Young People Are Richer Than Boomers Were

Despite viral claims, a typical 25-year-old Gen Zer has annual household income that's 50 percent above Baby Boomers'.

Have you heard how young people suffer now?

Scroll TikTok, Instagram, etc., you see the same message: "Young people today can't get ahead!"

One popular meme says when baby boomers like me were young, "A family could own a home, a car, and send their kids to college, all on one income."

"That's a fantasy," says economist Norbert Michel. "We are much better off than we were."

My new video takes the meme's claims one by one, starting with "a family could own a home."

On social media, many young people say things like, "Most people don't live in houses because it's too expensive."

Yes, homes cost more now, but census data show more Americans own their homes now than when I was a kid.

And today's homes are much bigger and twice as likely to have central air, dishwashers, garbage disposals, etc.

We want more now.

Also, young people can afford more now.

Today, Americans actually spend a smaller percentage of our money on food, clothing, and housing than we used to, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics survey data.

"We have a lot more things and we don't have to work as hard to get them," says Michel. "Now it's the norm to go out for dinner."

When I was young, few people did that.

Few people flew places for vacation. They didn't have the money, and flying cost much more. Adjusted for inflation, a cross-country flight cost $1,000. Now it's about $300.

"People did not just go on vacation," says Michel, "did not fly all across the country."

But the popular narrative circulates.

It's part of progressives' campaign for socialism. They tell young people: Not only does capitalism foster greed, inequality, etc., but it doesn't even deliver the goods.

Columbia Business School Professor Jeremy Ney tells me, "The game changed on the younger generations. Hard work alone is not enough because the deck is stacked against so many folks."

"The idea that nobody had to work hard, that everybody had job security," replies Michel, "is absolutely ridiculous. My dad would've laughed at that and should have. Income is definitely higher, jobs are more plentiful, opportunities are more plentiful."

They sure are. Unemployment today is 4.3 percent. It was almost twice that when I was young.

Gen Z, overall, is doing better than young people once did. A typical 25-year-old Gen Zer has annual household income that's 50 percent above Baby Boomers'.

On to the meme's claim that when I was young, "a family could afford to send their kids to college."

Well, yes, some could, because college was much cheaper then. Tuition in 1963 averaged $10,542 (adjusted for inflation) versus $39,307 now.

Even so, "Most people didn't go to college," says Michel. "Roughly half of the labor force didn't even finish high school."

Finally, yes, it's true—a family could own a car. But it wasn't anything like today's cars. It wasn't as safe or comfortable, and it broke down sooner. Today's cars last more than twice as long as cars did then.

Why do people spread misinformation about today's generations being worse off when they're clearly so much better off?

"Politically, it sells," says Michel. "It makes it really easy for a politician to say, 'I'm going to fix it.'"

Maybe that's why President Donald Trump campaigned saying, "We don't have a great country anymore! We're going back to the old days."

"We always have a tendency to believe in the things that are wrong and that are bad," says Michel. "That's unfortunate, because overall most people have been doing much, much better."

That internet meme should really say:

"Once upon a time, a family who rarely ate out, or flew anywhere, could afford a smaller home, a lousy car, and they didn't send their kids to college. All on one income."

COPYRIGHT 2025 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.

Comments

[Chumby]

When they were young, Boomers couldn’t afford to lop off their nuts and invert their penises like Millennials can these days. Look at Bruce Jenner, he had to save up over many years before he could transition.

[Eeyore]

Nobody wants to have to wait until they are 60 to lose their nuts.

[Ersatz]

You dont have to wait that long - just get married. 😉

[Weigel's Cock Ring]

I wonder how much one of those old boxes of Wheaties would be worth today if it was sealed and intact.

[Chumby]

Gem mint 10 box of Raisin Tran.

[Don't look at me! ( Is the war over yet?)]

Cheerino nuts.

[Chumby]

Count Chopula

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

Honey Nutless Cheerios

[Eeyore]

Boo Berryless.

[Homer Thompson]

usually agree with stossel but the median price of a car, college education and house have gone up considerably more than 50%

[VinniUSMC]

That doesn't dispute anything Stossel wrote. He also wrote about the increased cost of cars and college "education". So... try harder.

[Mickey Rat]

It does though, as that really affects whether or not they are "richer". If things like houses or cars are not obtainable.

