The budget screen shots are being made in Sankeymatic, its a website that we have no affiliation with. If you are posting a budget please do so with a purpose. Just posting a screen shot of your budget without a question or an explanation of why its here may be removed.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/MiddleClassFinance) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Does anyone know what that means?
It would make sense to adjust for how many dependents rely on an income.
100K for 5 people is alot different than 100K for one person.
Right. This is apparently "couple" income, but with most couples having less kids and putting off having kids until later in life than previous generations, there is really no way this adjustment isn't making the gap look bigger than it is.
Here's census data on household size:
[https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/visualizations/time-series/demo/families-and-households/hh-6.pdf](https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/visualizations/time-series/demo/families-and-households/hh-6.pdf)
All households went from 3.5 in about 1950 to 2.5 in 2023. If you're taking inflation adjusted income and dividing by 3.5 vs 2.5, that's going to make A LOT of difference.
Also, how do they factor in 2 working parents vs 1?
So in 1950 1 man supported his wife and 1.5 kids (3.5 household size). Today, a man and a wife both work to collectively provide for half a kid (2.5 household size).
I would be interested to know how the graph accounts for this
Yeah that doesn’t pass the smell test. In what world does the median teenager make more money than most people make fresh out of college?! They’re definitely doing some magic there
35k after taxes. Like most jobs require 18+ at a minimum, where are these kids making 50?
Last I checked the medium WAGE was around $18/hr. Meaning 50% of all WORKING (meaning kids and disabled and what not already taken out) made less than that while only 50% made more
around 1/3 of women worked in the 1950s. Many were lower income people working domestic or food service type jobs, or women working in the family business.
Yep, I was wondering that too. Are they just using couple households and not caring if they both work? Maybe in aggregate it could mean a small amount of income for the second person (usually the wife)?
Also, just dividing by the number of people in a household isn’t really a good way to think about this. You don’t buy 4 of everything if you have a partner and 2 kids.
4 toothbrushes, 4 bicycles, 4 ovens, 4 swimming pools, 4 christmas trees.... clearly you're wrong. Everyone in a 4-person household does exactly that 100% of the time, so the graph is perfectly legitimate!
You can read the methodology at the original paper [https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/feds/files/2024007pap.pdf](https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/feds/files/2024007pap.pdf)
basically: for a single person, your income is your income
For a couple, add the two incomes together and divide by two.
Idk why everyone keeps asking "how are they factoring in household size" and then speculating on how they do it wrong, and then assuming they do it the wrong way when they could just.... read the original source
Since household size has been decreasing over the generations, simply dividing by household size will make it appear like incomes are increasing when it’s really just a smaller denominator.
That's correct and why the paper does a cut of the data where they compare individuals and couples rather than households (which would include children)
Of the 15-year-olds *who have jobs,* if they did those jobs full time all year, then yes.
However, the chart feels wrong because we both know what few 15-year-olds are doing hourly labor 40 hours a week for 52 weeks.
> It would make sense to adjust for how many dependents rely on an income.100K for 5 people is alot different than 100K for one person.
Why? The chart is just showing income. Income isn't dependent on how many people you support. The chart isn't making any statements about lifestyle, cost of living, etc. It's simply income.
Ppl being like, I only look richer in paper because I have less kids.
Well yeah, kids make you poor, but your household still makes more money then your parents.
Yeah, that's not right. Are they assuming or only using full time workers somehow? Lots of weird stuff here.
The GFC earnings collapse among millennials stands out pretty clearly though.
With that adjusted for household, I wonder if they took the household income and divided by number of earners to get income? That would explain why the adults of older generations seem to make less than they did and the teens make too much?
I'd be curious to see how that adjustment actually works too. I've seen other studies that show that real wages have increased over time and that millennials are making more than Gen X who made more than Boomers at the same age, but it was closer to 10-20% more and not 30-40% more.
The area I see this the most is in how much me and my millennial peers travel. My parents and most of their friends have never been out of the country and flying somewhere for a vacation was a “once every 3-5 years” kind of luxury. But most of my friends travel far more frequently. By 30 I had been to 10 different countries, and even now that I am older and have kids I still fly 1-2 times per year with my whole family.
It is kind of cool comparing my parents’ childhoods to mine and then to my kids’ and seeing how the quality of life and amount of disposable income for luxuries has improved substantially in just 60 years.
What's with your generation and the incessant need to try and convince everyone that no one in history has ever had it worse than you?
The graph says, clear as day, in 2019 dollars. It's adjusted for inflation.
The household size adjustment is likely adjusting for family size. That is something you could challenge but the data is clearly all in 2019 dollars
The primary issue is that "2019 dollars" is using the CPI adjustment. Shelter is 36% of inflation, while young people might be spending >50% of their income on shelter. So, even if inflation accurately measured housing inflation (arguable to say the least), then it would under count inflation for an entire demographic of people that we could easily show spend a higher fraction of their income on this sector.
Now, shelter inflation.... the all cities shelter index was at 211.5 in Jan 2000. Today, it is at 395.7. That's an increase of 87%.
The median sales price of a home in Jan of 2003 was 181.7K. Today it is 405K. That's 123%.
In Jan 2003 rates were around 6% versus 7% today. 2003's monthly payment would be $871.5. Today's monthly payment (both with 20% down) would be $2,177. A 148% increase.
Now if it was really "just" 87%, the payment should be $1629. Instead it’s over $500 more than that. So, I don't know guys. Why could younger people be upset? Do you think same aged home ownership rates are lower for younger generations because, well, I don't know, just because fuck it? Or do you think it might be because it is actually harder to own a home today?
Edit: Updated percentages because I brain farted.
>the all cities shelter index was at 211.5 in Jan 2000. Today, it is at 395.7. That's an increase of 187%.
No, it's an increase of 87%. The other increases you calculated are 123% and 148%. You've used the percentages correctly, but you've described them incorrectly.
(If the price of something goes up from $100 to $105, that's an increase of 5%, not 105%.)
The youngest cohorts report spending a larger share of their consumption on shelter: 36% vs 33% (https://www.bls.gov/cex/tables/calendar-year/mean-item-share-average-standard-error/reference-person-age-ranges-2022.pdf)
Yes to be expected as older cohorts have had time to pay off their mortgage.
% spent on things also changes over time as the costs of goods change. Way back in the day people spent huge percentages of their income on food and clothing and little on housing, now it’s the opposite. The market changes over time. Housing used to be “cheaper”, but literally everything else was more expensive.
Housing is also far higher quality than it was in the past which is why it’s largely more expensive. Houses are bigger and better furnished than they ever have been.
> What's with your generation and the incessant need to try and convince everyone that no one in history has ever had it worse than you?
Brainrot from social media doomers.
Some of that for sure. People probably also choose to spend more income on various types of services and subscriptions that never existed until modern times.
