News

The study that graph is from literally says that millenial growth has stalled compared to baby boomer and silent generations:

https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/feds/files/2024007pap.pdf

We confirm that there has been a slowdown in intergenerational progress, except for Millennials who saw their incomes grow slightly faster than Generation X but still more slowly than Baby Boomers and the Silent Generation. Intergenerational progress has remained positive for all generations.

First, we find that the higher household incomes of Millennials relative to Generation X, through their 20s, is a result of dependence on their parents rather than a rise in their own market incomes.

That chart lacks context. The cost of living has drastically increased with each generation as well, far outpacing the increase in wages.

Meaningless chart.

It doesn’t account for things like the median home price in 1950 being ~$7000 vs over $400,000 today. The chart doesn’t show a peak earning increase of 10x between the Silent Generation vs GenX, which seems to have done the best, albeit only briefly. Adjusting the average home price for CPI makes a ‘50s $7k home less than $100k today.

Here's the source for that chart. And the paper for that chart.

The chart is for household income. With each generation, there's an increase in the percentage of the generation living at home. This is noted in the paper, but not in The Economist article. We'll see if Gen Z makes the switch like Millennials were during their 30s.

A couple of asides. The Economist graph isn't very easily matched with one from the paper. There are several graphs that share similar contours, but The Economist has changed the aspect ratio enough that it's hard to identify with visual inspection. Most curious, though, is The Economist's choice of starting the x-axis at 15 years old. All the graphs in the paper start at 20myesrs old.

The conclusion in The Economist piece is as follows:

What does this wealth mean? It can seem as if millennials grew up thinking a job was a privilege, and acted accordingly. They are deferential to bosses and eager to please. Zoomers, by contrast, have grown up believing that a job is basically a right, meaning they have a different attitude to work. Last year Gen Z-ers boasted about “quiet quitting”, where they put in just enough effort not to be fired. Others talk of “bare minimum Monday”. The “girlboss” archetype, who seeks to wrestle corporate control away from domineering men, appeals to millennial women. Gen Z ones are more likely to discuss the idea of being “snail girls”, who take things slowly and prioritise self-care.

It is clear that The Economist has an agenda of dividing Millennials and Gen Z. The paper makes no claims about Gen Z and their economic outlook. The data is simply not there. Rather, The Economist is recapitulating tired themes of "the youth these days" and "kids don't want to work".

People work when they have something to work towards, with and for people they care about. People work hard because it fills us with meaning purpose. When we are young, we do and should be creating relationships and learning about ourselves, the world, who we wish to be in the world, and who we wish to journey with.

I forever will call bullshit on the anti-youth themes of our culture. It dimishes it and serves only the most well established and crumudgenly amongst us. Articles like these have all too obvious subtext of "shut up, work hard, and grow up".

Fuck that noise.

Yeah but it doesn't tell the whole truth, cost of living has been rising steadily as well.

So you are saying that Millenials at their peak now are making as much as Boomers did 20 years ago when houses were about a quarter of the price, and somehow your conclusion is that Millenials are doing great? Or let's look at age vs age: at age 40 a Millenial makes twice as much as a Boomer did at that age, but a Boomer at age 40 could buy a new house in a nice suburb for under $100k when that exact same house is over $300k now.

And people can’t afford houses, college, healthcare, etc. because...? Like cool chart, but my generation will literally never be as financially stable as those who came before. I guess it’s fun to pretend we’re better off than we are though.

Imagine paying for college with your income rather than loans.

I wonder what happens to this chart if you remove the top 1% from the calculations. "Median" basically means halfway between the top and bottom... The massive and increasing wealth gap means this graph is basically worthless.

Yet still workings are still making less than they should.

Okay now do one that shows how much is available after paying for things like rent, food, car, etc.

Meaningless chart

Sure Bud, nice meaningless chart.

In 1960, minimum wage was $1.00/hour and the price of the average US home was $11,000.00

How many minimum wage workers are out there right now looking to buy a new home?

Missing some really important variables, there (inflation, buying power, etc)… while using metrics that present an a deliberately inaccurate picture (median rather than average, and not adjusted for outliers).

Basically, this chart is useless, deceptive propaganda.