[Zeb]

And those things are all driven by shortsighted government policy. People are richer, but some stuff costs more.

[mad.casual]

And those things are all driven by shortsighted government policy.

And also not "necessities" or "essential liberties" as much as contemporary fashion plates conflating needs and wants. As far as libertarians are concerned, the price of invisible pink unicorns going up or down is immaterial.

As opposed to owning property, having a place to dwell, and/or profiting off of one's own labor and/or tools, most people didn't buy new cars, let alone lease them, and nobody should've ever been owed or owe anything strictly or simply for possessing a sheepskin.

[Zeb]

That's true. But the drive towards increasing wealth, at least since the second half of the 20th century has been about satisfying wants. Almost everyone has the essential necessities of life. You can tell because they are in fact alive.

[Neutral not Neutered]

Sadly much of the increases in cost are due to over regulation and of course people wanting all the bells and whistles of todays technology.

Gladly the EV subsidies and attempted forced removal of ICE vehicles has ended. Now it's a matter of businesses reducing the prices of their goods with the reduction of overhead and taxes to consumers. Not sure this will happen though.

[EdG]

Adjusted for inflation to 2020s dollars, a new car that cost $2,600 in 1960 would cost approximately $22,838. But that's only half the story. Cars as defined in 1960 barely exist anymore. Sedans and coupes have been largely replaced by humongous pickup trucks and SUVs. It shouldn't surprise anyone they cost more.

[JohnZ]

SUVs "stupid useless vehicles" ugly and boring.
Maybe that's just what they want.
In 1960, $2,600 would get you a very nice vehicle.

[EdG]

And the median prices of television sets, stereos, household appliances, clothing, and many other consumer goods have gone DOWN considerably more than 50%.

[Jim Conley]

IDK, a pair of Levis from the 1950s costs 3-4 figures for the same quality today.

[Gasman]

While the median inflation adjusted price is up, the value is also way up.
My first care was a '69 LeMans, bought used from family, and at 8 years old and 80k miles was on it's last legs, rust through on every panel, belched smoke, handled terribly, got 12 mpg, and a quart of oil added every 1000 miles, and a steel dashboard waiting for a face plant.
Flash forward to modern cars, even my 20 year old G35 with 200k miles has never been in the shop, has no rust, gets 30mpg, never added oil between changes, handles great, and has a bunch of air bags in case I ever need them.
So it did cost more inflation adjusted, but the value (cost per mile, comfort, safety) is vastly superior.
So costs 50% more, but 100% better. There's more to price than price alone.

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

Car functionality, ease of maintenance, and reliability probably peaked around 2010, before Obama started in with the retarded CAFE and safety regs, along with Tesla making the rolling iPad fashionable. That moronic Cash for Clunkers program didn't help matters, either.

[CE]

Yeah, people in general are way better off than 50 years ago, but the runaway inflation of the past 10 years has hit young people the hardest, putting house prices out of reach for many and making day-to-day expenses take up a bigger share of income.

[JohnZ]

That is, if that college degree was actually worth something. A degree in "Gender or Wymyn's studies" won't get you diddly squat.

[JFree]

The average cost of a starter home today is $367,700 vs the average salary for a college graduate of $67,000 - or about 5.5x.

In 1970, the average cost of a starter home was $20,000 vs the average salary for a college graduate of $6100 - or about 3.3x

Rent v salary has probably gone up even more relatively because the missing middle in housing has disappeared since 1970. But hey when I was a kid I lived in a matchbox in the middle of a highway and had to eat cold gravel for breakfast before heading off to unpaid work at the mill. Kids today have it easy.

[Doug Heffernan]

Oh good. If the youngins are so flush with wealth, then it is less unfair that they support the old age healthcare and social security programs that benefit the geriatric demographic. When today's young become geriatric, then the young of that time will probably be even wealthier so they can do the same and pay it forward.

[Uncle Jay]

"Despite viral claims, a typical 25-year-old Gen Zer has annual household income that's 50 percent above Baby Boomers'."

...and yet these Gen Zers belive socialism is a good idea...until The State takes almost all their money from their bloated trust funds.

