> We’re near 2 generations of flat real income for the vast majority of Americans.

No, we aren't! We have statistics on this (https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA672N). Median real income is up substantially since 40-50 years ago, depending on what you count as a generation. And we have stories and records of what life was like in the 1970s, when 80% of households had to hand wash dishes and 50% had to line-dry clothes. The reason people believe living standards haven't risen since their grandparents' day is that they get false nostalgia bait depictions of how a typical person lived in their grandparents' day.

(What is true, and what I'm sure contributes to the power of the nostalgia bait, is that real income stagnated with the dot-com bubble and didn't hit a sustained rise again until the mid-late 2010s.)

Real people don't care about "real income". They care about if they can get and retain a decent home, job and life. How much debt they are in, that their education is enough, how their social life is, if they can have kids and how they think about their future.

"Real income" is measured against the consumer price index (CPI). CPI is used to gauge inflation, "are people paying more for groceries this year than last?", not living standard. Most of the important questions like "how many years of education do you need for a good job?" or "how many average salaries do you need for a good home?" are all massively worse. So are many metrics of despair.

What real income really shows is that more money now gives you less. That what buys you a loaf of bread doesn't buy you a good life anymore. Because median income might be keeping up with inflation, but not with anything else.

That data series is misleading because of what you're seeing. Ostensibly you'd think that means wages are going up, right? It doesn't. Here [1] is the data set for that - weekly real earnings. They're barely moving - up about 13% over 50 years. And given now a days we have a lot of new and practically mandatory costs to deal with, such as internet and computing/telephony devices, real wages are probably down in practical terms.

So what gives with your data set? The data set I give covers wages for full time workers. The data set you gave covers all individuals 15+ with any "income", which includes governments benefits. So what you're likely seeing there is going to be, in part, driven by things like an aging population - with a large number of retirees retiring with social security, medicaid, pensions, etc fattening out the middle part of society where income, after all is accounted for, of around $40k sounds just about right. It's mostly unrelated to the change in wages.

---

Also, unrelated but I found your examples of 'better life' weird. I still hand wish dishes and line-dry clothes. I know Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates also hand wash their dishes. The "nostalgia" people have is for things like somebody graduating debt free, with a decent car, and ready to put a down payment on the first home - on the back of a part time job that put them through school. That really did happen, but now a days it sounds like a fantasy. I think society would happily trade dish washers for that!

[1] - https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q

It is reasonable to be skeptical about their definition of inflation, and henceforth what "real" means.

While this chart shows "real" income increases we apparently also see "real" increases on housing, rents, education, etc.

If your inflation metric is only on rolled oats, then it is not really worth much, is it?

https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/

While you are correct that real wages are up around 25%, productivity has nearly doubled. While various consumer goods, and technology have seen large improvements - ignoring the measurable and qualitative ways that affording basic aspects of life have become more difficult is not wise.

[flagged]

Thank you for chart. I will reassess real income gains. I'd be lovely to have a chart on housing/rent, healthcare, and higher education to see if people had both higher income and expenses.

Global trade as made consumer prices competitive in many things, but those are a big three.

Nostalgia was not at root of my original comment.

> and 50% had to line-dry clothes.

Sorry for hijacking, but this is quite possibly one of the funniest American poverty markers around.

And >50% of families could go to Disneyland* and own homes.

* https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/28/opinion/disney-world-econ...

Many households in European countries such as Germany or Finland line-dry clothes, and I would argue living standards are higher in those countries compared to the US.

Nooo. Wages only jumped in the Tech biz just before the dot-com crash and again before the AI crash that hasn't happened yet (unless you count laying off workers to pay for capX on NVIDIA hahaha). Bottom line: McDonalds is paying $20/hr now in California to flip burgers --YUUUGE, but a whole lot of people lost their jobs when major automobile manufacturers laid them off because they "didn't want to compete with McDonalds for workers"...where is that in your "Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics" (I'mma change that to "and LLMs" rofl).

Hey it's iPhone Day, "Stay Hungry Stay Foolish"* ---

*-nevermind the $10000 workstation named after a gf or more recently $2000 orange phones (I bought a DEEP Blue because Apple is always threatening to "Care-Deeply" me), $1000 watches and $300 earpieces for errbody. So Hungry. Also, we'll make sure you never work anywhere in Tech again if you even so much as interview for a new job outside of our company and Non-Competes Are No Longer Blocked! But What the Helly..Turtleneck also didn't invent the hungry mantra which is embraced by many other similar brilliant people, from Einstein to Elon'n-on and of course, my dad's gang one of whom brought Turtleneck back to Apple.) Get it? Got it? Good.

I can’t comment on the nostalgia aspect, because I wasn’t alive back then, but I can say that there are several aspects of the statistic you used that make it not reflective of the experience people have.

One issue is median real income does not tell you anything about the distribution of income. It can be used to show that the top 50% of people have had “real income growth”, but can hide a lot at both extremes; the poor and rich have had vastly different experiences [1]. The metric on that page looks at “share of national income”, so it has issues as well (not anchored to any objective measures), but it illustrates my point just as well.

The bigger issue I find is the way that “real income” is measured. There are a slew of issues, IMO (hedonic adjustment, for instance), but the biggest is the way that asset prices are treated in CPI - that is to say, they are not! Shelter prices reflect “owner equivalent rent”, not the price to actually buy a home, which has ballooned massively in the last few decades, especially the past five years, relative to income [2]. The same applies to other assets such as stocks; they are nowhere in the CPI metric, but have a direct impact on our lives; higher-priced stocks impeded the purchasing ability of people with respect to stocks, costing them returns over time (couple this with the larger cost of other assets over time and it is clear retirement age will have to go up). So, yes, maybe real income has increased, but substitutions are being made and tricks are being played; more people are renting longer because of home prices. Future returns on investments will be lower because of a giant asset bubble.

Also, future liabilities are nowhere to be seen in the real income metrics. The national debt that the US has saddled its current and future citizens with is shameful and will inevitably cause financial drag in the future (could be higher tax rates, but my personal bet is persistently higher inflation over time; you can already see the Fed giving up on its 2% target).

[1]: https://wid.world/country/usa/

[2]: https://www.visualcapitalist.com/median-house-prices-vs-inco...

[dead]