No, actually I'm not.
Yes, actually, you are.
The GP was being a pedantic twat by picking a definition of generation that was a) clearly not what the article was talking about and b) incorrect based on his/her own choice of definition.
And you're an ignorant twat not only by creating a definition out of thin air that has no bearing on or relation to the actual definitions, but by also by being clueless and thick headed enough to not recognize the difference when they're pointed out to you.
Except that you, and he, are incorrect about the generally approved definition of generation, and the average age of procreation, neither of which are 30 years.
I know this may be hard for you to follow but:
1) The definition of generation that you posted is structurally correct but factually incorrect because "30" is not the number that is standardly used by anyone. It may be used by some people who don't know better, but it is *not* the definition, because there is nowhere in the world where the average generation gap is 30 years. The average in most of the western world is around 25, and globally is about 21.
2) The article is clearly talking about employees, and thus the generation it is referring to is obviously not a biological or sociological generation.