4 ms·

Gen Z are the richest generation in all of American history on a median per-capita real income basis, compared to older generations when they were the same age.

Gen Z are the richest generation in all of American history on a median per-capita real income basis, compared to older generations when they were the same age. And it's not even close. Millenials are the second richest in American history. The only problem is housing. Any discussion not focused 100% on housing is not grounded in reality.

gruez 2y ago
>Gen Z are the richest generation in all of American history on a per-capita real income basis, compared to older generations when they were the same age. source: https://www.economist.com/img/b/608/739/90/media-assets/image/20240420_FNC345.png https://www.economist.com/img/b/608/739/90/media-assets/imag...
- feedforward 2y ago
  > per-capita Anyone looking at this chart can see the asterisk in it - adjusted by household size This is not a per capita income chart. It even says it is not in the chart. More of Generation Z lives at home in their 20s than baby boomers, so the income of their household is higher. They can't afford a house or even rent, and live with their parents, meaning a richer household, and are said to be richer. This was discussed (elsewhere) three months ago when this Economist article came out.
  - gruez 2y ago
    If you looked at the source paper, they do the same analysis on "couple sharing unit", which doesn't have this problem. Confusingly, their definition of "couple" also includes singles, so genZ getting married later or whatever isn't an issue either. >Subsequent references in this paper to couple incomes always refer to the income of the individual alone if single, and the equal-split income of the individual and their spouse if married. https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/feds/files/2024007pap.pdf https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/feds/files/2024007pap...
Pet_Ant 2y ago
Richest? How? Maybe by total wealth. I think wealth should be measured by how many hours at the median wage do you need to achieve a socially acceptable standard of living. Unfortunately, our standards have gone up and there are things that are now necessities that weren't before.
- gruez 2y ago
  >Maybe by total wealth. >I think wealth should be measured by how many hours at the median wage do you need to achieve a socially acceptable standard of living. That's a weird definition of "wealth". Wealth is generally understood to mean how much assets you have accumulated, not your free cash flow. What you're describing is properly referred to as discretionary income. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposable_income#Discretionary_income https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposable_income#Discretionar...
  - SirMaster 2y ago
    I don't think it's that weird. I think most people would naturally define wealth by the kind of life and lifestyle the wealth can afford. Who cares how much actual money it is if it can't actually afford a decent life.
    - yard2010 2y ago
      It's a real problem that you absolutely have to have money for living (food, housing, healthcare), but it's the same money you use to buy computer games or supercars.
  - Pet_Ant 2y ago
    > Wealth is generally understood to mean how much assets you have accumulated ...by accountants. "Wealth" as used by most people is related to quality of life. It even shows up in the phrase "house poor" where maybe someone has great net assets but cannot live comfortable life due to the drain of the house. Wealth is not money.
    - 2y ago
taylodl 2y ago
Income isn't the only measure of wealth. Also, there are two major expenses affecting Gen Z: 1. Education 2. Housing Both have been increasing at a rate faster than inflation for some time now. While Gen Z may have a greater income, their major expenses are even greater. When all is said and done, they're poorer as a result. Turns out that simply having money is insufficient to solving all financial problems.
- Manuel_D 2y ago
  No, even in real-terms, Gen Z (in America) is shaping out to be the wealthiest generation so far: https://www.economist.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=600,quality=80,format=auto/content-assets/images/20240420_FNC345.png https://www.economist.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=600,quality=80... Gen-Z is also owning homes at a greater rate than Millennials were at the same age: https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2024/04/16/generation-z-is-unprecedentedly-rich https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2024/04/16/g... > Bolstered by high incomes, American Zoomers’ home-ownership rates are higher than millennials’ at the same age
- lenerdenator 2y ago
  Also, healthcare and childcare.
  - taylodl 2y ago
    Great point - the cost of childcare is insane right now! But at least the states using the force of law to make women carry their embryos to term will be paying for it, right? Right?
    - HumblyTossed 2y ago
      [flagged]
  - grugagag 2y ago
    Food is starting to cost a bit too, especially if one wants to avoid eating badly.
feedforward 2y ago
> Gen Z are the richest generation in all of American history on a median per-capita real income basis, compared to older generations when they were the same age. Per capita? Not at all. What source says that? More of Generation Z lives with their parents than previous generations, often because they can't afford housing, or even rent, high college debt etc. They live with their parents, and thus in households with higher income, so only in that sense are they "rich" - the household income is higher than if they could afford their own house. Per capita real income higher? No. What source claims that? Every time someone says this, if there is a source, this always come back to them living with parents and household income being higher. Not per capita.
carlosjobim 2y ago
Your numbers are by definition wrong, since young people would not have a problem to afford housing if they were "the richest generation". I guess this is the progress of new-speak? We've had a decade of people saying "oh, people are so rich today that they don't want to have children". Now it's "oh, people are so rich today that they don't want to have homes". In a few years it will be "oh, people are so rich today that they don't want to eat food or have medical care".

