More 'Millennial' madness

Had enough of mindless Millennial drivel? Too late, I've got more... and the bottom line is that "we", the non-Millennials, "should" know and identify these Millennials, and somehow expect them to be different from other humans. And of course they somehow deserve 'different' treatment because of that. Heck, they may not even be human!

So take a read of this, from BNET: "The teens entering college over the next few weeks were probably born around 1990. Here are five observations that jumped out at me from the “mindset list”:

1. GPS satellite navigation systems have always been available
2. They may have been given a Nintendo Game Boy to play with in the crib
3. Caller ID has always been available on phones
4. Windows 3.0 operating system made IBM PCs user-friendly the year they were born
5. Radio stations have never been required to present both sides of public issues.

According to Benoit, 'The class of 2012 has grown up in an era where computers and rapid communication are the norm, and colleges no longer trumpet the fact that residence halls are ‘wired’ and equipped with the latest hardware. These students will hardly recognize the availability of telephones in their rooms since they have seldom utilized landlines during their adolescence. They will continue to live on their cell phones and communicate via texting. Roommates, few of whom have ever shared a bedroom, have already checked out each other on Facebook where they have shared their most personal thoughts with the whole world.'"

OK there's good stuff here. The ever-decreasing size of Western 'family units' will show up in a larger proportion of kids who have never shared a room with a sibling. It may shape some attitudes about sharing, although I have seen no research on that. And there are also more blended families, so what does that mean with regard to attitudes? And although they may be living somewhat different lives from people born 10, 20 or 50 years ago, what evidence is there that it actually makes a difference?

As for the rest of it, whether you are familiar with computers, cell phones and whatnot all of your life or whether you have adapted to it as it has evolved is of little concern, surely? We all live in the same world and have embraced gizmos to greater or lesser extents, irrespective of age. Yes, to be older (on average) affects our uptake of new stuff. So does relative wealth, culture and religion, amongst many other things. It's a continuum, a sliding scale of influence and uptake - not the black and white of the dime-store demographers. Plenty of Millennials actually don't care for the latest and greatest stuff, and plenty of so-called Boomers do. 

Now we can try to analyse it to death, but people are people, and should not be labelled just for the heck of it. But humans love to label, and having labelled them we should not try to second-guess how we should treat them, or ascribe values based on untested theory. It's so easy to say that young people 'these days' prefer part time work, shifting careers and lower levels of loyalty when we have brought them into a world that has created exactly that environment. There are fewer full-time jobs, more service-oriented jobs and entirely new careers that didn't exist even 5 years ago.

On the one hand we say 'they want this stuff' but on the other we didn't give them a choice - it's how it is!     

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.

Don't fall into generational labelling trap!

Beware, the pop psychologists and generational labellers are after you! Now it's "the millennials".

From BNET: The generation of workers born roughly between 1977 and 1995, known as millennials or Generation Y, represents the biggest shift in the U.S. workforce since the baby boomers came of age. Eighty-million strong, they will soon account for the majority of American workers, especially as boomers start to retire.

OK, that sounds fine, doesn't it? This group of people will soon be the majority of workers. But does this matter? And why are we - or they - choosing to look at only this segment of the workforce? Why only people born between 1977 and 1995? What is significant here?

Nothing, absolutely nothing. Look at it this way: they remain human beings. They have the same physiology we have had for perhaps a million years. They have emotions. They also have wants and needs, starting with the basics like food and shelter. They are just like us. So trash this labelling scam, please, and start addressing people as individuals!

Not convinced? Well why don't we include people born in 1976? How are they different? Or 1975? Who decided upon this cut-off and why? Was it because of some genetic shift in our genome? Was there a cultural revolution? No?

Well apparently they are different because "experts" say so. One expert says: millennials are team-oriented, eager to tackle huge challenges, and quite particular about their leaders. “They won’t do something just because you say, ‘I’m the manager,’” Smith says. “On the other hand, they’ll work hard for someone who truly mentors them.”

How odd. Team oriented? That's insane! Imagine that, human beings that are team-oriented. That's never happened before. Eager to tackle huge challenges, too. Like no-one has ever done this before, eh? And choosy about leaders... hmmm. But if you are a good mentor it's OK, you'll get respect. How counter-intuitive. Basically that "expert" has spewed out nonsense that's as convincingly bland as the definitions of astrological sun signs. Folks, this is a con.