The only problem is housing. Any discussion not focused 100% on housing is not grounded in reality.
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.
It doesn't matter how cheap iPads and gasoline are - as long as the five persist, life is an anxiety-inducing gauntlet of financial trials-by-fire for most people.
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/g...
> Bolstered by high incomes, American Zoomers’ home-ownership rates are higher than millennials’ at 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.
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".
source: https://www.economist.com/img/b/608/739/90/media-assets/imag...
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.
>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...
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.
>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#Discretionar...
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.
...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.
Therefore, wealth is money.
---
No, life is the combination of carbon and other things, so wealth is the combination of money and other things. It's the combination and interaction with other things that is important and focussing just on money is missing the forest for the trees.
A borrowed dollar spends just as well as a saved or earned one, which is why many confuse spending with wealth.
There's a lot more to it than how many beans you have in the bank.
If you're trying to imply that wealth = number in your bank account and 10x inflation makes you 10x wealthier, that's a massive misunderstanding of what "how much assets you have accumulated". Even though it wasn't explicitly stated, it's generally understood that the assets are valued in some meaningful way (eg. CPI or GDP deflator), rather than just looking at the raw numbers in your bank account.
Just use the definitions of words that are in the dictionary and widely agreed upon, so that conversations with other people can be meaningful. If you want to talk about how cost of living is high, or how it's not high but people think it's high because (insert your reason), just use the words we all use and let's talk about that.