Comments on: Gap is one of credibility

By: Alice

Alice — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 00:02:03 +0000

@melissa
Wholeheartedly agree melissa. Gen X, gen Y, gen Z, net gen, gen total confusion – is total crapola as you say..cheap little marketing ploy used to sell toys to kids and terms used as pat little scapegoats for ineffective governments to buckpass their responsibilities to maintain the economic health and the advancement of Australian people. In the same way the term “dole bludgers” was kicked off in the 1970s as Firth noted – stay tuned for some pollie real soon to announce Gen NWW – (no want work) – its coming to a newspaper near you soon.

By: melissa

melissa — Sat, 22 Aug 2009 10:51:35 +0000

It is absolutely the case that the generational nonsense is a fantastic way of concealing actual problems in areas such as employment. And of course it is being way over simplified as an analytical tool. Anyway, here is my own rant on the issue: http://godardsletterboxes.wordpress.com/2009/08/05/generation-nothing/

By: Monkey's Uncle

Monkey's Uncle — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 13:27:03 +0000

The thing about these generational arguments is that if you get beyond the cliches and simplistic generalisations, it is actually quite a fruitful area of research.

The problem with discussing generations over time spans that are close to 20 years in length is that it obscures a lot of more interesting microtrends. If you break people down into smaller groups (such as five year periods) there are actually much more significant and fascinating differences in beliefs among people.

It is disappointing that such a fruitful area of social inquiry has become so debased. I presume part of the reason for this is that anyone with a unique understanding of demographics and psychology could do a lot better for themselves consulting for business instead of tapping out newspaper columns. Newspapers are written primarily for the consumption of those who want their simple worldviews confirmed, rather than actually get to the bottom of things.

By: gerard

gerard — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 08:40:20 +0000

bollocks John, why am I always in moderation these days?

No idea. I’m afraid. Only WordPress knows for sure – JQ

By: gerard

gerard — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 08:36:25 +0000

The tyranny of the discrete mind. As if lines can be drawn separating one generation from the next.

OT, but speaking of the Fin, did anyone catch Latham’s ripping into Gillard today? It’s fine to write a hit-piece, but airing an old friend’s private correspondence in a national paper? that’s low!

By: veltyen

veltyen — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 01:41:08 +0000

The ABS is a site worth fossicking through at the best of times, though I am sure that I’m not telling anyone anything new.

The “Baby Boom” Lasted from 1944 (before the end of the war, which is interesting in its own right) until 1974 – during this time fertility was relatively constant at around 3.

In 1972 to 1977 (1977 was the last year at fertility 2 – every year since then has been lower) there was an obvious linear drop to the current rate which oscillates around 1.9, just below replacement. Again relatively constant. This drop matches the rise in unemployment from 5% (1975 and later).

The obvious solution is that there are two generations – The boomers born between 1945 and 1975, and genX between 1975 and 2005.

By: Alice

Alice — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 01:23:32 +0000

@smiths
Unfortunately the gen naming blaming and shaming game is used to maximum benefit by advertisers and politicians. So the gens X,Y,Z,and so on ad nauseum can be used to plug kids into expensive aparatus. Key marketing strategies….identify the target market,play on their developing fragile senses of “belonging” and self confidence – so necessary for teenagers = “oh MUM – everyone else has got an ipod, a mobile, a whatever…..” Unfortunately and sadly, the gen game then is used by firms to further commercialise andn indoctrinate youth and politicians to paper over their own shortcomings…not enough emmployment? Well – its because this gen doesnt really want to work, they are so picky etc.
A nice little earner the generation game…
Thats why the gens labels get changed so often PM, not because Im a grumpy older gen indulging in conscious irony or because people once reproduced younger and were shorter …… based on that the real gens are longer than 20 years now..yet a new one pops up in ad land every five years or so now.
I would suggest ad land should really start using the term gen X, subgen X1 etc to correctly define the target market for each new product launch.

By: our man in Canberra

our man in Canberra — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 00:42:06 +0000

Could someone please see to it that Bernard Salt reads this post…

By: smiths

smiths — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 00:39:32 +0000

its all very well to say that generational comments have always existed and this lot are no different to any other,

but no generation of children has grown up as commercialised and brainwashed as this generation,
in western countries their exposure to sex and violence is more pervasive and warped than any other in recent times,
and it is linked to ‘cool’ and the new value system of dog eat dog and get rich at any cost,

i dont think anyone who isnt currently raising a child between two and sixteen years old can possibly understand how pervasive and malicious the culture is

By: Alice

Alice — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 21:29:48 +0000

@P.M.Lawrence
I was just wondering what comes after gen Z – do we start again at gen AA…??