[JohnZ]

Yet, they can't afford diddly squat because inflation has driven the cost of everything out of sight.
They can't afford to even get married much less have a family and a home.
"The reason why they call it the "American dream" is because you have to be asleep to believe it." George Carlin

[TJJ2000]

Yes. Commie-Education costs too much. Commie-Housing costs too much. Commie-EV-Transportation costs too much. Commie-Healthcare costs too much. Commie-Security for Socialists costs too much.

And what do all those have in common? 'Central Planning' in D.C. where the average income is FIVE-TIMES more than any other state in the union and produces absolutely NOTHING to speak of.

But watch as progressives literally double-down on their STUPID mistakes by pretending MORE-GUNS against those 'icky' people will somehow make more ?free? sh*t instead of causing prices to soar while supplies try to keep from going broke from all the legalized THEFT.

'Guns' don't make sh*t. They make cry-baby endless lazy-excuses of self-entitlement to commit more crimes against their fellow man. Demand-side ONLY economics is a dead-end game.

[Get To Da Chippah]

I bought a new Ford Ranger Lariat in September for about nine times what my parents paid for a brand new Ford LTD II in 1978. Not counting things that only a truck would have vs a car, there's a long list of features my new truck has that were science fiction in 1978. A slew of cameras on all sides of the vehicle, touchscreen infotainment (which wasn't even a word in 1978) system, sensors all over the place, various driver assistance features (lane-keeping assist, parking assist, blind spot monitoring, etc.) Anti-lock disc brakes all around on the new one vs. disc brakes up front and drums in the rear in 1978. No airbags in 1978, no tilt or telescoping steering wheel, no power adjustable seats, no power windows and mirrors.

The '78 had a naturally aspirated 5.0 liter V8 that made a whopping 173 hp stock, mated to a 3 speed automatic transmission. My truck has a 2.7 liter twin turbo V6 that makes 315hp mated to a 10-speed automatic transmission. MPG on my truck is probably close to twice what the LTD 2 got.

Cars cost more today because you get a lot more (much of that due to regulations.)

[Chumby]

Do you recall how many miles that 5-liter V8 had before it gave up the ghost?

[Get To Da Chippah]

My parents traded it in in 2000, so it was still running but starting to give them different problems. I think somewhere between 150-200k miles.

[Zeb]

Problem is, I want very little of that stuff and it's getting harder and harder to find a car without it. Brakes are good as are more efficient engines (if they are comparably or more durable). Other than that, no thanks. Basic pickup trucks used to be some of the cheapest vehicles you could buy. Now they are mostly loaded up luxury monstrosities. And you can't even find a regular 2-seat cab anymore in most models.

[Don't look at me! ( Is the war over yet?)]

Buy a restomod.

[Zeb]

I assume that is some portmanteau of "restore" and "modify"? Probably not a bad option. At least where I live, 20 year + old used vehicles are pretty grim.

[Don't look at me! ( Is the war over yet?)]

An older restored vehicle with modern running gear.

[Get To Da Chippah]

Agreed, but most of that is due to one regulation or another. CAFE standards have screwed up the kinds of vehicles automakers can sell at all. Safety regulations mean that even a new Civic hatchback has a backup camera, which requires a screen somewhere in the dashboard.

The Ford Maverick is a bare-bones sort of truck that you can get for mid $20k new, but it's small for a truck. Base model larger trucks still run $30k or more.

[JohnZ]

Don't forget, this is all for your own good.
The problem is, the more neat stuff they add to a vehicle, the easier it is for all that hardware and software to crash.
"The more complex they make it, the easier it is to stop up the plumbing." Cmdr. Scott

[Get To Da Chippah]

Agreed. Every new gadget is another thing that can fail, which lends to the reputation for modern vehicles being unreliable.

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

I've mentioned before that the disconnect here is that stuff considered to be luxuries 40 years ago has gotten relatively cheap, while the things considered basic living requirements--transportation and housing in particular--have gotten incredibly expensive. That's why you see so many people in crushing debt continue to doom spend. Watch a Caleb Hammer or Zac Rios video sometime and be amazed at the financial decisions people make. On top of that, the quality of those things has gone over a fucking cliff. Clapboard "luxury" homes put together by illegals who were handed a nail gun by the developer's foreman, and cars that are basically iPads with a vehicle built around them, but end up turning to shit within 50,000 miles.

