What is a "Millennial?" By Gary Rea
In the field of demographics, there have historically been several terms, or labels, used to describe populations born during particular periods of time. I am considered to be a "Boomer," myself, for example, as I was born in 1952, during the post-WWII baby boom that occurred between 1946 and 1964. The children of the Boomers are known as "Generation X," primarily because there was no easy way to describe them. "Boomer" is fairly straightforward and easily understood, as it is based upon the period during which the largest generation in human history (to that date) occurred, but "Generation X" isn't as easily defined - or is it? As I shall show, this alleged "problem" of calculating when Generation X and Generation Y (the so-called "Millennials") began and ended isn't really so problematic at all, if one understands how to calculate the length of human generations. As an "amateur" genealogist (not that genealogy is a profession) since 1984, I have often used a rule of thumb which is used to establish whether or not two individuals may have been either a parent or child to each other when the birth year of both are known, but a relationship hasn't yet been firmly established. This is called the "24 year rule of thumb," or sometimes, the "25 year rule of thumb," and is based upon the historical fact that, on the whole, people tend to have their first child when they are about 24 or 25 years old. Being a rule of thumb, it is inexact and there are always exceptions, but it still has applicability, as I shall demonstrate. Even if we acknowledge the growth of teen pregnancy over the last 40 or more years, the fact remains that, for most people, there is a fairly consistent norm in when they begin to have children. If we are to understand who is and who is not a so-called "Millennial," I think we should be looking at birth years and not factors that have nothing to do with when one was born. The use of digital technology or the economic status of individuals are social issues, having nothing at all to do with when a person was born. So, what, then, is a "Millennial?" As the term implies, a true "Millennial" should be anyone who was born either in the year 2000 or later, as the term refers to the turn of the millennium, which occurred (arguably) in 2000 or 2001, depending upon how one defines the beginning of the 21st century. Whether one insists that the 21st century began in 2000 or 2001 (as science fiction author Arthur C. Clarke preferred), this isn't the issue at hand. The point is that, no one born prior to then should be referred to as a "Millennial." Going by the currently accepted definition - a definition that hasn't been universally adopted, by the way - my two nieces (my late sister's daughters) would both be considered to be "Millennials" even though one will be 35 and the other 27 this year (2019). The oldest was born in 1984 - 16 years before the 21st century began (17 years, if you insist the 21st century began in 2001). Even my younger niece, born in 1992, is still very much a product of the 20th century. Thus, if we were applying the
usual rules of demography, the oldest any "Millennial" could possibly be in 2019 is 19 years old. Yet, people in their twenties and even thirties are being called "Millennials" now! This makes no sense at all. It is as absurd as calling people who were born in the 1930s "Boomers," or people born in the 1950s "Gen Xers." A generation is correctly defined by the period of time in which it came into existence and by no other criteria, whether the period of time is 'difficult' to establish or not. The children of Generation X should, if for no other reasons than logic and convenience, be referred to as "Generation Y," and indeed, many demographers prefer this designation and were using it well before the end of the twentieth century. It is easily understood and has more to do with demographics than attempting to drag in social concerns like how relatively familiar with digital technology the generation is reputed to be, or what their economic status is. While these issues are certainly relevant as further details of the generation, they should not be cited as the defining characteristics of the generation, any more than it should be assumed that Boomers are not as tech savvy (after all, the technology in question was created by Boomers). So, the relevant point, here, is that Generation Y can be said to have begun around 1995 or so, referring to the 25 year rule of thumb, meaning that Generation X began having children right around that time. Of course, there are exceptions to this, just as Generation X can be said to have begun "around" 1970. Establishing the starting year is always easier than establishing when the generation was more or less "complete." The Boomers extended to 1964 and first began to have children around 1970 (1946 + 24 = 1970) or 1971 (1946 + 25 = 1971). On average, most people don't begin to start families until they've at least completed high school, if not college, and for most of us, this occurs between the ages of 17 (for high school graduates) and 21 (assuming one starts college immediately following high school and completes a 4-year degree program). Of course, there are exceptions. Some spend time in the military after high school and, if they go to college at all, it may be delayed by as much as 4 years or more. Some don't immediately go to college after high school, either. There are always exceptions and some people start families earlier or later than others, but, nevertheless, statistically speaking, most people tend to have their first children around age 24-25. My sister (born in 1956) was 28 when she had her first daughter and had her second at 36. This was not unusual for Boomer women, many of whom waited until their 40s to have any children at all. With the youngest Boomers being born in 1964, the earliest their children would have been expected would be around 1988 or 1989, on average. Thus, Generation X could be loosely defined as having been born between 1970 and 1989, a span of around 19 years. This is about the same as for their Boomer parents (1946 to 1964 = 18 years). Going by these statistical norms, then, Generation Y should be definable as extending from about 1994 to around 2013 or so, a span of, again, 19 years. Many people now being erroneously dubbed as "Millennials" were actually born well before the turn of the millennium. My oldest niece, in fact, should be classified as Generation X and my youngest niece was born between Generations X and Y, although she'd be closest to Generation Y, having been born just two years prior to its beginning. Even so, calling her a "Millennial" would imply that she was born during the 21st century, which isn't at all the case. The current confusion about the "Millennial" label is caused by the desire of some to define the generation by factors having nothing at all to do with the year of their birth, such as their relative familiarity with and use of digital technology and their relative difficulty in struggling with a poor job market, neither of which has
anything to do with a definition of the generation's place in history. If today's demographers were doing their job correctly, in the first place, that definition would be based entirely on when people were actually born, as it should be. Given the approximate ranges of 18 to 19 years for each generation, then, and with Generation Y being roughly from 1989 to 2013, Generation Y has now run its course, as of about 6 years ago. If we subscribe to this conclusion, then we are currently between Generation Y and whatever the next generation will be called (perhaps "Millennials," since they will have truly been born after the turn of the millennium). Assuming the next generation began around 2018 (1994 + 24 = 2018), then the true "Millennials" date from just last year and can be expected to wind to a close sometime around 2042 (2018 + 24 years = 2042). That said, for we genealogists, this makes perfect sense. I am accustomed to thinking in terms of 4 generations per century, which is roughly the way things have gone until now. My grandparents were born in 1900, my father in 1924, my sister in 1956 and her youngest daughter in 1992, within 8 years of the end of the 20th century, thus 4 generations in a century. My sister's first child, born in 1984, was 16 (or 17) at the turn of the millennium, so, again, 4 generations neatly existing within a century. Even in those families in which teenage mothers exist, there is usually no more than 5 generations within a century. See how this works? This is how you calculate human generations, i.e., by when they were born, and not by any other factors. Yet another way of thinking about this is that, long before the label "Millennial" was in use by demographers, or anyone else, for that matter, the children of the Boomers had already been referred to as Generation X for some 30 years. So, the labeling of people who were born prior to 2000 as "Millennials" makes no sense, not only, because they were born before the turn of the millennium and well within the twentieth century, but because, as a generation, they already had a name!