Talk:Baby boom

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Alexander.swanson. Peer reviewers: Kailynriedel, EmilyMoeller.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Shel8989, BMorse.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Generation Jones edits
Deleted Youtube references, which of course are invalid to Wikipedia. Ledboots (talk) 20:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You did considerably more than that. Why did you remove non-YouTube refs? Ed Fitzgerald t / c 21:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Why did you return the Youtube references? There is undue weight on "Generation Jones" in an article about the "Baby Boom", period. This edit dispute is being carried over from Generation X. I added the pundits website back for now, even though it is a questionable citable reference. Ledboots (talk) 21:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Why are you talking only about Americans baby boom? Term "baby boom" is more used to refer baby boom in Europe, also after WW2. Baby boom's top model countries in Europe are Finland and Switzerland, both of the countries now having major problems with people born after war being in retirement age and going to cost lots of money for the rest of society. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.226.144.130 (talk) 08:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Inclusion of current expert opinion
There are many analysts who argue that the post-WWII baby boom includes two seperate cultural generations: Boomers and Generation Jones. You can find dozens of such analysts on this page: http://generationjones.com/2009latest.html. You can find many more in the references section of the Generation Jones article. If anyone (Hello Arthur Rubin) wants to revert my change, please follow Wiki protocol and discuss here on this talk page the basis by which you believe my edit is innacurate. In other words, please say specifically, with support, why the many analysts which are can be found on the links I just provided do not support my edit.TreadingWater (talk) 22:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

By definition, the post-war baby boom could not have begun in 1943, so that nonsense was deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.56.23.124 (talk) 21:19, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I have to question those sources that say that 1964 was the last year of the American "boom." Birth rates in 1965 and 1966 (3.76M and 3.6M respectively) were greater than the rate in 1946 (3.4M). Mathematically, I don't see how these subsequent years, still higher in birth rate than the first year, are properly excluded. The end of the period should be marked by a year where the rate returns to a level below that of its first year. (In 1973, the rate fell to 3.1M, so clearly the boom had ended by then.) Therefore, how can we accept "expert opinion" of 1964 being the last year of the period when the raw data says that at least a couple of trailing years are includible? Conversely, the fact that some consider "Generation X" to start as early as 1961 and as late as 1966, presents an additional problem: How can we cite an ending year if the experts don't agree? 2001:470:D:468:7455:7A:1C17:3DB4 (talk) 05:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The definitions are weird. People often use “baby boom” to refer to the period of rising fertility rather than high fertility. The current version of this article uses that definition (the first sentence is currently, “A baby boom is a period marked by a significant increase of birth rate”). Also, total numbers of births are not birth rates (a minor point). Rscragun (talk) 03:08, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

CBC says this article is wrong
Check it out here:http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/12/30/f-boomers-retire.html -- KenWalker | Talk 23:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Adding a few sentences about how the baby boom in the U.S. has/will change the dependency structure.
Hello, I am a student, and I have been assigned to add a citation to a course related article for my Demographics class. I hope to add between 5-6 sentences about the changes to the dependency structure caused by the U.S. Baby boom. I hope I can add something of value. BMorse (talk) 02:36, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

badly written. No explanation of the Dependency Ratio...
...and the citations of it aren't even expressed as a ratio, i.e., x:y. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.71.5.76 (talk) 09:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Potential improvements to article.
The article overall was clear and concise however I picked up on few things to revise and or add information.

In reference to "The baby boom occurred in countries that experienced tremendous damage from the war and were going through dramatic economic hardships. These countries include Germany and Poland", it is confusing considering the next sentences are about the USA. So I would acknowledge that statement if true but find a better transition to the baby boom in America.

The effects on USA dependency could be updated to refer to what a higher dependency ratio means and its effects.

After reviewing the scientific journal perhaps adding information about maternal health and its effect on the baby boom. Alexander.swanson (talk) 23:13, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

This article is at a level far lower than any major Wikipedia article I have ever read. Some of it reads like a middle-school homework paper (one that would deserve a high grade). The intro starts out about baby boooms in general but then randomly talks about the post-WWII boom globally and mostly in the US. To point out just one example in the introduction: "Couples were eager to have babies after the war ended because they knew that the world would be a safer place to start a family.[4]" The post WWII baby boom coincided with the advent of the nuclear age and the very real fear of a war much more lethal than anything previously imaginable (at least in the US). Notable features of the 1950s include school air raid drills (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_and_cover) and bomb shelters. Obviously economic security was a bigger factor than "couples knew that the world would be a safer place". The citation [4] is to a Khan academy article which - although written at maybe high school level - is much more informative and accurate than this article, and does NOT even include the word "safe" or "safer". Indeed it contradicts the assertion in this article noting (correctly) "One thing is certain: these high fertility rates closely correlate with a period of unprecedented economic prosperity, as well as optimism that the prosperity would last. After years of barely getting by during the Great Depression and enduring shortages and rationing during the war, Americans finally could afford to have a lot of children, so they did."

