24 or less? But you're a child until you're 16/18/21, depending on where you grew up.

Depends I guess, I say 12 years old is a child and then you are a 'Teen'. Of course if we want to go by the law then I will say 30ish and below then?

Either way, if you are at those ages in the 21st century you get to be a child of the 21st century!! So 17/12 in 2000? Child of the 21st century!

So anyone that considers themselves 90's children are really 00 children but the ones from the 80's are the real 90's children?

Nah they get to be both. But if we are not being technical then I say majority rules. 10 years in the 90's to me and 2 or 8 depending on the definition of child in the 2000's. That would make me a 90's child. However technically I am both a 90's and 21st century child. Specifically a 2000's child.

Majority of my life has been in 00's so far but I'd rather keep myself as a 90's child. Then again I was regarded as an advlt, or at least someone responsible for myself by 16 so it's 50/50 and I get to choose

Lol k, does it really matter though? As is said in The Love Guru. Gee you are you. Basically means you are who you are, being a small part of something else that never really affected you won't change that.

Oh yeah and tm and all that lol

Nahh it matters not It just passes the time until the next century comes and I can class myself as 22nd Century Senile

Yeaaaaah..no. I'd most certainly be much happier living in a nicer home, being able to afford to live in nicer neighborhood, not having to worry about what I am spending, requiring constantly have to create a super tight budget that restricts a lot of what I can and can't do. Not to mention most of my friends live an hour away. That's money I can't piss away on a whim.

The idea that money can't buy happiness is utter [censored]. Try being poor in a dangerous neighborhood. There's a lot of stress involved.

As much as I agree money can bring happiness, I also have to disagree since a lot of the people I know and see are rich or well off but they are extremely happy given their circumstances, poor and living in a bad area.

Try being rich and wondering whether people like you for your money or who you are, who's trying to take your money, how you're going to hold onto your money, where you should store your money, who you should give your money to when you die, why it is that people expect more from you, why it is people expect less from you, why it is people treat you horribly just because you have money, why it is people treat you well just because you have money, the fact that the more money you have and the more powerful you are the less people you can trust and the less true friends you have, etc.

The grass is always greener, right? There's a reason that cliche exists.

Having lived in both sides of this, you disregard how miserable so many rich families are with fathers or parents in general who are so overly committed to their job (or money) they shouldn't be raising families (or can't manage having friends), or the stress involved in generally very small semantic things that a poor person wouldn't be worried about being too busy trying to survive, due to some personalities that cannot be happy having lots of money, and either must have more money, or simply find something to stress about. A happy person will be happy with little or lots of money, and I also find they tend to be good at managing money. The general concept of money buys happiness is highly flawed.

1987! I win the 20th century!


But on a more serious note. I don't watch reality tv shows. At all. I have not regretted this decision even once. It's like watching crows trying to do a peacock dance.

I been there, and have been homeless too.

There are advantages to not being rich. One being you don't have to pay ridiculous amount of taxes.

Can I interest you in a get-poor-quick scheme, I've just come up with?

All you have to do is wire all of your money to this Nigerian guy. . .

90 right on the dot here. Are you people seriously falling for his [censored]? It all depends on what conditioned you and what you remember. What you put into focus in your life. What things do you like and enjoy more? Things from the 90's? Or things from the 00's? It all depends. This is the problem with tail ends of generations. It could go either way based on location. Are you in the United States? If not generations we're talking about don't apply to you. Different cultures have different generations. This might do well for US people and kinda Canadians. But does it hold up well even going over to Britain? Or other western countries? There's so many factors.

His argument makes sense for children born in 1995 or later. By the time most of them are forming real long term memories they might not remember anything of the 90's. But children born in the earlier half will have plenty of memories of the time. It just depends on what qualities they as human beings decide they like/genetics for them to focus on. Even their parents are a factor. Odd as it may be there are some people who have children later in life. Then there's always things like missing parents who age children faster. All sorts of things could happen to change the development of a person.

My point is people put way too much emphasis on generations. It's some shared experiences, but not necessarily a definition of a person.

And people have been [censored] stupid in every generation in different ways. I fail to see the worth of one over the other. We've had problems at all times in human history. If people honestly discriminate people on such a.... vague ghostly concept as a generation then they deserve to be laughed http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BaOvM9jXKg at.