Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm lost! I hear the term "baby boomer" or talk about the "baby boomer generation" every so often. But I haven't paid much attention to it or the other generational categories...I've seen a few posts where younger people seem to blame "baby boomers" for the state of the country today...I can't imagine blaming my grandparents or other "elders" in this fashion when I was younger!...Anyway how would you define and describe a typical "baby boomer?" Just curious...Thanks!
Officially, baby boomers include anyone born between 1946 and 1964. There's no typical, with any generation.
If you read Charles Murray's recent book Coming Apart, he makes a pretty compelling case that boomers are indeed responsible for 'the state of the country.' Charles Murray was born before 1946, so he's not younger people. And it's hard to say the country isn't far worse off now than it was 50 years ago, sort of implicates boomers no? And I'm a boomer myself. FWIW...
I have to say having lived thru the 50 eyars ago that it was good for some and terrible for others. Perhaps Boomers brought about the real freedom of mnay lacking thru greed and corrution since the civil war. Actually discrimnatio was the offical policy of the governaqmnt until mid 60's and Boomers had a voice.Bomers also broguth about a better standard of retirement for their parents and gran aprnets by their support thru paying SS tax in huge amounts.I was raised amoung the greatest generation and they would be shocked at individual actions now but certainly preached very day on the evils they saw around them in politcal corruption and good ole boys systems that dominated then.No genration is perfect and looking at the 20's shows a similarity to the 60's but boomers like those in the 20's grewout of the youth thinking.My aprnets died i the 80's and knew they died i a much mroe just world.If this authro thinks that the pre =60's was great then he was of the god ole boys and liked corruption and keepig the middle class and below i line much as i the past a pout ancestors where.I thni lokig at my raisng in the 50's and early 60's was great but I now know what my parents who shielded me were talking about.
There's no such thing. It's a stereotype applied to a huge group of people, many of whom have very little in common.
I was just about to post the same thing. It was a term created by the media and it stuck to define a large group of people. I don't think it would be accurate to say there is actually a defintion of baby boomers other than reference to people who happened to be born within a certain time period.
The actual demographic phenomenon known as "the baby boom" was when each birth cohort was larger than the one previous. This was from 1946 to, I think, 1957 (or 1960?) After that, each cohort was smaller. This 18-year "generation" moniker is pure marketing drivel.
That said, I was born in 1953 but think that whatever was going on when one is late teens/early 20s had a huge impact on your growing-up experience. However, it also depends on where you lived and what info you had. For instance, I think I got a good tailend of "the 60's" because I lived in a sophisticated suburb near a big city. If I'd been in a mill town in central PA, or something, I'd have a very different background to my formative years (I consider teens to be very formative).
If you take 1946-1964 as a related group, you could have the newborn children in 1964 whose parents were born in 1946. It's all marketing, I tell you.
The actual demographic phenomenon known as "the baby boom" was when each birth cohort was larger than the one previous. This was from 1946 to, I think, 1957 (or 1960?) After that, each cohort was smaller. This 18-year "generation" moniker is pure marketing drivel.
That said, I was born in 1953 but think that whatever was going on when one is late teens/early 20s had a huge impact on your growing-up experience. However, it also depends on where you lived and what info you had. For instance, I think I got a good tailend of "the 60's" because I lived in a sophisticated suburb near a big city. If I'd been in a mill town in central PA, or something, I'd have a very different background to my formative years (I consider teens to be very formative).
If you take 1946-1964 as a related group, you could have the newborn children in 1964 whose parents were born in 1946. It's all marketing, I tell you.
About the "materialistic" thing........
If a person (or couple) own a nice home w/nice furnishings in a nice area, a nice vehicle, go on a cruise once in awhile, go out to dinner at nice restaurants or have a nice motorhome and/or boat.....some people classify them as "materialistic people". Have a nice pool at that home and that "materialistic" thing goes up higher.
Back in the mid 60's, my uncle owned a nice ski boat, of which could be classified as a "materialistic" thing by some folks. We have a nice 20' power boat, but that sure doesn't mean we are "materialistic"........we just happen to have the money to buy a boat and did it.
As for myself, I wasn't raised with "materialistic" stuff at all. One birthday I got a Daisy BB Gun and I acted like I was given a million bucks! Another birthday back then I got a transistor radio and felt the same way. My step-parents didn't have too much money, but Christmas's were always nice. After graduation and the Navy, I spent quite a few years (to long) in a lower-paying career that meant I couldn't have some things that I really wanted. After I met my wife, I got lucky and found a good paying job (best one I'd ever had) and we got some nice things and had some very cool vacations. Even though I wasn't raised around "materialistic" things, to be able to have some "materialistic" things later in life (now) sure is nice!
Last edited by BabyBoomers2; 04-05-2012 at 08:49 AM..
LoveBoating...Good post! Thanks! I don't think we have to stay at the poverty-level or live like a monk or nun to prove that we're not materialistic!...I view it more as a mind-set. Some people do become "social-climbers." And they define "who they are" by what they "own" or where they live or work etc...People like this place a high priority on following all of the latest trends and "looking cool" and staying "in" with the "in-crowd" etc...And they often go in debt and spend a fortune when it comes to "upgrades" and non-stop remodeling and buying all of the latest designer clothes and accessories etc...They have fears about appearing "outdated" or "obsolete." Have you noticed this?...Some of my relatives became "social climbers" when I was growing-up. "Status" and "image" became all and everything to them! And they didn't "hang-out" with the rest of us very often because we seemed too "low-brow" for their "tastes!" They entered new "social circles" where they "fit-in" better...We didn't want to become "status seekers." My parents and the rest of the family wanted to stay modest and humble and "down-to-earth." We didn't want to "put on airs" in other words. But this didn't mean that we never bought anything new!
LoveBoating...Good post! Thanks! I don't think we have to stay at the poverty-level or live like a monk or nun to prove that we're not materialistic!...I view it more as a mind-set. Some people do become "social-climbers." And they define "who they are" by what they "own" or where they live or work etc...People like this place a high priority on following all of the latest trends and "looking cool" and staying "in" with the "in-crowd" etc...And they often go in debt and spend a fortune when it comes to "upgrades" and non-stop remodeling and buying all of the latest designer clothes and accessories etc...
My POV is more like CAZ. Materialistic is relative depending on your income or net worth, it's not anything above spending $X/yr. Anyone who lives below their means seems by definition less materialistic. Arguably Warren Buffett isn't materialistic, he doesn't spend ostentatiously at all and reportedly will give away much of his fortune. Anyone with an above average income who spends everything they have (or more, going into debt) on "things" is probably materialistic, unfortunately Western culture seems to encourage excessive consumption, notably in the USA.
The most important things in life aren't things. I'd rather have money than most things...YMMV
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
