https://twitter.com/ernietedeschi/status/1308748407633309696 https://twitter.com/ernietedeschi/status/1308748407633309696 These graphs appear to show that real

https://twitter.com/ernietedeschi/status/1308748407633309696 https://twitter.com/ernietedeschi/status/1308748407633309696 These graphs appear to show that real, inflation-adjusted median-income is higher for Gen Z that it was for Millenials, higher for Millenials than it was for the 'Oregon Trail' cohort, higher for the 'Oregon Trail' kids than it was for Gen X, higher for Gen X than the Baby Boomers and higher for the Baby Boomers than for the Silent Generation. Are his figures false, or is it possible that there is another factor at work? Maybe we look back at our youth with rose-coloured glasses, and maybe we look up to those older than us and fail to see how hard they worked to get where they are. I remember that my first apartment was a dive; I just now looked it up and see that it has been completely renovated, is appointed like a luxury flat and is only 36% higher in real dollars. That is not terrible. A quick check on Zillow shows units available in my original price range not that far away, in a town which is far more desirable than it was decades ago. Edit: ah, I see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24662058 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24662058 has the same graphs. I think my commentary and own figures are interesting, so I will leave them.