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

deletion of support/opposition sections

The deletion of these sections was summarized as "cleanup"; this is not an adequate justification for major deletion. It is true that the sections were tagged "unreferenced", but this itself was questionable. It is common practice for Wikipedia entries to contain editorialization in addition to factual reporting. The sections in question do not make eggregious claims; or if they do those claims should be challenged individually. —Preceding unsigned comment added by UserAccount001 (talk • contribs) 01:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC) The new additions to the opposition do indeed make egregious claims and seem to have no relevance to the subject. Suckling at the maternal teet? Offering financial advice? Rather peculiar. 24.80.225.189 (talk) 06:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By region

I recall reading somewhere that Boomeranging is more popular in Europe and Asia than in USA. We need a discussion of that phenomenon by regions and countries... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can a more experienced editor please nominate this for deletion

This article should be deleted I believe. Thank you, --68.9.117.21 (talk) 19:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please give a rationale why. I cannot list it on WP:AFD without some reason. —Bill Price^{(notyourbroom)} 19:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the term docent seem to have any reliable sources that mention the term. It reads like original research.--68.9.117.21 (talk) 02:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

see here —Bill Price^{(notyourbroom)} 02:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

are any of those in the article? Maybe some could be used in the lead to improve the article?--68.9.117.21 (talk) 02:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like it is mostly about empty nest syndrome?--68.9.117.21 (talk) 02:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Boomerang (PSF).jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Boomerang (PSF).jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012

What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 03:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I vote to delete and redirect the link to Generation Y. Personally I don't know anyone who strictly uses the terms Gen-Y, Boomerang, The Why Nots, Millennial, etc. They all sound trivial compared to some better ideas I have floating around in my own head... But I can say that it would make more sense to have them all located in a single location. Gen_y looks like the better article. --Trakon (talk) 17:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cohabitate

The word "cohabitate", at least in American usage, denotes a type of sexual relationship. This isn't a connotation, it's part of the meaning of the word. The American Oxford dictionary lists the definition as "live together and have a sexual relationship without being married" -- and lists no other definition.

So it is kind of horrifying to read about children cohabitating with their parents.

"Living together" is the better alternative, since it actually means what it's supposed to, and it's easier to read, too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.227.219.18 (talk) 10:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 09:41, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removed merge template

I've removed the merge template, placed in January 2012, that proposed merging into Generation Y. There has been no discussion either here or on that article's talk page. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 00:19, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Boomerang Generation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:37, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adding student loan debt as a contributing factor.

Hello, I am a student studying demography and have been assigned to edit/contribute to this article, so I have chosen to add student loan debt as a contributing factor to the boomerang generation and why so many people in their 20's and 30's are living with their parents after college. I hope this is the appropriate method to alert the other editors of this page of my intentions. Thanks! JessiWalls303 (talk) 21:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edits

Hello again everyone!

I hope those of you who originally contributed to this article don't mind that I restructured and reworded a few things to improve the flow. Also, I wanted to add a little bit about the potential financial benefits to the parents of boomer angers in an attempt to keep the opinion neutral. I think we can all agree that this is an ever changing subject, and one we can frequently contribute new information to!

JessiWalls303 (talk) 05:27, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ideas for improvement in this article

-There is stigma behind students living with their parents after college-they move out when they are not ready (financially and mentally)-Once they finish college they realize they can't make it on their own with all the piled loans and debt -Go into stats about race and gender of boomerangers -Unemployment rates for those who move in after college vs. employment rates -Education level- different types of education can impact the jobs you are accessible to after college -Different classes can affect the boomerang percentage

Potential sources that can be used:

http://www.nacadajournal.org/doi/pdf/10.12930/NACADA-13-101 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13524-013-0247-8 http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2012/03/15/the-boomerang-generation/

Ilanitsimonov (talk) 03:27, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review

· Some of the sentences added were not fluent. They're not complete or commas need to be added. · This article was a bit difficult to follow because it did not flow very well. There are also parts added that seem off topic. · Overall, the contributions to this article were great, just need a little more revision! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArianaDelgadillo22 (talk • contribs) 00:45, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]