Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: Charles Henrickson

Agreed. A better way would do it demographically which would look at where the ‘boom’ and the birthrate dropped.


68 posted on 03/05/2011 1:02:32 PM PST by BenKenobi (Don't expect to build up the weak by pulling down the strong. - Silent Cal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies ]


To: BenKenobi

1945-1960 is probably a better ‘boom’ and 1960-75 better for generation X if you are defining it by the change in birthrates.

Contrary to what many believe, the echo in 1990 was the highest it had been since 1972. Most of the birthrate since had dropped.

So that would make it 1945-60, 60-75 and 1975-90.

Even the trough of the great depression, more kids were born than in the ‘echo’.


74 posted on 03/05/2011 1:11:42 PM PST by BenKenobi (Don't expect to build up the weak by pulling down the strong. - Silent Cal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson