> 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:

https://www.newsweek.com/millennials-financially-better-off-...

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.

▲

Den_VR 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The numbers that interest me are comparing home ownership rates at various ages between the generational groups

Lots of research shows about a 8-10% gap, that only at very specific ages finally achieved parity.

The consequence of this is a difference in wealth building, economic security, and family planning for millions.

▲

aianus 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

To add to that, an unemployed 28 year old living with his parents in the house that they own is a "homeowner" in most of these homeowner stats.

▲

SilverElfin 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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.

	▲	johnnyanmac 3 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		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. Most all else would have inflated or depreciated.
	▲	aianus 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		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?
	▲	actionfromafar 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Someone posted this already but a more useful "net worth" is how big of a shock can take without paying multiples on the sticker price. And even homes are now sieving into institutional buyers. https://medium.com/newco/your-financial-shock-wealth-4845e6d...
	▲	2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[deleted]

▲

aydyn 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I've read this as well, heres an economist article with a graph: https://archive.ph/Y3vvz

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.

▲

orwin 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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.