Not sure what editors and publishing houses are trying to push this Gen Z narrative, but it's just not true.
Not a single Gen Z is in Congress yet. Generations are subjective and we can't let these people cement a fucked up incongruency into our culture cause they think it's politically beneficial.
Not a single Gen Z is in Congress yet. Generations are subjective and we
can't let these people cement a fucked up incongruency into our culture
cause they think it's politically beneficial.
Born in 1997 around when most folks consider Generation Z to have begun.
Language often evolves in seemingly unintuitive ways (e.g. lunch), there's no "corrupt in our cultural conscious" going on. Someone born in the early 80s is going to have much less in common (especially in terms of technology) with someone born in the late 90s. By 1997 the oldest millennials were starting to have kids who would very clearly not belong under the heading "millennial".
If you truly think the 2 year exclusion of 1998 and 1999 is necessary for Zoomers to be properly categorized then you'll have to provide more than simply the argument that some Millennials were past puberty. The youngest Gen Xers will still graduating high school in 1997. Please stop being argumentative because you see an opportunity to confront someone using sarcasm.
According to a quick search of various sources, Gen Z starts from 1997 as the article states, not after the millennium.
Gen Z is in the news cos they're starting to cement their power as the largest voting bloc, taking over from the baby boomers.
Generations are subjective. Gen Z is only 22 years old at this point. That's it.
You have other "sources", that you're of course willing to list?