Most people know of generational names, like millennials for instance, who make up a demographic of those born around the 1980’s to early 2000’s.
But what comes next? Those born after 2000 remember a much different world than those of their peers, no matter if there’s only a slight age difference.
What do we call them? Theo Priestly writing for Forbes thinks he may have the answer with “Why the Next Generation After Millennials Will Be “Builders,” Not “Founders.””
Does it have to be one or the other? Aren’t both of those names a little silly, or stupid even?
It’s not Priestly’s fault. He mentions a survey MTV ran asking what name those born after Dec. 2000 would like to be called. Those who make up the generation themselves want to be known as the Founders. The name beat out others such as the Navigators, the Regenerators, and the Bridge Generation.
Priestly analyzes the next generation by analyzing millennials. In a TIME piece regarding the survey, MTV President Sean Atkins mentioned that:
According to Priestly, “this is echoes [sic]” by Atkins in that “millennials are taking advantage of an existing foundation of technology and advances in workplace culture, and pushing harder for continuing change and disruption across every aspect of their lives.”
He also mentions that the next generation cannot be the Founders, as “we have plenty of that already” when it comes to “establish[ing] something.” That’s where the Builders come in: “ones who will build on the foundation that the Millennial generation have sought to put in place through disruption.”
As Priestly continues:
The piece closes on a slightly pessimistic note, in calling the generation “a bust,” because the definition of the word means, with original emphasis, “to to cave in, to fail utterly, to stumble.”
Whether Priestly is right or wrong in being so pessimistic, he does make points. And when it comes to many of the other stupid generation names, at least the Founders and the Builders seem like the least cringe worthy of the bunch.