The cost of college tuition is a legitimate complaint because it's grown WAY above the rate of inflation over the last 40 years. That's mostly tied to administrative bloat and the growth of activist and otherwise useless majors in the same time period that don't actually provide a viable career path other than the NGO/college administration circuit. The evolution of the job market into something that requires more specialization hasn't helped in that regard, either--50 years ago, it wasn't all that uncommon for someone with an English degree to get a corporate job in marketing, for example. But ultimately, colleges have undermined their value by sticking to an outdated educational model that requires general ed courses that most people really don't need past high school, while democratizing attendance and emphasizing idpol traits over academic excellence.

Anyway, a reversion back to an older economic model where the basics are affordable again, while luxuries and shit you don't really need require budgeting and planning to purchase would mitigate a lot of the economic insecurity we see now.

[Minadin]

As an example for housing, my parents bought a brand new 3-bedroom home in their early 20's, with a single income, and neither of them had been to college at that point. My dad worked as a sales manager at a retail chain at the time. The price of the home was about 1.5x his annual salary.

Today, that now nearly 50-year-old home has a list price on Zillow of about 12x that, which is more than 4x my current salary as a professional with 20 years of experience, and also about 12x what my starting salary was, 20 years ago. Even if new young professionals are making double these days what I started out at - they probably aren't quite, but maybe close - that's still 6x - 4 times more relative expense compared to what my boomer parents were paying in 1977.

And, that's for a 50 year old house, not a new one.

[CE]

Everyone complains they are broke and repeats the supposed fact that middle class incomes are down compared to 50 years ago, as they take international vacations, fly everywhere on a whim, and watch a 55 inch flat panel TV and drop a few hundred bucks to go to a concert or sporting event.

[phdtaco]

I had to make an account just to publicly shame you for posting something so ignorant. You clearly are unfamiliar with all the data that actually proves the point young people make, and rightly so, about the state of this nation.

What’s the median age of a homeowner now compared to today? Is it above or below the age of 30? 35?

Your ignorance of the various factors which have degraded the dollar, and its value, so profoundly actually makes me lose the minuscule amount of respect I might have ever had for you. Spare us the bullshit. Most people under the age of 30 are not wantonly spending on vacation. Most people actually trying to save and make a life for their family are struggling, and you and your ilk has the gall to morally masturbate yourselves to not feel so bad about the terrible decisions that your generation cumulatively made that have made our nation 1) less safe, 2) poorer (in terms of low and middle class buying power) and 3) more degenerate.

Few boomers have the moral capital to say that they did anything particularly beneficial for the next generation. Certainly not you, nor with this post.

[Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment]

Lefty shits haven't the sense to show up and post facts. Fuck off and die, asswipe.

[smdame]

I did a little research, and I'm not professional, but I have some questions about this article. Here are my numbers, and though even though durable goods are about half the cost that they used to be, I don't think they are as durable as the once were (older things last much longer than things manufactured today, AKA planned obsolescence), other things are much more expensive than they were 75 years ago.

1950 vs 2025 (inflation-adjusted, today’s dollars):

Income (median household/family)
1950 ≈ $44k → 2025 ≈ $83.7k (↑ ~1.9×)

Housing (median home value)
1950 ≈ $99k → 2025 ≈ $415k (↑ ~4.2×)

Automobiles (new car)
1950 ≈ $20k → 2025 ≈ $48–51k (↑ ~2.5×)

Durable goods (example: refrigerator)
1950 ≈ $3.7k → 2025 ≈ $1.2–1.5k (↓ to ~0.3–0.4×)

Takeaway:
Incomes roughly doubled. Cars rose more. Housing shot up the most (price-to-income ratio more than doubled). Many durable goods actually got cheaper in real terms.

Sources:

U.S. Census Bureau — Current Population Reports (1950 family income ≈ $3.3k), Income in the U.S.: 2024 (median household $83,730).

HUD/Census housing tables — median home value 1950 ≈ $7.4k; FRED median sales price of houses (2025 ≈ $411–423k).

Historical car prices (≈$1,500 in 1950) vs. Cox Automotive / CarEdge (2025 new car avg ≈ $49k).

Appliance example: 1950 Philco fridge ≈ $319 (≈$3.7k today); modern fridge ≈ $1.2–1.5k. BLS CPI “Appliances” index shows decline since 1990s.

