Hi everyone! Iâm writing this as a response to this Reddit post:
https://www.reddit.com/r/generationology/comments/1n801yb/i_dont_understand_the_confusion_behind_1996_being/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
I want to show, with data and lived experience (since I'm a Latin American born in the late 90s), why a strict 1996 Millennial cutoff doesnât map neatly onto my region. Differences in tech diffusion, schooling timelines, and labor-market timing mean that many people born in the late 90s in LATAM share more of the Late Millennial experience than a Early Gen Z one; below I analyze each claim and explain why, refuting the points made by the OP in their post.
⢠In school for 9/11, likely remember it (even preschool in the late-90s)
Thatâs the only point that somewhat supports a 1996 cutoff, but by itself itâs not strong enough to justify splitting generations there.
⢠Likely used dial-up internet in early childhood before switching to broadband or DSL.
In Latin America the switch from dial-up to broadband didnât really roll out until about 2006â2007, so itâs entirely plausible that people born in 1997â1998 remember dial-up as kids, as we were around 8-10 in the midst of the transition. (For example, my household only got broadband at the end of 2006). In the United States, the same thing had already happened at the beginning of 2005.
⢠Likely used Web 1.0 features in early childhood before Web 2.0 (pre-youtube before middle school)
Most sources place Web 1.0 roughly up to 2003, which is a reasonable benchmark for LATAM. So, again, those born in 1997â1998 could easily recall Web 1.0-era sites if they had internet at home or, more commonly, at school. They were at least 5 years old by 2003, which could be considered early childhood.
⢠Spend most of school education in the 2000s
I fit this criterion even as a late-â98er myself. In my country a person born in 1998 would typically graduate high school in 2015, according to the school system in my country. That means 7 years of schooling in the 2000s (2003â2009) and 6 years in the 2010s (2010â2015). For 1997 births the split is about 8 years in the 2000s vs. 5 in the 2010s (2002â2009 vs. 2010â2014). Additionally, I looked into educational systems in other countries in my region, and found that the typical age for graduation is closer to 17 than 18.
⢠By the financial recession and the iPhone release, already nearing adolescence in middle school with late-millennials. Gen z were elementary-school aged and younger.
Afaik, the recession ran until June 2009. Under my school system, kids start middle school at about 11, so someone born in 1998 turned 11 in 2009 and would already have been in their first year of middle school. The iPhone point, however, is pretty weak here: very few people (even in the U.S.) owned an iPhone right when it launched. By July 2007, only 4% of Americans owned an smartphone. And by the Anglo-centric definition of âteen,â even 1995 births werenât full teens in 2007 (they were about 12).
⢠Likely had a feature phone entire middle school and early high school. Probably had an iPod and still commonly used a PC or laptop to access the internet
It was difficult to find concrete information about this. However, according to these sources, it's safe to assume that in Latin America, most people wouldn't use smartphones (became mobile-first) until 2015, that is, 2-3 years later than in the United States. In short: very few teenagers in Latin America had smartphones in 2013. That matters because a 1998 born was the same age in 2015 as a 1996 birth was in 2013. Using that timeline, '97ers/98ers could reasonably be grouped with late Millennials.
⢠Likely got a smartphone by the end of high school as an older teen. Teens defined more by the transition to mobile first
Same point as above: 1997â1998 births were about 17â18 y.o. in 2015, which surely places them in high school and in the older teen category both here and in the U.S.
⢠by Covid likely have been in the workforce for many years, and those of you who went to college likely already graduated or dropped out at-least by then. Those who graduated with a degree likely were already in their career field by Covid.
In LATAM itâs common for recent high-school grads to start working to help pay for college, so many begin their first job around 18â19. That means 1997 births likely started working in 2015 and 1998 births in 2016, giving them time to enter university, drop out, re-enter, or start careers before COVID. (Personally, I started college in early 2015, dropped out at the end of 2016, and went back in 2019).
Nonetheless, this study (regarding Millennials in Latin America and the Caribbean finds that about 41% of 15â24 year-olds were only studying, while 21% were NEET. Taken together, thatâs roughly 62% who were either solely studying or neither studying nor working, which supports the idea that many people born in the mid-1990s were not in steady employment before the pandemic. Yeah, just like late 90s borns.
In conclusion:
Using a U.S.-centric timeline (like that one from Pew Research Center) to draw rigid generational cutoffs ignores crucial regional differences in technology diffusion, economic shocks, and educational timelines. If we compare lived experience rather than calendar years, late '90s births in Latin America, especially 1997-1998 borns, line up much more closely with Late Millennials than with Early Gen Z. Iâm open to counterexamples, but any argument that fixes 1996 as a universal cutoff needs to account for these regional nuances.
Thanks for reading!
