More on millennials

To be fair about this generational labelling machine and its adherents, let's look at the "why" behind gen Y. To quote BNET again: millennials were the first generation to grow up with soccer moms, doting dads, and trophies for participation. All that adult attention gave them confidence and a knack for following directions. In addition, says Lancaster, many millennials’ lives have been heavily scheduled since childhood, so they understand achievement and heavy workloads. And growing up with PCs has contributed to their comfort with technology and social networking.

Remember we are looking at the generation born roughly between 1977 and 1995. "Roughly" gives them some way of wriggling out of the prescription, but let's not let 'em do that.

What exactly are 'soccer moms' and why do they suddenly appear in 1977? Well there's no research on this that I can find so let's use some logic and a bit of guesswork. We are looking at the US, so we have just excluded a lot of people born elsewhere, including people who now work in the US. If we apply this to 'all rich western nations' then we are in the ballpark. We can assume 'soccer' is a generic for any sport or activity to which by untested stereotype 'moms' drive their kids to events. I think we can relate to that, but why 1977? Did this hit some sort of tipping point? Cars have been increasing in number and spreading pervasively across Western society since the end of WWII, so perhaps they hit some magic point where the vast majority of families had 2 cars by then... maybe. Easy to check. But it must also be allied with "moms" and their being available and licensed to drive. Again a check is in order to see what proportion of families had licensed car-driving mothers, and what proportion were in 2-car families. That second part may not be a clincher as one presumes 1 car is sufficient. But 'doting dads' and 2 kids or more suggest a need for 2 cars at times.

What would be the clincher is what proportion of these mobile moms actually took their kids to these activities. For Gen Y to be real we'd expect more than 50%, probably more like 80%. But is that so? Even at 50% that leaves a lot of these 'millennials' out of scope.

Of course they all got certificates and trophies for participation, which never happened before, or at least not to this degree. And it twisted their minds, apparently. But again, only an unknown proportion of kids is involved. Is it 50%? Less?

And we are assuming of course that being driven to events and activities in your childhood overrides almost all other facets of your life, environment and genome. Wow, big assumption there. Illness, accidents, variability in family income, persecution, broken homes, violent families, drunken parents, blended families: all are simply not on the radar. Wow. Anyone seen the evidence for this amazing soccer-mom influence? I haven't.

But wait, there's more! "All that adult attention gave them confidence and a knack for following directions". Are you sure about that one? This doesn't sound like any kids I know, or any different to the generation before. We have been doting on our kids ever since before we dropped the average family down to under 3. And that, in most Western countries, was before 1977. In some cultures doting on your kids has been in place for much longer.

And more again: "many millennials’ lives have been heavily scheduled since childhood, so they understand achievement and heavy workloads". This is a big call. Where exactly is the evidence? There is none - it's an opinion. I can just as assertively say that many people, Gen Y included, have not had heavy workloads and overly-scheduled lives, nor do they particularly like heavy workloads or heavy scheduling in their lives. Some people relax instead and live relatively unstructured lives. In any case linking this "understanding" of scheduling to "achievement" simply because you say so is arrogant rubbish. I'm sorry but again, where is the evidence for this link?

Lastly, "growing up with PCs has contributed to their comfort with technology and social networking". Growing up with something will usually make you comfortable with it, unless it's unpleasant. It's a no-brainer. It will apply to a large proportion of this age group but not everyone. People born in 1977 will be under-represented in social-networking sites in comparison with those born in 1995, yet there will also be Gen X and even baby boomers at those same sites. It's a sliding scale, and never as black and white as the generational labellers make out. There is individuality and life-long learning at play here.

At the end of the day it's a label - a big one. It doesn't fit everyone, nor can it. There is little evidence to support it and it is arbitrary. The definitions are so bland as to fit anyone. Whilst a significant number of post-War baby boomers actually lived with missing parents, social deprivations, shortages and even bombed-out buildings, it's stretching the case rather a lot to suggest that being driven around by doting parents will make you significantly different to anyone else. Let's just treat everyone as individuals and stop making stuff up.