[JSinAZ]

The mortgage interest rate in 1980 was %12.8, and the inflation rate was %13.5. Minimum wage was $3.10.

The situation was no less dire for someone starting out in life then than today.

[JohnZ]

I don't know where you got those figures from but they are way out of reality.

[Johninsd]

Simple enough to look things up these days - per Labor Dept. the minimum wage in 1980 was indeed $3.10 per hour, inflation per Federal Reserve was actually more than 14% and per bankrate.com Mortgage interest rates were 13.74%. You have other sources that say different?

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

Young people (especially college grads) are 50% more retarded than Boomers. At their equivalent age or now.

[JohnZ]

Stossel doesn't figure in the amount of inflationary effects on prices as well as Fed tinkering with rates. A recent article explained why Gen Z can't afford to have a family much less get married or purchase a home. They can't afford much working as a Barrista at a coffee shop and that college degree they got in Gender or Wymyn's studies won't get them diddly squat not to mention a $100,000+ college loan debt.
Back in the 1950's one could purchase a new home for less than $7,000, a new car was around $1500 and gas was .25 /gal.
A home today will set you back, if you can afford it, $512,000.
The America dream is dead. Don't look for it to come back, it's over and done. Be happy with what you got because it isn't going to get any better, no matter who occupies the White House because the real owners of this country don't want that.
And when Blackrock buys up the last available home anywhere in the country, America will be a dead wet dream, that is, what's left of it.

[Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment]

"...The America dream is dead..."

Said every whiny POS in the '70s.

[BYODB]

I think it's possible this is true, but at the same time there is a reason why home ownership has gone from a median age of about 29 to 38 since 1980.

Sure, I can afford to buy 'more things' today than back then, and lots of those things didn't even exist back then, but big milestone purchases have gone absolutely crazy.

People in 1980 had kids at around 25 years old, it was 30 in 2023. We paid something like 5 grand to have our kid last year, and that was because we did a home birth instead of going to a hospital. Average cost of having a kid in a hospital? $15-20 grand. Each.

So in short, people can indeed buy cheaper foreign luxury goods today but can't afford the basic things of life as well as they once could. The thing about land, healthcare, and houses is you can't import more of them and the fact they are domestic is probably at least one reason why it's crazy expensive. Notably, the things that have become far cheaper are not made in the United States.

I suppose one can live in Dog Dick, Georgia for cheaper but salaries are also a heck of a lot less in those places if you can find a job at all. They are cheaper for a reason.

[Jefferson Paul]

I do wonder, though, if people waiting to get married and have kids until later in life is a/the driving factor for the age of home ownership rising.

Then there is also the factor of fewer people getting married at all and fewer having kids at all that could affect the age of home ownership going up. If someone is remaining single and not having kids, I imagine there is less motivation to buy a home just for himself/herself.

[See.More]

Yes, homes cost more now, but census data show more Americans own their homes now than when I was a kid.

Is that in simply raw numbers? 'cause, there are more Americans now than there were then, so simply saying more own home now than then is a misleading statement.

What are the ownership rates for comparison? How many families, per capita, had their own homes then and now? What was the median age of first home buying then versus now?

Your statement, "more Americans own their homes now than when I was a kid," can be true without being meaningful. For instance (just making numbers up for illustration), if there were 100 million Americans when you were growing up with 80% home ownership, 80 m Americans owned homes. If, now, there are some 300 million Americans, but only 50% home ownership, then there are 150 million home owners. It is true, in that thought experiment numbers that more Americans (150 million) own homes now versus then (80 million). But the ownership rate is down ~30%.

A typical 25-year-old Gen Zer has annual household income that's 50 percent above Baby Boomers'.

When boomers were growing up, the dollar was backed by gold. That changed in 1971. Consequently, you cannot make a straight comparison of earning power and spending power between the 1950's and the 2020's.

Even so, "Most people didn't go to college," says Michel. "Roughly half of the labor force didn't even finish high school."

Most people didn't need to go to college. Dropping out in the 8th-grade to start work in the family business, begin an apprenticeship, or go to trade school was so much more common that it was the norm. Now, look at the quality of graduate and post-graduate degrees today... look at the grade inflation since the 1990's. College attendance is not an indicator that today's young adults are doing better than their grandparents or their parents were at that age.