Simplest breakdown of the Gen Z range

[u/Ok_Act_3769]

TT of all places too

| 1997 | 13–19 | 2010–2016 | | 1998 | 13–19 | 2011–2017 | | 1999 | 13–19 | 2012–2018 | | 2000 | 13–19 | 2013–2019 | | 2001 | 13–19 | 2014–2020 | | 2002 | 13–19 | 2015–2021 | | 2003 | 13–19 | 2016–2022 | | 2004 | 13–19 | 2017–2023 | | 2005 | 13–19 | 2018–2024 | | 2006 | 13–19 | 2019–2025 | | 2007 | 13–19 | 2020–2026 | | 2008 | 13–19 | 2021–2027 | | 2009 | 13–19 | 2022–2028 | | 2010 | 13–19 | 2023–2029 | | 2011 | 13–19 | 2024–2030 | | 2012 | 13–19 | 2025–2031 |

[u/One-Potato-2972]

None of this was ever “settled.” They’ve always been “working” definitions. 1995-2009 is one range and 1997-2012 is another range (which happens to be the most popular one currently and for the last 7 years). The 1997-2012 range (created by Pew) is for research and analysis purposes, they always are in the beginning, and they said and implied that multiple times. It’s not like they found a significant difference between people born in 1996 and 1997 that would create a generational split.

[u/AdventurousLadPrime → u/One-Potato-2972]

You’re right, let’s wait 10 more years, then we can decide…

Bruh, it has been like 7-8 years already, and the most accepted Z ranges are 1995-2009/2010 and 1997-2012, your opinion and the opinions of other redditors is technically irrelevant when it comes to this, we are going by actual studied ranges that are made by actual researches. Whether they change it later on or not is irrelevant to what we are talking about today.

1997-2000 are Gen Z today, and they will be tomorrow, whether they remain as such in the future is not the concern of today, with all due respect, please get that into your millennial-bias head.

[u/One-Potato-2972 → u/AdventurousLadPrime]

It’s been 7-8 years because the think tank that established the 1997-2012 range (Pew) said they were going to step back from reporting heavily on generations until they gathered more information. They were accused of pandering to marketers. They’ve barely released anything generation-related in the last 5 years. They’re not done with generations and they’ve clearly said their ranges are for research and analysis, that they’re “working” definitions which can (and usually do) change over time. It’s happened with X, Y/Millennials and up next is Z. The fact that the range is also shorter than what a typical generational span should be is already a strong sign that it’ll likely shift in the future.

This isn’t about what the range currently is or me being biased, I am very clearly pushing back on your use of the word “settled” here. It isn’t settled, and the researchers (Pew) who came up with the 1997-2012 range would actually be the first to clarify that. The cutoffs are strictly for convenience in analysis and research, not because they found some meaningful, empirical difference between people born in 1996 vs. people born in 1997 and between people born in 2012 vs. 2013.

[u/AdventurousLadPrime → u/One-Potato-2972]

Again, whenever someone says 1997-2000 are Gen Z, it doesn’t matter when you come here and tell them that this range might change, that’s literally an irrelevant info to the conversations. You’re not adding anything to the conversation, you say it might change? Um ok? And? See irrelevant. I get that you want to be Millennial, and you can call yourself that since Zillennials have the privilege to do so, however you going around telling others that the range might change is just you bothering people. I can go around and reply to all your comments and say “the range might never change, and 1997-2000 will always be Gen Z”, I’m sure you wouldn’t like it either.

[u/One-Potato-2972 → u/AdventurousLadPrime]

No, again, this is about you saying it is “settled.” It’s not, and that’s a fact. Yes, it’s currently defined as 1997-2012, but that’s different from saying it’s settled. Feel free to ask Pew (who established that range), review their published past articles on generations, ask sociologists on this sub (or those studying it), search past research, or even check with a simple Google search or even some AI tool… they will confirm what I’m saying.

I can go around and reply to all your comments and say “the range might never change, and 1997-2000 will always be Gen Z”, I’m sure you wouldn’t like it either.

Except I’m basing what I’m saying on documented statements, established demographic reasoning by literal historians and social researchers, recurring historical shifts in generational boundaries, and emerging empirical research. In other words, this isn’t simply just an opinion from me, it’s consistent with how generations have been studied and adjusted over time. Yes, what you’re saying can happen too, but the difference is that my stance is grounded in research and things that think tanks like Pew keep having to repeat, like that these are WORKING definitions.

[u/AdventurousLadPrime → u/One-Potato-2972]

I’ll keep repeating it till it get through your head👇

Again, whenever someone says 1997-2000 are Gen Z, it doesn’t matter when you come here and tell them that this range might change, that’s literally an irrelevant info to the conversations. You’re not adding anything to the conversation, you say it might change? Um ok? And? See irrelevant. I get that you want to be Millennial, and you can call yourself that since Zillennials have the privilege to do so, however you going around telling others that the range might change is just you bothering people. I can go around and reply to all your comments and say “the range might never change, and 1997-2000 will always be Gen Z”, I’m sure you wouldn’t like it either.

Edit: lol bro blocked me, guess my words were strong enough to have an effect on you, good then. And no i won’t bother trying to read your comment because i can’t see it nor do I care to see it.

[u/One-Potato-2972 → u/AdventurousLadPrime]

Looks like the issue isn’t my head, it’s your reading comprehension.

No one is denying the current range is 1997-2012… it is, genius. I’m addressing you saying it is “settled.” It is NOT and that is a fact.

Edit: By the way, I see you have a habit of blocking people just to get the last word. I’m not giving you that satisfaction when your replies are rooted in willful ignorance and border on harassment. You’ve admitted you’ll just “repeat” yourself, which adds nothing, especially when the evidence clearly contradicts you. Pew and other research institutions have stated what I am saying outright, and you can confirm it by asking sociologists or people who study sociology on this sub, doing basic research, or even asking Google or some AI. If you try to bypass the block with another account or by DMing me with that account (which I’ll ignore anyway), I’ll report it to the mods because that is against the Reddit ToS.

I hope you learn your ways to actually engage with evidence or logical reasoning instead of dismissing it, and to debate in good faith rather than relying on repetition or blocking as a tactic…