I think it is wiped from memories because it very specifically affected one or two years of college graduates (that had the experience the parent comment mentioned). Not an entire generation. The data shows millennials as a whole are better off than boomers were at their age.
> The data shows millennials as a whole are better off than boomers were at their age.
Perhaps true if you go east far enough, seems objectively wrong for the majority of the west though. Honest question, if you think this and it isn't just rage bait.. what data supports it? Scott Galloway disagrees and offers hard data, and goes as far as calling it intergenerational theft. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEJ4hkpQW8E
> Perhaps true if you go east far enough, seems objectively wrong for the majority of the west though.
Much of the (American) millennials generation believes a story that they’re worse off. I feel it is a convenient story for people to tell themselves and blame someone else for their perceived losses. But I pulled up several articles supporting my claim with a quick search, even though the opposite narrative is more widespread.
Example article about how inflation adjusted net worth is higher for millennials than it was for boomers at the same age:
Galloway isn’t necessarily wrong in the individual data points he raises. But if you look at the sum of all of the factors - higher rents, more student debt, etc but also the positive things - the net worth in the end is higher for millennials. And remember this is inflation adjusted already.
Why does home ownership on its own matter? Net worth is inclusive of housing and assets and debt. And net worth is a direct measure of the wealth that is being built.
Because homes are pretty much the only asset a millenial would have at that time that would have grown over time. a 08-9 graducate wouldn't really have much money to spar for stocks unless they made really lucky bets or happened to mine a fewbitcoin they forgot about.
401k and IRAs is where millennials should have their stocks and those have done very well over the years. There is little point in stocks elsewhere (unless you are very rich) since stocks are for long term investments and those two cover the retirement needs of nearly everyone (except the very rich), and there are few other savings needs people might have that stocks qualify for.
Remember you won't live forever (at least not to current medical knowledge, you can bet otherwise if you want), and you can't take it with you (according to most religions). Thus once you have retirement covered and emergency savings you should be spending everything you earn. You should have enough money left at the end of the month to afford the things you buy at the end of the month, but there is no point in any more, enjoy life with what you earn. (donating to charity counts as enjoying life!)
Joe is on the hook for his mortgage and so his monthly cashflow must be higher to afford to live. However his net worth is larger and so he is richer.
This is why middle class people often feel poor than those who are poor: they make more money and have more in total, but they also have large bills and if something happens those bills will catch up with them fast.
Net worth isn't equity - mortgage + 401k. Net worth is assets - liabilities. Equity is not an asset; the house is. So is the 401k. The mortgage is a liability. So Joe's net worth is 100k (IRA) + 300k (value of house) - 200k (mortgage) = 200k positive net worth.
(Another way of thinking about equity, specifically, is it is the real estate contribution to net worth, because it is what is left when you subtract the real estate liability (mortgage) from the real estate asset (value of house). That's why you shouldn't subtract the mortgage from the equity: equity is what's left after you've already subtracted the mortgage.)
(Edit: Adjusted sign in first equation to subtract mortgage. It's probably more technically accurate to keep it as addition and consider the mortgage to be a negative value, but I believe it's more straightforward and intuitive for most people as it is now represented.)
As a thought experiment would you not feel (much) poorer if houses suddenly cost >$5 million tomorrow and you didn't own one yet? Even if everything else cost the same? Even if everything else cost the same and your net worth went up $100k?
However, there are certainly a lot of conflicting studies and data out there. And to be honest, it doesnt feel true given how much young people complain on the internet. Its hard to see which asserion is correct. It isnt necessarily correct just because one study says its so.
That's the average. Please compare the median wealth (especially seeing the absurd paper wealth of crypto bro and stock influencers who are almost exclusively millennials).
[Edit] also inflation is calculated based on average consumption. So you will notice that toys, clothing and electronic devices (TVs, cooking robots), all cheaper and cheaper (due to enshitiffication and quality decrease) count more for inflation than education, cars, housing and probably a lot of other stuff a 25-35 yo care more about.
I feel like your edited-in point is glossed over FAR too often. We talk about inflation like it’s some objective measure when it’s arbitrary as f@$k and mostly only reflects what the current arbiters of inflation want it to reflect.
A great recent example was the Australian decision to add capital gains on a primary residence as a profit (ie. negative expense) when calculating inflation. All of a sudden inflation was very reasonable despite the fact that established homeowners and their families were choosing between groceries and mortgage payments… but in terms of their net worth, YAY! They’re getting ahead!
A lot of the data used to claim millenials are doing better off is based on nonsense like "millenials have larger TVs on average" or "millenials all have smart phones yet boomers didn't have mobile phones", or equating 1 person making 3 times the median wage and 2 people making nothing as just as good as 3 different people making median wage.