gruez 2y ago

>Gen Z are the richest generation in all of American history on a per-capita real income basis, compared to older generations when they were the same age. source: https://www.economist.com/img/b/608/739/90/media-assets/image/20240420_FNC345.png https://www.economist.com/img/b/608/739/90/media-assets/imag...

feedforward 2y ago
> per-capita Anyone looking at this chart can see the asterisk in it - adjusted by household size This is not a per capita income chart. It even says it is not in the chart. More of Generation Z lives at home in their 20s than baby boomers, so the income of their household is higher. They can't afford a house or even rent, and live with their parents, meaning a richer household, and are said to be richer. This was discussed (elsewhere) three months ago when this Economist article came out.
- gruez 2y ago
  If you looked at the source paper, they do the same analysis on "couple sharing unit", which doesn't have this problem. Confusingly, their definition of "couple" also includes singles, so genZ getting married later or whatever isn't an issue either. >Subsequent references in this paper to couple incomes always refer to the income of the individual alone if single, and the equal-split income of the individual and their spouse if married. https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/feds/files/2024007pap.pdf https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/feds/files/2024007pap...

Pet_Ant 2y ago

Richest? How? Maybe by total wealth. I think wealth should be measured by how many hours at the median wage do you need to achieve a socially acceptable standard of living. Unfortunately, our standards have gone up and there are things that are now necessities that weren't before.

gruez 2y ago
>Maybe by total wealth. >I think wealth should be measured by how many hours at the median wage do you need to achieve a socially acceptable standard of living. That's a weird definition of "wealth". Wealth is generally understood to mean how much assets you have accumulated, not your free cash flow. What you're describing is properly referred to as discretionary income. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposable_income#Discretionary_income https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposable_income#Discretionar...
- SirMaster 2y ago
  I don't think it's that weird. I think most people would naturally define wealth by the kind of life and lifestyle the wealth can afford. Who cares how much actual money it is if it can't actually afford a decent life.
  - yard2010 2y ago
    It's a real problem that you absolutely have to have money for living (food, housing, healthcare), but it's the same money you use to buy computer games or supercars.
- Pet_Ant 2y ago
  > Wealth is generally understood to mean how much assets you have accumulated ...by accountants. "Wealth" as used by most people is related to quality of life. It even shows up in the phrase "house poor" where maybe someone has great net assets but cannot live comfortable life due to the drain of the house. Wealth is not money.
  - 2y ago

taylodl 2y ago

Income isn't the only measure of wealth. Also, there are two major expenses affecting Gen Z: 1. Education 2. Housing Both have been increasing at a rate faster than inflation for some time now. While Gen Z may have a greater income, their major expenses are even greater. When all is said and done, they're poorer as a result. Turns out that simply having money is insufficient to solving all financial problems.

Manuel_D 2y ago
No, even in real-terms, Gen Z (in America) is shaping out to be the wealthiest generation so far: https://www.economist.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=600,quality=80,format=auto/content-assets/images/20240420_FNC345.png https://www.economist.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=600,quality=80... Gen-Z is also owning homes at a greater rate than Millennials were at the same age: https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2024/04/16/generation-z-is-unprecedentedly-rich https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2024/04/16/g... > Bolstered by high incomes, American Zoomers’ home-ownership rates are higher than millennials’ at the same age
lenerdenator 2y ago
Also, healthcare and childcare.
- taylodl 2y ago
  Great point - the cost of childcare is insane right now! But at least the states using the force of law to make women carry their embryos to term will be paying for it, right? Right?
  - HumblyTossed 2y ago
    [flagged]
- grugagag 2y ago
  Food is starting to cost a bit too, especially if one wants to avoid eating badly.

feedforward 2y ago

> Gen Z are the richest generation in all of American history on a median per-capita real income basis, compared to older generations when they were the same age. Per capita? Not at all. What source says that? More of Generation Z lives with their parents than previous generations, often because they can't afford housing, or even rent, high college debt etc. They live with their parents, and thus in households with higher income, so only in that sense are they "rich" - the household income is higher than if they could afford their own house. Per capita real income higher? No. What source claims that? Every time someone says this, if there is a source, this always come back to them living with parents and household income being higher. Not per capita.

carlosjobim 2y ago

Your numbers are by definition wrong, since young people would not have a problem to afford housing if they were "the richest generation". I guess this is the progress of new-speak? We've had a decade of people saying "oh, people are so rich today that they don't want to have children". Now it's "oh, people are so rich today that they don't want to have homes". In a few years it will be "oh, people are so rich today that they don't want to eat food or have medical care".