The Numbers Game

2009-08-04T05:04:00.000-07:00

One of the cherished myths of the "Boomers" is that they deserve the spoils of the country due to their overwhelming size as a generation. I'm not certain, but I think the idea of generational entitlement in America probably begins with them. Did people in the US organize themselves into generational gangs, explicitly, and conduct turf wars before the Boomers did it?

It follows of course that the numbers of those who were born directly after them must be insignificant in comparison for this justification of might makes right to work. Leaving aside the disgusting implications of this non-philosophy, let's take a look at some facts.

The Boomers have been defined by a doting media by virtue of their birth rates. Has any other generation before been defined by this particular criterion? The rest of us are defined by commonalities, major events, things like that. But the years that the media uses to bound the Boomer spawn (it's a shifty matter) are 1946-1964. It makes a perfect arch on a graph up to 1957 and peaks, then begins declining until for some arbitrary reason it is cut off in 1964. The only purpose of this metric is to give themselves 18 years, while robbing Gen X of theirs. The media generally likes to give Gen X about about 10-12 for comparison, so we know how big the Boomer G-peen is, before taking away the later X'ers from us and putting them in with the Millies at about 1977. I'm sure my X'er friends and family will love to know that their 1964 and 1978 birth years make them Vietnam-era Yuppies for the former and the currently hard partying Uni grads for the latter.

This generation creep shows up in the media when one of the soulless rags wants to sell more bullshit to the bullshit generation. It doesn't matter how people define themselves, in order for the boomer circle jerk to get off everything must revolve around them. Does anyone really think someone who was 8 or 9 years old when Vietnam ended really counts as a boomer? Judging by rational criteria such as shared life experiences, it would seem the specter of serving in Vietnam would be more salient than number trends. Simple common sense tells us that people born in the 60's are not those Boomer douchebags that we all know and love.

Lately the numbers of the "massive" Boomer generation are usually quoted as 78 million vs and the "small" generation of 40 or 50 million Xers that followed them. But what do government statistics really say when you compare EQUAL periods of time, and actual cohorts? First lets look at the claims being made. I totalled all the births listed from 1946-1964 and came up with 75,o63,o48. It's worth noting that these stats are partially inferred, and can't be said to be completely accurate though they probably are fairly reliable. Full accounting for all state and county offices wasn't achieved until 1985, though most of the work was done by the 70's. So what about Gen X?

The various media that exist to prop up the Boomer's delicate ego tells us that our generation, such as is isn't, begins in 1965 and runs until sometime in the mid 70's. Say, 1976 or so. That's when the "Gen X/Millenial" cusper years begin. No one can say for certain where our crappy little group stops being born and their kids start. (More on who really birthed the Millenials in another post) But definitely we get no more than a dozen or so years to the Boomer's 18. Totalling those years I get 41,044,037. And that's where they get their numbers.

Bullshit.

First off, it's pretty easy to see that 18 years > 12 years. So what happens if we give up our fellow X'ers from the early 60's and extend our G-peen to match theirs all the way into the Millenial's turf in 1982? 1965-1982 Gen X would be 62,169,080 births. 74M is still more than 62M, but we are getting closer to the truth.

Now, what if we remove the Boomer-inspired categories and go by something more sane, say 20 year increments? There is no logical reason to grant the 1964 end date, that is just puffery on their part. I'll won't give up my fellow X'ers like that though! Taking the more commonplace dates of 1961-1980 for X leaves us contemplating a Boomer gen stretching equally in the other direction of 1941-1960. Comparing these equal stretches of 20 years gives us 73,895,850 for the Boomers, and 71,471,802 for Generation X. The size argument is a lie.

And taking a look at the numbers year by year shows and even clearer picture of the smoke and mirrors games going on.

1941 2,703,000
1942 2,989,000
1943 3,104,000
1944 2,939,000
1945 2,858,000
1946 3,411,000
1947 3,817,000
1948 3,637,000
1949 3,649,000
1950 3,632,000
1951 3,820,000
1952 3,909,000
1953 3,959,000
1954 4,071,000
1955 4,097,000
1956 4,210,000
1957 4,300,000
1958 4,246,000
1959 4,286,000
1960 4,257,850
1961 4,268,326
1962 4,167,362
1963 4,098,020
1964 4,027,490
1965 3,760,358
1966 3,606,274
1967 3,520,959
1968 3,501,564
1969 3,600,206
1970 3,731,386
1971 3,555,970
1972 3,258,411
1973 3,136,965
1974 3,159,958
1975 3,144,198
1976 3,167,788
1977 3,326,632
1978 3,333,279
1979 3,494,398
1980 3,612,258

In 1945, there were about 2.8 million babies born. In 1946, there were 3.4 million born. This single difference is the origin of the baby boom myth, the idea that there was a period of 20 years of unprecedented growth followed by a total bust. Look at the years following 1946. The numbers steadily climb to 4.3 million in 1957, and steadily decline to 3.5 Million in 1968. The numbers go back up to 3.7 quickly, and then level off at 3.1 for a few years before climbing again towards 3.6 million in 1980. At no point is there some catastrophic crop failure of babies. Even at the lowest point we are talking over 3 million per year. The end result is a difference of about 1.4 million between 2 halves of a 40 year period, or about 1% of the total. This is not the stuff of which legends are made

Generational Violence

The myth of the monolithic baby boom as justification for the entitlement and monopoly on wealth that generation has enjoyed should by now be well established in mainstream circles. But because the old guard is still hanging on, the line is still being held in the moldering media. What do I hope to accomplish by posting into the wind about something that most people couldn't care less about? Well, a few things actually.

First, I'd like to open a dialogue with my fellow X'ers. The kinds of things the Boomers did to us as a generation really shut down our sense of community. At one point in our early adulthood, I think most of us were even turned off by the very idea we could have a group identity. It wasn't just our natural independence at work there, it was the result of a strangely focused effort by media bombarding us constantly with messages about how we were bad people. How this "Generation X" was worthless compared to those who came before, and so small in numbers that it paled into insignificance.

And toward that end, I think it's time to expose these lies.

I think a lot of us are still hurting from our generational conflict with the "Boomers". It's not something we asked for, it was something inflicted on us when we were young and vulnerable. It probably sounds over the top to say so, but I sense unhealed wounds in my X'er brothers and sisters. We need to get past these hurts, and to do that we need to recognize their source. It's not us, it's them. I don't give a fuck what they think about that, if it sounds like whining to their deaf ears. It is actually an accusation. Blame where blame belongs. We need a catharsis to move on past the "boomer" debacle, and if that results in our pent-up conflict being unleashed, then so be it. Sometimes conflict is necessary. Conflict leads to resolution.

Why do we continue to maintain silence by the millions while those who rape the country, and now the world, finish the job? At some point it is irresponsible for us not to act. In the boardrooms, in the government, in our day to day lives. It's time to get past the miserable group that calls itself the "Baby Boomers". So let's start talking.

...

[You can see the numbers I used for yourself as http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/births.htm if you don't mind digging through a now-crappier government stats site, or compiled into story-form asskissery at http://geography.about.com/od/populationgeography/a/babyboom.htm]

Xist

The Numbers Game