7

A 2017 Business Insider article claims that, in the UK:

for the first time in more than 100 years the current generation of workers — millennials — are doing worse than the generation before them, Generation X.

In particular, a chart compares the average household income, after housing costs, for Millennials (born 1981-2000) and Gen X (born 1966-1980), and shows it is crosses lower at about the age of 28 years.

Graph of household incomes by age

Is this true?

Martin Schröder
  • 548
  • 1
  • 6
  • 16
d-b
  • 1,575
  • 2
  • 11
  • 13
  • 3
    I’ve heard similar sentiments before, but unless you provide a specific example of the claim with specific metrics, I don’t think this can be answered. – Andrew Grimm Feb 04 '20 at 06:45
  • 2
    Echoing @AndrewGrimm's comment: Please find an example that specifies who is the "current" generation, and by what metric they are alleged to be worse off, or we will get lost in opinions on what it means for a generation to be better off. – Oddthinking Feb 04 '20 at 07:30
  • https://www.businessinsider.com/millennials-uk-first-generation-1800s-do-worse-than-parents-resolution-foundation-2017-2?r=US&IR=T – d-b Feb 04 '20 at 11:31
  • https://www.cbsnews.com/news/millennials-are-much-poorer-than-their-parents-data-show/ – d-b Feb 04 '20 at 11:32
  • https://money.howstuffworks.com/personal-finance/financial-planning/millennials-first-worse-parents.htm – d-b Feb 04 '20 at 11:34
  • 1
    @AndrewGrimm Shouldn't people acting as moderators have at least some basic interest and knowledge about news and societal trends? Do you need me to source that rain is wet as well? – d-b Feb 04 '20 at 11:36
  • 5
    @d-b: [Welcome to Skeptics!](http://meta.skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/1505/welcome-to-new-users) Actually, no, that's not a requirement of mods. It is considered more important for us to understand what questions make bad questions and our [Code of Conduct](https://stackoverflow.com/conduct). Please be respectful. – Oddthinking Feb 04 '20 at 11:52
  • I have done a substantial rewrite based on your first link, so it is worth checking you are okay with it before it gets reopened. – Oddthinking Feb 04 '20 at 12:04
  • @Oddthinking: I'm confused. I hadn't looked at the linked article before, but... now, with the charts right there in the question, the actual (sourced) study [linked in the article](https://www.resolutionfoundation.org/app/uploads/2017/02/IC-intra-gen.pdf), what's left to answer? What remains unclear? – DevSolar Feb 04 '20 at 12:13
  • 2
    @DevSolar agreed, at this point it's clear as day that the claim is true, and any other answers would just be re-hashing the original link. Although I do take pause because of the part in the chart that says "after housing costs". Maybe an answer that explains why this is the case (whether it's rising housing costs or lower salaries that's causing the issue). – DenisS Feb 04 '20 at 15:29
  • I went to the first link, and found the most substantial claim. The second link has some more claims, also backed by a link to a paper. The third one jumped around a little, but also seems to back the specific claims with references. So, we come back to what specific claim was the OP skeptical about? – Oddthinking Feb 05 '20 at 01:22
  • 8
    @d-b One of the biggest issues we deal with today (and by we I mean society, but also this site) is vagueness on our claims. And, as a skeptic, we should not take for granted any assumptions. So knowing exactly what the claim is, and how the claim is sourced and/or calculated, is of critical importance before it can be evaluated. I promise you, Oddthinking wants this question to be a successful one. – corsiKa Feb 05 '20 at 06:10

0 Answers0