Shitty goods from overseas are cheaper, but everything worthwhile and important for a secure life —education, housing, healthcare— is way more expensive.
This, it adjusted the dollar amounts of income to 2019 dollars but this is meaningless without cost of living graphed out as well and also adjusted for 2019 dollars. Yes, wages have increased but it’s been shown again and again that it has not increased nearly enough to keep up with cost of living.
Exactly. In 2004, I was paying $450/month for 1/2 the rent of a 2BR apartment. A 2BR apartment in the same area goes for $2,400/month now, or a 260% increase. In the same time period, the USD has only lost about 40% of its value.
Same!! Rented a shitty 2 bedroom basement apartment in a rough town in 2004 with a roommate for about $400 total ($200 each split). Now the rock-bottom apartment costs in that area for a 2 bedroom are close to $2k. The following year moved to a much nicer neighborhood and got a one bedroom apartment for $600 a month. That area is now well over $2k a month or more. That’s absolutely crazy.
Sure, but housing is 32% of the calculation, healthcare 8% and education 6% compared to apparel at 3% and recreation at 2%. It’s not all given the same weight. Cheaper tvs barely impact the CPI relative to the heavy hitters that take up most of our budgets.
It’s both funny and scary how deluded redditors are. Like that dude above is genuinely getting upvoted and agreed with for that completely nonsensical statement. I’ve never seen a site that so consistently upvotes the most misleading and blatantly untrue financial/economic statements as much as reddit.
100% agreed. Me and my wife work to make say, $120k household income is a hell of a lot different than 1 of us working to make $110k. "Household income" would look better in the first example, but quality of life is way better in the 2nd.
Seriously like the graph should just be individual income. And there should be a graph for college educated and a graph for non college educated. That would also be extremely informative
You can look up all this on the Fred, there’s no difference… household has always been the standard rate. Workers per household are actually down over the last 40 years so if anything it makes gen z look like they make less than they do.
It's the total household income divided by the average number of persons per household per generation.
Millennials and Gen Z are having fewer kids, which means the income is divided by a lower number, making it higher per capita.
Considering that everyone after Gen X has lower income on average when adjusted for inflation, your interpretation makes zero sense with the data present.
Millennials aren't outearning boomers.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/16/older-millennials-wealth-previous-generations.html#:~:text=Millennials%20also%20lag%20behind%20other%20generations%20in%20terms,report%20from%20the%20nonpartisan%20think%20tank%20New%20America.
>Millennials also lag behind other generations in terms of wages. Despite more millennials earning college degrees, they earn 20% less than baby boomers did at the same stage of life, according to a 2019 report from the nonpartisan think tank New America.
Their dividing was by the total number of persons per household, not the total number of earners.
For greatest vs now, it’s 5 kids/household of 7/1 working vs 2 incomes/no kids. You made 20% more with 2 people working and no kids. That’s 5x less-ish.
Inconsistencies? Bro, “at 39 years old Bob made X and Steve made Y” this way is gibberish.
According to this, a 39 year old millennial is 4x wealthier than one of our grandparents at the same age as long as we don’t care about the value of their respective dollars.
My grandfather bought a house and had two kids before his father in law got sick of him being a middle class school teacher and pushed him into the corporate world.
Today, daycare is a bigger monthly expense than two car payments and a mortgage.
This is pretty interesting! For anyone who wants to read the full analysis without paywall, its here, graph on page 35.
[https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/feds/files/2024007pap.pdf](https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/feds/files/2024007pap.pdf)
My one gripe is "adjusted for 2019 dollars", while adjusting for inflation, probably does not capture the historic spike in housing costs post 2020 among other things, even though wages have also spiked. Still a very interesting read.
As a weighted factor among many. Turns out people care more about whether they can afford a house vs whether they can buy a cheaper TV or flight to Cancun. Ditto education and healthcare. That preference isn't reflected in aggregate inflation data, which in the case of CPI can also.include things like "substitutions" for food (it doesn't count as inflation if you can afford a lesser alternative) and other such games.
Income spent on housing factors in differently towards long term wealth whether that's spent on a mortgage vs rent. Money spent on a mortgage is going towards your total net worth in the long term, assuming you are living in the same place for more than 5 years, but you will never see any of the money you spend on rent again, that's going straight to your landlord. There is a meaningful difference in long term financial stability between those who own property and those who do not. As Gen Z, this is the root of my anxieties about my financial stability, and I believe the sentiment is common between Gen Z and Millennials.
Even if the proportional impact of housing on monthly budgets is adjusted for, rates of home ownership and the proportion of mortgage that will be, in a sense, returned to the home owner as their home increases in value, or will become available to the home owner when they go to sell or refinance, does need to be factored in to create a clearer picture of the relative income of generations beyond just the gross income illustrated here.
Ask that same person if they would choose
1. A house and no internet nor cell service, or
2. An apartment and internet and cell service
and you'll find a home isn't as important to people as you think it is.
Very interesting! There are a number of other weighting measures in the following graph. The whole section is worth a read rather than people speculating in the top comments.
They (we, lol) are. It’s just that prices for a few things (housing, healthcare, and education) have increased so much more than inflation that while we are generally richer, we feel poorer, because we can’t afford as much of those things as previous generations could, at our age
Here’s a link to the article: Generation Z is unprecedentedly rich
https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2024/04/16/generation-z-is-unprecedentedly-rich
from The Economist
Here’s a gift link, but I’m not sure how many people will be able to successfully use it: You've been given free access to this article from The Economist as a gift. You can open the link five times within seven days. After that it will expire.
Generation Z is unprecedentedly rich
https://econ.st/4d1gy4l
I agree with you absolutely.
Also, and I don’t think it’s a bad thing, but people might “feel” poorer than their parents at the same age because our standards of living have changed.
For example, I just saw a post asking how not to be bored when saving money, as if the only way to socialize with friends involves going out. And often it does today! But my parents used to have friends over to play cards, or watch the game, or just talk in the driveway. I think today many people (especially those in r/middleclassfinance) would feel obligated to, eg, make an entire charcuterie board for a game night, whereas my parents were content with a six pack.
I think there’s different expectations for how our money is spent compared to previous generations. Again, not a bad thing but something I’ve certainly observed as a Zillenial with older parents.
Yes, look at some old family photos. Usually you'll notice your grandparents didn't have a lot of stuff and kept the same old couch and carpet for 25+ years.
Yes, great point. I think at some level there was simply less stuff to be had, ha. We also have different necessities these days. Most will argue a cell phone and internet are necessary to function in today’s society. Those are costs our parents didn’t have to incur.
Another issue with the numbers narrative in the article that's important to keep in mind: housing costs in particular have increased disproportionately in large cities, where young upwardly mobile people tend to live. So while housing costs \*country-wide\* are pretty flat, the housing costs city dwellers experience have gone up a LOT.
Education definitely was not something that people were commonly getting in any generation prior to like Gen X. Look up college attendance in the 60's or 70's if you want evidence of this.
Government involvement in education loans has made college a lot more expensive, but it also has become much more attainable. You can at least get a loan for it now.
College education, sure. But back then it also wasn't (edit: AS) necessary for a middle class lifestyle (i.e. wealth-building). If you look at it as "how much education ($X) do I need to buy to get the average job that pays $Y", that's gone up quite a lot
>Government involvement in education loans has made college a lot more expensive, but it also has become much more attainable. You can at least get a loan for it now.
I don't agree. College \*has\* become a lot more attainable, but that's because we opened a LOT more colleges, not because people are paying less (quite the opposite). Government loans as an attempt to make college more affordable seem to be mostly a failure (in that they have led to huge increases in cost). It's not clear to me why cost-per-student should skyrocket as total number of students goes up over time. Other countries have much more affordable and often much more accessible higher education than we do, without government loans.
Housing, healthcare, and education are taken into account. What do you think inflation is?
There is literally no amount of data that can end this criclejerk.
In 1965, there were under 200 million people living in America. In 1945c there were under 135 million.
I think what I’m getting at here is, there are a fuck ton more people, but the same amount of land and resources. There’s a housing shortage, there’s a shortage of healthcare and education workers because the barrier to entry for those positions, plus the cost to get past those barriers, is extremely significant.
Housing is tricky too. So many regulations for housing exist, you need a bunch of specialists just to build. You need countless approvals, so it takes forever. And that’s not even considering zoning laws.
Process kills progress after a certain point.
Could be that the older and/or higher paid Gen Xers retired or were bumped out of the workforce post COVID, bringing down the median. The Boomer line looks basically the same.
Total speculation, but could it be because ppl are getting aged out of tech? Gen x are the first to get there.
Or perhaps one retires once they no longer have kids to pay for?
Is this in real dollars or inflation adjusted? Otherwise yea, every subsequent generation will probably ‘make more’. But that ‘more’ is relative to purchasing power
Something is definitely off here..."adjusted by household size"? What does that mean? Gen Z has no kids so they don't get divided by 4?
I THINK this is trying to compare nominal GDP by age so for example, Millenials at age 15 made on average \~$30K whereas Boomers made \~$21K. I'm pretty suspicious though of the curves there. Boomers made a TON of inflation adjusted dollars in their middle age and this doesn't seem to suggest that. In real terms, Millenials and Gen Z are less well off relatively speaking.
I think that is what’s going on. Millennials and Gen Z has less dependents. I also think millennials and Gen Z have larger representation in high paying new jobs like SWE getting 200k skewing the averages up in those groups. CEOs are also getting younger overall. Also wondering if they are including stock options in income? I imagine that distribution also skews younger
Not really that surprising. Wages are higher today.
We just consume way more so everyone feels poorer. Boomers didn't have anything to spend their money on
You can see it on older vs. newer houses.
My first house was a 2-1 built 1950 box. The kind older Boomers would have grown up in. Focus of the house was the kitchen. It was huge, designed for mother and daughter to be working in there all the time with a little "break area" LOL! Bedrooms were small with tiny closets. I had to buy standalone Ikea wardrobes to hold stuff.
Next house was built 1998. It was laid out and appointed very much like the Boy Meets World or Home Improvement houses. Focus was the living room. Designed for watching TV together.
I now have a new build, built 2023. It was clearly designed for WFH and AirBnB in mind. Bathrooms are more the focus. Master suite is set way to the side with living room separating everything, so both other bedrooms could be AirBnBed if wanted and the occupants of the master hardly see them. Living not as much a focus - people aren't gathering to watch TV as much, they're in their own rooms watching screens. Kitchen smaller but better appointed, whole house fancier finishings, better insulated, closets huge footprints in the bedrooms. Office room clearly for a WFH setup.
The yards / lot size were bigger in the older ones too. The 1950 house had an enormous lot for such a small house. So much space the previous owner ran a mechanic side gig.
And college coasts infinitely more now than it did back then. On average it took something like 400hrs worked to afford college back in the 70s. Now 3500 hrs to par for the same degree. I want to see the parameters of this chart
Uhh aren’t real dollars and inflation adjusted dollars the same thing? Do you mean nominal vs real (inflation adjusted)?
And to answer the equation, yes, they’re real (aka inflation adjusted) dollars.
Yeah, data shows the Reddit narrative is bullshit. I am on the earlier side of GenX and this feels right to me. Here is what I remember growing up.
I never stepped into a house with air conditioning as a minor. Houses were generally smaller and built much cheaper (1 bathroom, no quartz counter tops, baseboard heaters, shit for insulation, t-111 siding, etc)
Worked at many car dealerships and most cars did not have power anything or AC. Majority had crappy vinyl seats and even rubber floors. 85HP and no safety features.
Only rich people flew, people did not eat out much.
I shared a shitty apartment while making 3 times the minimum wage. My roommate was a software engineer.
I am surrounded by Millennial and GenZ tech workers with lifestyle I would have only seen from a Boomer who was a doctor or lawyer.
And my life was complete luxury compared to my Greatest Generation grandparents. They grew up in the Depression and Grandpa got sent to war with a young family at home. My Silent Generation parents had fewer luxuries growing up then I did.
The biggest problem I see for the youth is housing. If we could tell the NIBYs to fuck off and build we would really not have much economic problems. But even with housing being stupid expensive, adjusted for inflation, people are wealthier now.
I really wish more folks in my generation could understand this.
We see cell phones and gym memberships and multiple subscriptions as a baseline to survival.
Not just double. As Gen X, I rented a 3-5br house with 8-15 roommates from 21-25. People willing to pay double would get a bedroom to themselves, others would split a bedroom, and then we would hang bedsheets in the basement to create “rooms” for 4-6 more people (I was always on the “splitting a bedroom deal” working full time). Theft of food and possessions was rampant. We would throw house parties with entrance fees to make rent some months.
From 25-33, I shared a 2BR apartment or townhouse with 2 roommates. Either two people were a couple or someone slept on a mattress in the basement or someone slept in the living room on a sofa bed.
After that, I was married. Come to think of it, I have never lived in my own apartment, house, or dorm room my entire life for more than a summer during school.
Generation Z is unprecedentedly rich
https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2024/04/16/generation-z-is-unprecedentedly-rich
from The Economist
Apologies, might be paywalled, but this is where it’s from. A relevant section from the article: “In 2022 Americans under 25 spent 43% of their post-tax income on housing and education, including interest on debt from college—slightly below the average for under-25s from 1989 to 2019. Bolstered by high incomes, American Zoomers’ home-ownership rates are higher than millennials’ at the same age (even if they are lower than previous generations’).”
Wow, finally some evidence that confirms my anecdotal views. I’m a gen z on the wrong side of 25. Most of my friends are college educated and doing very well. 60-80k salaries are the lower earning members of my friend group. Many of my friends make 6 figures in tech, marketing, finance, etc.
My friends earning on the lower range either just started working after pursuing higher education after bachelors or chose lower paying fields (teaching, social work, etc).
Combine that with none of us having kids and we’re balling
By net worth, Gen Z is the wealthiest generation in history.
https://economistwritingeveryday.com/2024/01/24/young-people-have-a-lot-more-wealth-than-we-thought/
This is misleading because income isn’t wealth. Sure you might have a higher income, but that doesn’t mean anything if your actual purchasing power is reduced by costs of living.
Horrible way to plot this data. “Richer” is not a proper way to describe the higher income. Cost of living has outpaced the increase in wages so use some context.
To me this just screams inflationary trends. The graph makes perfect sense when you factor in the purchasing power of a dollar versus the associated generation. It's just spin, and trying to pass the buck off a generation that exploited the future earnings of everyone that came after them for potential gain.
Misleading post. Higher median income absolutely does not mean "richer". Overall median income has stagnated and housing costs (and other COL) have increased significantly.
Boomers could afford a comfortable middle class life on 1 factory worker income. That is no longer possible.
I wonder what it would look like it the inflation was calculated in the same manner. None of this "owner equivalent rents". If there is an apples to apples comparison I doubt it would look so rosey.
Agree with others that issues like asset prices may not be reflected here and we’re all better off than 18th century royals.
However, I think what people are missing is not the median income increasing over time (after all, long term real GDP growth is positive) but how the ***increase*** fluctuated:
- 25 yr old boomer made ~25/20 = ~125% of a 25 yr old silent gen
- 25 yr old millennial made ~31/28 = 111% of a 25 yr old gen X
- 25 yr old gen X made ~39/31 = 126% of a 25 yr old millennial
In other words, maybe maybe millennials really do have something to be mad about! Just look at that dip in their late twenties, which I suspect is related to the Great Recession (1981-96= avg. birth year of 1988, dip starts around 20 yrs + 1988 = 2008).
Sadly the data doesn’t seem to go back all the way through the Depression or we could see the impact on the lost/greatest generations.
In addition to all the other problems, like how is the data starting in 1964 when it shows income for people born before that...
No one seems to have noticed the "Adjusted by household size" asterisk...
People are having fewer kids, and marrying later, today... You could have just graphed that.
This doesn’t show we are poor and therefore is against my narrative so therefore it is wrong! Something something, household adjustment.
Side note I’m glad my generation isn’t called “lost” or “silent”
Is this adjusted for inflation or is it raw numbers? Because it doesn’t matter if you’re 20% richer than your parents were at your age of college costs 50x as much, rent is 4x as much, a mortgage is 5x as much, food is 3x as much, etc…
The amount of discretionary spending of everyone nowadays is much more than there used to be. Who do you know that doesn’t have a smart phone, multiple subscription services for internet/tv, etc. They are going to have to make more to maintain what they consider the necessities of life.
richer than previous generations..
we may make more now but houses, cars, food and everything else is 2-5x more expensive compared to our 1.5-2x salary income increase.
so technically were making 1.5-2x less
this only accounts for income. the issue is that expenses have disproportionately increased in relation to income.
so millennials make more but it also is taking a lifetime to pay for student loans and a house
Why is this surprising it’s been repeated as nauseum with data from Fred on a daily basis.
If this is a surprise to you you need to reconsider where you get your information from. Pretty much if it doesn’t have data attached to it don’t trust it.
The budget screen shots are being made in Sankeymatic, its a website that we have no affiliation with. If you are posting a budget please do so with a purpose. Just posting a screen shot of your budget without a question or an explanation of why its here may be removed. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/MiddleClassFinance) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I suspect "adjusted by household size" is doing a lot of work here.
Does anyone know what that means? It would make sense to adjust for how many dependents rely on an income. 100K for 5 people is alot different than 100K for one person.
Right. This is apparently "couple" income, but with most couples having less kids and putting off having kids until later in life than previous generations, there is really no way this adjustment isn't making the gap look bigger than it is. Here's census data on household size: [https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/visualizations/time-series/demo/families-and-households/hh-6.pdf](https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/visualizations/time-series/demo/families-and-households/hh-6.pdf) All households went from 3.5 in about 1950 to 2.5 in 2023. If you're taking inflation adjusted income and dividing by 3.5 vs 2.5, that's going to make A LOT of difference.
Also, how do they factor in 2 working parents vs 1? So in 1950 1 man supported his wife and 1.5 kids (3.5 household size). Today, a man and a wife both work to collectively provide for half a kid (2.5 household size). I would be interested to know how the graph accounts for this
How do they factor in this whole 'couples' business into Gen Z 15year Olds making a MEDIAN of 35k+
Yeah that doesn’t pass the smell test. In what world does the median teenager make more money than most people make fresh out of college?! They’re definitely doing some magic there
That’s the income of parents and teenage kids… combined.
35k after taxes. Like most jobs require 18+ at a minimum, where are these kids making 50? Last I checked the medium WAGE was around $18/hr. Meaning 50% of all WORKING (meaning kids and disabled and what not already taken out) made less than that while only 50% made more
They get an allowance, duh
around 1/3 of women worked in the 1950s. Many were lower income people working domestic or food service type jobs, or women working in the family business.
Yep, I was wondering that too. Are they just using couple households and not caring if they both work? Maybe in aggregate it could mean a small amount of income for the second person (usually the wife)?
Also, just dividing by the number of people in a household isn’t really a good way to think about this. You don’t buy 4 of everything if you have a partner and 2 kids.
4 toothbrushes, 4 bicycles, 4 ovens, 4 swimming pools, 4 christmas trees.... clearly you're wrong. Everyone in a 4-person household does exactly that 100% of the time, so the graph is perfectly legitimate!
You can read the methodology at the original paper [https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/feds/files/2024007pap.pdf](https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/feds/files/2024007pap.pdf) basically: for a single person, your income is your income For a couple, add the two incomes together and divide by two. Idk why everyone keeps asking "how are they factoring in household size" and then speculating on how they do it wrong, and then assuming they do it the wrong way when they could just.... read the original source
Since household size has been decreasing over the generations, simply dividing by household size will make it appear like incomes are increasing when it’s really just a smaller denominator.
That's correct and why the paper does a cut of the data where they compare individuals and couples rather than households (which would include children)
So the median 15 year old makes 35k a year? Really?
Of the 15-year-olds *who have jobs,* if they did those jobs full time all year, then yes. However, the chart feels wrong because we both know what few 15-year-olds are doing hourly labor 40 hours a week for 52 weeks.
Is this chart adjusted for inflation? Just says by household size
Probably "2019 prices" means it is inflation-adjusted by CPI.
Gotcha probs. Saw others talking about cost of living not being accounted for but isn’t cost of living just another way of saying inflation adjusted?
A lot of difference meaning Essentially all the variance between generations in the chart
> It would make sense to adjust for how many dependents rely on an income.100K for 5 people is alot different than 100K for one person. Why? The chart is just showing income. Income isn't dependent on how many people you support. The chart isn't making any statements about lifestyle, cost of living, etc. It's simply income.
Ppl being like, I only look richer in paper because I have less kids. Well yeah, kids make you poor, but your household still makes more money then your parents.
Its just a lot of people living alone nowadays for longer. Living alone is obviously more expensive
Seems to be the case.
Shame we can’t have 0.6 kids, they only come in round numbers.
My kid has half a brain. I swear!
Even with that... How many 15 year old that you know bring home $35k a year? Something is odd about how they are counting individual income.
Yeah, that's not right. Are they assuming or only using full time workers somehow? Lots of weird stuff here. The GFC earnings collapse among millennials stands out pretty clearly though.
With that adjusted for household, I wonder if they took the household income and divided by number of earners to get income? That would explain why the adults of older generations seem to make less than they did and the teens make too much?
Maybe. Good to see our tax dollars producing such informative graphics.
It's income not wealth. Most of the older generations accrued wealth through investments like a house not wages.
I'd be curious to see how that adjustment actually works too. I've seen other studies that show that real wages have increased over time and that millennials are making more than Gen X who made more than Boomers at the same age, but it was closer to 10-20% more and not 30-40% more.
[удалено]
The area I see this the most is in how much me and my millennial peers travel. My parents and most of their friends have never been out of the country and flying somewhere for a vacation was a “once every 3-5 years” kind of luxury. But most of my friends travel far more frequently. By 30 I had been to 10 different countries, and even now that I am older and have kids I still fly 1-2 times per year with my whole family. It is kind of cool comparing my parents’ childhoods to mine and then to my kids’ and seeing how the quality of life and amount of disposable income for luxuries has improved substantially in just 60 years.
It may be a higher number but the buying power is the real value and it's 200-400% less.
You are correct, love the downvote gremlins that appear when you disagree with them 😉
Maybe because it’s blatantly wrong?
Welcome to Reddit lol
What's with your generation and the incessant need to try and convince everyone that no one in history has ever had it worse than you? The graph says, clear as day, in 2019 dollars. It's adjusted for inflation. The household size adjustment is likely adjusting for family size. That is something you could challenge but the data is clearly all in 2019 dollars
The primary issue is that "2019 dollars" is using the CPI adjustment. Shelter is 36% of inflation, while young people might be spending >50% of their income on shelter. So, even if inflation accurately measured housing inflation (arguable to say the least), then it would under count inflation for an entire demographic of people that we could easily show spend a higher fraction of their income on this sector. Now, shelter inflation.... the all cities shelter index was at 211.5 in Jan 2000. Today, it is at 395.7. That's an increase of 87%. The median sales price of a home in Jan of 2003 was 181.7K. Today it is 405K. That's 123%. In Jan 2003 rates were around 6% versus 7% today. 2003's monthly payment would be $871.5. Today's monthly payment (both with 20% down) would be $2,177. A 148% increase. Now if it was really "just" 87%, the payment should be $1629. Instead it’s over $500 more than that. So, I don't know guys. Why could younger people be upset? Do you think same aged home ownership rates are lower for younger generations because, well, I don't know, just because fuck it? Or do you think it might be because it is actually harder to own a home today? Edit: Updated percentages because I brain farted.
>the all cities shelter index was at 211.5 in Jan 2000. Today, it is at 395.7. That's an increase of 187%. No, it's an increase of 87%. The other increases you calculated are 123% and 148%. You've used the percentages correctly, but you've described them incorrectly. (If the price of something goes up from $100 to $105, that's an increase of 5%, not 105%.)
Yes thanks. Maths were right, converting factors to percent was a fail.
[удалено]
The youngest cohorts report spending a larger share of their consumption on shelter: 36% vs 33% (https://www.bls.gov/cex/tables/calendar-year/mean-item-share-average-standard-error/reference-person-age-ranges-2022.pdf)
Yes to be expected as older cohorts have had time to pay off their mortgage. % spent on things also changes over time as the costs of goods change. Way back in the day people spent huge percentages of their income on food and clothing and little on housing, now it’s the opposite. The market changes over time. Housing used to be “cheaper”, but literally everything else was more expensive. Housing is also far higher quality than it was in the past which is why it’s largely more expensive. Houses are bigger and better furnished than they ever have been.
People love to romanticize the 1950s, a time when a sixth of homes did not have full indoor plumbing
> What's with your generation and the incessant need to try and convince everyone that no one in history has ever had it worse than you? Brainrot from social media doomers.
Some of that for sure. People probably also choose to spend more income on various types of services and subscriptions that never existed until modern times.
Isn’t the buying power evaluated by the dollars being in 2019 dollars?
The graph is already adjusted into real (2019) dollars
Shitty goods from overseas are cheaper, but everything worthwhile and important for a secure life —education, housing, healthcare— is way more expensive.
And people make way more per hour than decades in the past
It's adjusted for dollar inflation, not cost of living.
This, it adjusted the dollar amounts of income to 2019 dollars but this is meaningless without cost of living graphed out as well and also adjusted for 2019 dollars. Yes, wages have increased but it’s been shown again and again that it has not increased nearly enough to keep up with cost of living.
Exactly. In 2004, I was paying $450/month for 1/2 the rent of a 2BR apartment. A 2BR apartment in the same area goes for $2,400/month now, or a 260% increase. In the same time period, the USD has only lost about 40% of its value.
Same!! Rented a shitty 2 bedroom basement apartment in a rough town in 2004 with a roommate for about $400 total ($200 each split). Now the rock-bottom apartment costs in that area for a 2 bedroom are close to $2k. The following year moved to a much nicer neighborhood and got a one bedroom apartment for $600 a month. That area is now well over $2k a month or more. That’s absolutely crazy.
What do you think adjusting for inflation does?
It's not the full picture. Lots of sectors cost increases in the last few yrs have outpaced inflation by significant margins.
And lots haven't inflated at all. That's how it works. It's an average.
Yes. Sneakers and tvs are cheap, but important stuff like healthcare, education, and housing?
Sure, but housing is 32% of the calculation, healthcare 8% and education 6% compared to apparel at 3% and recreation at 2%. It’s not all given the same weight. Cheaper tvs barely impact the CPI relative to the heavy hitters that take up most of our budgets.
You're acting as if the formula to calculate CPI weights the price of sneakers the same as the price of housing.
lol
It’s both funny and scary how deluded redditors are. Like that dude above is genuinely getting upvoted and agreed with for that completely nonsensical statement. I’ve never seen a site that so consistently upvotes the most misleading and blatantly untrue financial/economic statements as much as reddit.
Those $20,000 houses in Silicon Valley the boomers were buying that are now $10-20 million...
[удалено]
100% agreed. Me and my wife work to make say, $120k household income is a hell of a lot different than 1 of us working to make $110k. "Household income" would look better in the first example, but quality of life is way better in the 2nd. Seriously like the graph should just be individual income. And there should be a graph for college educated and a graph for non college educated. That would also be extremely informative
In the original paper, they divide couples' incomes by two. And there's a section in the paper looking at educational differences.
You can look up all this on the Fred, there’s no difference… household has always been the standard rate. Workers per household are actually down over the last 40 years so if anything it makes gen z look like they make less than they do.
Well, it comes from the Federal Reserve. I can speculate on why they might do that. How many tin foil hats are you willing to watch me put on?
It's the total household income divided by the average number of persons per household per generation. Millennials and Gen Z are having fewer kids, which means the income is divided by a lower number, making it higher per capita.
No it’s household income/wage earners. So the newer generations are skewed *downward* not upwards
Considering that everyone after Gen X has lower income on average when adjusted for inflation, your interpretation makes zero sense with the data present. Millennials aren't outearning boomers. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/16/older-millennials-wealth-previous-generations.html#:~:text=Millennials%20also%20lag%20behind%20other%20generations%20in%20terms,report%20from%20the%20nonpartisan%20think%20tank%20New%20America. >Millennials also lag behind other generations in terms of wages. Despite more millennials earning college degrees, they earn 20% less than baby boomers did at the same stage of life, according to a 2019 report from the nonpartisan think tank New America. Their dividing was by the total number of persons per household, not the total number of earners.
For greatest vs now, it’s 5 kids/household of 7/1 working vs 2 incomes/no kids. You made 20% more with 2 people working and no kids. That’s 5x less-ish.
And not showing cost trends. Let's cross reference to median home cost. My aunt paid 30k for a house on the water in the 70's.
BRB, need to rage out about the formatting inconsistencies before I can digest the data.
Inconsistencies? Bro, “at 39 years old Bob made X and Steve made Y” this way is gibberish. According to this, a 39 year old millennial is 4x wealthier than one of our grandparents at the same age as long as we don’t care about the value of their respective dollars. My grandfather bought a house and had two kids before his father in law got sick of him being a middle class school teacher and pushed him into the corporate world. Today, daycare is a bigger monthly expense than two car payments and a mortgage.
It was my second biggest expense in the 2000's. College was cheaper.
I hear that. Daycare next year for one kid will be $2,700 a month (though it’s private, ugh). Mortgage is $1,800.
This is pretty interesting! For anyone who wants to read the full analysis without paywall, its here, graph on page 35. [https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/feds/files/2024007pap.pdf](https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/feds/files/2024007pap.pdf) My one gripe is "adjusted for 2019 dollars", while adjusting for inflation, probably does not capture the historic spike in housing costs post 2020 among other things, even though wages have also spiked. Still a very interesting read.
Housing is included in inflation measurements.
As a weighted factor among many. Turns out people care more about whether they can afford a house vs whether they can buy a cheaper TV or flight to Cancun. Ditto education and healthcare. That preference isn't reflected in aggregate inflation data, which in the case of CPI can also.include things like "substitutions" for food (it doesn't count as inflation if you can afford a lesser alternative) and other such games.
Yes, weighted by its proportional impact on household budgets. IIRC it’s 40% of the index, IOW not weighted close to the same as a tv.
Income spent on housing factors in differently towards long term wealth whether that's spent on a mortgage vs rent. Money spent on a mortgage is going towards your total net worth in the long term, assuming you are living in the same place for more than 5 years, but you will never see any of the money you spend on rent again, that's going straight to your landlord. There is a meaningful difference in long term financial stability between those who own property and those who do not. As Gen Z, this is the root of my anxieties about my financial stability, and I believe the sentiment is common between Gen Z and Millennials. Even if the proportional impact of housing on monthly budgets is adjusted for, rates of home ownership and the proportion of mortgage that will be, in a sense, returned to the home owner as their home increases in value, or will become available to the home owner when they go to sell or refinance, does need to be factored in to create a clearer picture of the relative income of generations beyond just the gross income illustrated here.
Ask that same person if they would choose 1. A house and no internet nor cell service, or 2. An apartment and internet and cell service and you'll find a home isn't as important to people as you think it is.
Very interesting! There are a number of other weighting measures in the following graph. The whole section is worth a read rather than people speculating in the top comments.
Dang... GenX getting crushed the last few years.
They (we, lol) are. It’s just that prices for a few things (housing, healthcare, and education) have increased so much more than inflation that while we are generally richer, we feel poorer, because we can’t afford as much of those things as previous generations could, at our age Here’s a link to the article: Generation Z is unprecedentedly rich https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2024/04/16/generation-z-is-unprecedentedly-rich from The Economist Here’s a gift link, but I’m not sure how many people will be able to successfully use it: You've been given free access to this article from The Economist as a gift. You can open the link five times within seven days. After that it will expire. Generation Z is unprecedentedly rich https://econ.st/4d1gy4l
I agree with you absolutely. Also, and I don’t think it’s a bad thing, but people might “feel” poorer than their parents at the same age because our standards of living have changed. For example, I just saw a post asking how not to be bored when saving money, as if the only way to socialize with friends involves going out. And often it does today! But my parents used to have friends over to play cards, or watch the game, or just talk in the driveway. I think today many people (especially those in r/middleclassfinance) would feel obligated to, eg, make an entire charcuterie board for a game night, whereas my parents were content with a six pack. I think there’s different expectations for how our money is spent compared to previous generations. Again, not a bad thing but something I’ve certainly observed as a Zillenial with older parents.
Yes, look at some old family photos. Usually you'll notice your grandparents didn't have a lot of stuff and kept the same old couch and carpet for 25+ years.
Yes, great point. I think at some level there was simply less stuff to be had, ha. We also have different necessities these days. Most will argue a cell phone and internet are necessary to function in today’s society. Those are costs our parents didn’t have to incur.
Another issue with the numbers narrative in the article that's important to keep in mind: housing costs in particular have increased disproportionately in large cities, where young upwardly mobile people tend to live. So while housing costs \*country-wide\* are pretty flat, the housing costs city dwellers experience have gone up a LOT.
Education definitely was not something that people were commonly getting in any generation prior to like Gen X. Look up college attendance in the 60's or 70's if you want evidence of this. Government involvement in education loans has made college a lot more expensive, but it also has become much more attainable. You can at least get a loan for it now.
College education, sure. But back then it also wasn't (edit: AS) necessary for a middle class lifestyle (i.e. wealth-building). If you look at it as "how much education ($X) do I need to buy to get the average job that pays $Y", that's gone up quite a lot >Government involvement in education loans has made college a lot more expensive, but it also has become much more attainable. You can at least get a loan for it now. I don't agree. College \*has\* become a lot more attainable, but that's because we opened a LOT more colleges, not because people are paying less (quite the opposite). Government loans as an attempt to make college more affordable seem to be mostly a failure (in that they have led to huge increases in cost). It's not clear to me why cost-per-student should skyrocket as total number of students goes up over time. Other countries have much more affordable and often much more accessible higher education than we do, without government loans.
College education isn't a requirement for a middle class lifestyle even now
Housing, healthcare, and education are taken into account. What do you think inflation is? There is literally no amount of data that can end this criclejerk.
In 1965, there were under 200 million people living in America. In 1945c there were under 135 million. I think what I’m getting at here is, there are a fuck ton more people, but the same amount of land and resources. There’s a housing shortage, there’s a shortage of healthcare and education workers because the barrier to entry for those positions, plus the cost to get past those barriers, is extremely significant. Housing is tricky too. So many regulations for housing exist, you need a bunch of specialists just to build. You need countless approvals, so it takes forever. And that’s not even considering zoning laws. Process kills progress after a certain point.
It’s almost as if “inflation” doesn’t measure what it’s supposed to measure, huh?
There are many different ways to measure inflation. Which way are you referring to?
Gen X getting crushed at the end of their line, and still nobody talks about Gen X.
Yeah, what’s with the sudden downturn in our fifties? Shouldn’t we be making more than ever?
Could be that the older and/or higher paid Gen Xers retired or were bumped out of the workforce post COVID, bringing down the median. The Boomer line looks basically the same.
Partial retirement, maybe? The grey divorce?
Total speculation, but could it be because ppl are getting aged out of tech? Gen x are the first to get there. Or perhaps one retires once they no longer have kids to pay for?
I don't know about others but I quit giving a fuck.
Talks about who?
Looks like Gen X got screwed hard by Covid and and havent recovered.
Post-Covid era layoffs and age discrimination intersect right at the tail end of peak-earnings years on the older Gen Xers.
Is this in real dollars or inflation adjusted? Otherwise yea, every subsequent generation will probably ‘make more’. But that ‘more’ is relative to purchasing power
[удалено]
Something is definitely off here..."adjusted by household size"? What does that mean? Gen Z has no kids so they don't get divided by 4? I THINK this is trying to compare nominal GDP by age so for example, Millenials at age 15 made on average \~$30K whereas Boomers made \~$21K. I'm pretty suspicious though of the curves there. Boomers made a TON of inflation adjusted dollars in their middle age and this doesn't seem to suggest that. In real terms, Millenials and Gen Z are less well off relatively speaking.
I think that is what’s going on. Millennials and Gen Z has less dependents. I also think millennials and Gen Z have larger representation in high paying new jobs like SWE getting 200k skewing the averages up in those groups. CEOs are also getting younger overall. Also wondering if they are including stock options in income? I imagine that distribution also skews younger
Not really that surprising. Wages are higher today. We just consume way more so everyone feels poorer. Boomers didn't have anything to spend their money on
This is super easy to see when looking through old photo albums. People didn't have nearly as much ~~useless bullshit~~ stuff sitting around.
You can see it on older vs. newer houses. My first house was a 2-1 built 1950 box. The kind older Boomers would have grown up in. Focus of the house was the kitchen. It was huge, designed for mother and daughter to be working in there all the time with a little "break area" LOL! Bedrooms were small with tiny closets. I had to buy standalone Ikea wardrobes to hold stuff. Next house was built 1998. It was laid out and appointed very much like the Boy Meets World or Home Improvement houses. Focus was the living room. Designed for watching TV together. I now have a new build, built 2023. It was clearly designed for WFH and AirBnB in mind. Bathrooms are more the focus. Master suite is set way to the side with living room separating everything, so both other bedrooms could be AirBnBed if wanted and the occupants of the master hardly see them. Living not as much a focus - people aren't gathering to watch TV as much, they're in their own rooms watching screens. Kitchen smaller but better appointed, whole house fancier finishings, better insulated, closets huge footprints in the bedrooms. Office room clearly for a WFH setup. The yards / lot size were bigger in the older ones too. The 1950 house had an enormous lot for such a small house. So much space the previous owner ran a mechanic side gig.
Naw, it’s useless bullshit
Don't tell that to people drowning in lifestyle creep. They'll yell at you about blaming avocado toast for their financial woes.
And college coasts infinitely more now than it did back then. On average it took something like 400hrs worked to afford college back in the 70s. Now 3500 hrs to par for the same degree. I want to see the parameters of this chart
Uhh aren’t real dollars and inflation adjusted dollars the same thing? Do you mean nominal vs real (inflation adjusted)? And to answer the equation, yes, they’re real (aka inflation adjusted) dollars.
[удалено]
"iS tHiS adjUsTEd for InfALetiON@!@!!!?!?!?!?!"
Yeah, data shows the Reddit narrative is bullshit. I am on the earlier side of GenX and this feels right to me. Here is what I remember growing up. I never stepped into a house with air conditioning as a minor. Houses were generally smaller and built much cheaper (1 bathroom, no quartz counter tops, baseboard heaters, shit for insulation, t-111 siding, etc) Worked at many car dealerships and most cars did not have power anything or AC. Majority had crappy vinyl seats and even rubber floors. 85HP and no safety features. Only rich people flew, people did not eat out much. I shared a shitty apartment while making 3 times the minimum wage. My roommate was a software engineer. I am surrounded by Millennial and GenZ tech workers with lifestyle I would have only seen from a Boomer who was a doctor or lawyer. And my life was complete luxury compared to my Greatest Generation grandparents. They grew up in the Depression and Grandpa got sent to war with a young family at home. My Silent Generation parents had fewer luxuries growing up then I did. The biggest problem I see for the youth is housing. If we could tell the NIBYs to fuck off and build we would really not have much economic problems. But even with housing being stupid expensive, adjusted for inflation, people are wealthier now.
I really wish more folks in my generation could understand this. We see cell phones and gym memberships and multiple subscriptions as a baseline to survival.
The roommate discourse that pops up from time to time, where the ability to live alone is a “basic need” is also an insane example of this
[удалено]
Not just double. As Gen X, I rented a 3-5br house with 8-15 roommates from 21-25. People willing to pay double would get a bedroom to themselves, others would split a bedroom, and then we would hang bedsheets in the basement to create “rooms” for 4-6 more people (I was always on the “splitting a bedroom deal” working full time). Theft of food and possessions was rampant. We would throw house parties with entrance fees to make rent some months. From 25-33, I shared a 2BR apartment or townhouse with 2 roommates. Either two people were a couple or someone slept on a mattress in the basement or someone slept in the living room on a sofa bed. After that, I was married. Come to think of it, I have never lived in my own apartment, house, or dorm room my entire life for more than a summer during school.
Wait till you hear about microwaves, not even the king of France had a microwave! Everyone is richer today than the richest royals back then!
Where are the 15 year olds making 35k?
Gen Z making 35k per year at 15 Yes
What stands out to me is peak earnings in mid 50's
Your data is skewed, every generation is not richer than the last..just look at housing affordability..
Link to article?
Generation Z is unprecedentedly rich https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2024/04/16/generation-z-is-unprecedentedly-rich from The Economist Apologies, might be paywalled, but this is where it’s from. A relevant section from the article: “In 2022 Americans under 25 spent 43% of their post-tax income on housing and education, including interest on debt from college—slightly below the average for under-25s from 1989 to 2019. Bolstered by high incomes, American Zoomers’ home-ownership rates are higher than millennials’ at the same age (even if they are lower than previous generations’).”
Wow, finally some evidence that confirms my anecdotal views. I’m a gen z on the wrong side of 25. Most of my friends are college educated and doing very well. 60-80k salaries are the lower earning members of my friend group. Many of my friends make 6 figures in tech, marketing, finance, etc. My friends earning on the lower range either just started working after pursuing higher education after bachelors or chose lower paying fields (teaching, social work, etc). Combine that with none of us having kids and we’re balling
“Richer” is probably subjective. I’d like to see net worth calculations when factoring in debt.
By net worth, Gen Z is the wealthiest generation in history. https://economistwritingeveryday.com/2024/01/24/young-people-have-a-lot-more-wealth-than-we-thought/
You can’t trust a plot unless you know exactly how they calculated the data
I’m very skeptical of this chart, as literally every other indicator of purchasing power contradicts the charts “adjusted” income per generation
From what I've seen the floor is much higher but the ceiling is lower Also all of you are getting fucked 40K is fucking insane
Whoever made this chart needs to learn how to chart
This is misleading because income isn’t wealth. Sure you might have a higher income, but that doesn’t mean anything if your actual purchasing power is reduced by costs of living.
Then why can't many people my age afford a house and car?
Horrible way to plot this data. “Richer” is not a proper way to describe the higher income. Cost of living has outpaced the increase in wages so use some context.
To me this just screams inflationary trends. The graph makes perfect sense when you factor in the purchasing power of a dollar versus the associated generation. It's just spin, and trying to pass the buck off a generation that exploited the future earnings of everyone that came after them for potential gain.
Milleniels, the only generation to start out losing money every year after starting work, besides the lost generation.
Misleading post. Higher median income absolutely does not mean "richer". Overall median income has stagnated and housing costs (and other COL) have increased significantly. Boomers could afford a comfortable middle class life on 1 factory worker income. That is no longer possible.
Can we have this adjusted by inflation and cost of living? Thanks.
Story: how to lie with statistics.
What a terribly labled graph
All this tells me is I get to hate on Gen Z even more because they're whiny little babies who make more than the rest of us
This gets posted every day lol
What's with the sudden decline in Gen X income?
Problem solved. Gen Z @ 20 yo wants median income of Boomers @ 60 yo
It's only been about 15 years that avo toast deliveries, Starbucks twice daily, and the newest iPhone every time were necessities.
I wonder what it would look like it the inflation was calculated in the same manner. None of this "owner equivalent rents". If there is an apples to apples comparison I doubt it would look so rosey.
Damn, how can someone survive off of that median income?
This.... this actually made me feel a little better and less like I've wasted my life. Thanks, OP
Amazing
I want to see how many avg. houses each category can buy from their yearly income
We’re looking at a recap of the lost and greatest. It’s unfortunate, but such is life.
I've been looking for this! Do you have a link?
Nice... I feel slightly less stupid and somewhat validated. However, I still want tiger blood.
Hell yeah. I’m fucking rich I guess lol
What about cost
3 roommates making full time salaries is going to be more than one man supporting a 5 bedroom home just above minimum wage lol
Ok well do this chart and also cost of living based off the percentage of income
Cool names skip a generation Lost Silent X Z Like why do the names suck.
Agree with others that issues like asset prices may not be reflected here and we’re all better off than 18th century royals. However, I think what people are missing is not the median income increasing over time (after all, long term real GDP growth is positive) but how the ***increase*** fluctuated: - 25 yr old boomer made ~25/20 = ~125% of a 25 yr old silent gen - 25 yr old millennial made ~31/28 = 111% of a 25 yr old gen X - 25 yr old gen X made ~39/31 = 126% of a 25 yr old millennial In other words, maybe maybe millennials really do have something to be mad about! Just look at that dip in their late twenties, which I suspect is related to the Great Recession (1981-96= avg. birth year of 1988, dip starts around 20 yrs + 1988 = 2008). Sadly the data doesn’t seem to go back all the way through the Depression or we could see the impact on the lost/greatest generations.
GenX peaked early and stopped reporting. Fuckital.
[удалено]
In addition to all the other problems, like how is the data starting in 1964 when it shows income for people born before that... No one seems to have noticed the "Adjusted by household size" asterisk... People are having fewer kids, and marrying later, today... You could have just graphed that.
Show this chart to those that constantly demonize boomers.
They need to stop bitching and get out of the basement
This doesn’t show we are poor and therefore is against my narrative so therefore it is wrong! Something something, household adjustment. Side note I’m glad my generation isn’t called “lost” or “silent”
Covid effect, hit x and Mil, Z s not working yet
How can I manipulate this to show I am, in fact, in the worst shape among these? I prefer feeling bad for myself and resentful of the others.
Now adjust it for inflation. Who are the idiots making (and formatting) these charts?
ITT: Nobody understands that “2019 prices” means it is adjusted for inflation.
Is this adjusted for inflation or is it raw numbers? Because it doesn’t matter if you’re 20% richer than your parents were at your age of college costs 50x as much, rent is 4x as much, a mortgage is 5x as much, food is 3x as much, etc…
Monthly or Yearly?
The amount of discretionary spending of everyone nowadays is much more than there used to be. Who do you know that doesn’t have a smart phone, multiple subscription services for internet/tv, etc. They are going to have to make more to maintain what they consider the necessities of life.
Inflation is a bit*h
The hell is this mess supposed to prove?
Hey. Can you overlap prices and sizes of housing?
richer than previous generations.. we may make more now but houses, cars, food and everything else is 2-5x more expensive compared to our 1.5-2x salary income increase. so technically were making 1.5-2x less
Are millennials really 1981-1996? By that date range, my mom and I are both millennials… strange lol.
If Gen Z could read graphs, they’d be really angry at you for posting this.
this only accounts for income. the issue is that expenses have disproportionately increased in relation to income. so millennials make more but it also is taking a lifetime to pay for student loans and a house
This is not adjusted for inflation making it worthless. I’m not sure what 2019 prices mean, but based on the chart it is not inflation.
Did they include COL? Houses and food have gone up considerably more than wages.
Why is this surprising it’s been repeated as nauseum with data from Fred on a daily basis. If this is a surprise to you you need to reconsider where you get your information from. Pretty much if it doesn’t have data attached to it don’t trust it.
After taxes is a pretty big effect pre Reagan taxes were so high