I don't need to point out the many flaws in this paragraph: "The market became a seller's market. Many families were adapting to popular culture changes that included purchasing TVs, opening credit card accounts, and buying mouse ears to wear while watching The Mickey Mouse Club. Overall, the baby boom time period was a blessing but it also had its flaws once economists realized how many children were being born."

"The term "baby boom" most often refers to the post–World War II baby boom(1946–1964) when the number of annual births exceeded 2 per 100 women (or approximately 1% of the total population size)." The graph below this reveals that the US birth rate has been above 1.4% of population for the entire period 1909-2009. It was over 2% from 1946 - 1964.

This is a very important topic and merits a completely new article, one that is at the level we expect from Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catalyzer (talk • contribs) 14:36, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. I've just been reading the 'Generation' articles and they are all pretty bad, but this one is in a league of its own. In its current state it is certainly bringing Wikipedia into disrepute. I'm not an expert on the subject so could only offer copyediting support, but I think we may be way past that stage and a brand new article is merited. Silas Stoat (talk) 22:34, 12 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree, and it is sad. I start wanting to help fix it a bit as I encounter the broken grammar in the opening paragraph, then I look at "the whole" and realize what a disaster this somehow became. I partly think that non-English speakers may have contributed well-meaning material, and perhaps small edits were made that broke flow and agreement between words. But now it's a mess. Maybe next time I encounter it I will brave the storm of trying to improve it. Huw Powell (talk) 00:25, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Sources to improve the article
https://www-sciencedirect-com.aurarialibrary.idm.oclc.org/science/article/pii/S0376871602003071

Gfroerer, J., Penne, M., Pemberton, M., & Folsom, R. (2003). Substance abuse treatment need among older adults in 2020: The impact of the aging baby-boom cohort. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 69(2), 127-135. 10.1016/S0376-8716(02)00307-1 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1266126/?tool=pmcentrez

Rogerson, P. A., & Kim, D. (2005). Population distribution and redistribution of the baby-boom cohort in the united states: Recent trends and implications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102(43), 15319-15324. 10.1073/pnas.0507318102 http://www.jstor.org.aurarialibrary.idm.oclc.org/stable/10.1086/593052?pq-origsite=summon

Murphy, K. M., Simon, C., & Tamura, R. (2008). Fertility decline, baby boom, and economic growth. Journal of Human Capital, 2(3), 302;262;-302. 10.1086/593052 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.aurarialibrary.idm.oclc.org/doi/10.1111/j.1540-5850.2006.00855.x/abstract

BRUCKER, E. (2006). Demographic, employment, expenditure, and Income‐Related dependency ratios: Population aging in the fifty states. Public Budgeting & Finance, 26(3), 65-80. 10.1111/j.1540-5850.2006.00855.x http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.3982/QE315/abstract

Albanesi, S., & Olivetti, C. (2014). Maternal health and the baby boom. Quantitative Economics, 5(2), 225-269. 10.3982/QE315 Alexander.swanson (talk) 23:14, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Contributions to the article
I love how the writer laid out this article. It was very easy to follow because the writer seemed to go down a timeline with what led to the baby boom to now what is happening with the population because of the baby boom. I also love that the writer gave a few examples of how the baby boom effected different countries, such as, France’s farm population declining and Romania hospitals had no room and were begging patients to stay home. I think it would be important to put in the article what the government did after they realized how many babies were being born in such a short period of time. Did they get more resources? How? How bad of an effect did the baby boom have on the economy? Why do you think the baby boom occurred in countries that experienced tremendous damage from the war? I think it would also be important to consider how the next generations are dealing with the baby boom. Many of the population Gen Xer’s parents are baby boomers, are they claiming them as dependents because baby boomers are no longer apart of the work force? Addeyolson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Addeyolson (talk • contribs) 23:11, 2 April 2018 (UTC)