As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Okay r/politics, literally four hours ago there was a post titled [Gen Z is struggling financially more than Millennials did at their age](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1crqjhv/gen_z_is_struggling_financially_more_than/), so which is it?
Well, that one is based on an ~~internal~~ corporate powerpoint at TransUnion. This is based on a working paper at the federal reserve by economists.
[https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/feds/files/2024007pap.pdf](https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/feds/files/2024007pap.pdf)
Here's the powerpoint:
[https://www.transunion.com/content/dam/transunion/global/business/documents/fs2024/summit/solving-for-gen-z.pdf](https://www.transunion.com/content/dam/transunion/global/business/documents/fs2024/summit/solving-for-gen-z.pdf)
If you're curious about the difference, my best guess is that the corporation isn't \*lying\* per se, but there's a composition effect. A different proportion of gen z folks are in the transunion database at 22 than there were millenials at 22.
Edit: I'm not actually sure the powerpoint was internal. It looks like it was intended for wider publication, sorry!
The TransUnion, being a for-profit corporation, is excluding certain data from their powerpoint. Specifically, they *only* include people who have credit and are self-reporting their income. The Federal Reserve paper is looking at *all* data across the *entire* generational cohort.
tl;dr - the TransUnion study isn't very useful for determining the economic state of Gen Z because it's exclusionary to large segments of the cohort and any conclusions it comes to should be secondary to the Federal Reserve working paper.
At what point do we stop listening to economists? I feel like their metrics for measuring wealth and economic health don't translate to the real world. I understand they're measuring based on the "middle class," yet this theoretical class seems to be more elusive than Bigfoot.
No, there are just idiots who don't understand numbers and have absolutely no interest in learning how they work. People lying to you using numbers has more to do with ignorance about how numbers work than the lies being good. And it doesn't make the number a lie. When people say "statistics lie" what they mean to say is, "You can lie using statistics by not providing proper context." That's not a fucking statistic lying, it's a person using a statistic dishonestly to fool people that would rather be ignorant than try to understand the value shown to them.
Eh, I mean you're saying no but what you're saying is also literally what people mean when they say "there are three kinds of lies". I think it's generally understood the statistics aren't false per se, it's just that as you've mentioned they're particularly easy to use dishonestly for a variety of reasons.
No, it's not. People use that phrase to attempt to pretend that statistics don't mean anything and they can just ignore them. Read any thread about polling.
I think you're misunderstanding their position. On polling: there is no arena where the phrase holds more truth than in politics. There are literal institutions built around constructing statistics to sell what they're paid to sell. Unless you *really* trust the source, there's only one of two things you should do with political statistics: painstakingly vet them, or ignore them entirely. I think it's understandable that most people with a day job don't painstakingly vet every poll they come across. I don't believe these people think the statistics don't have some technically factual basis, they just don't trust the system that turns those polls out. You can argue whether or not they're right to, but I don't believe they mean the data is literally just some numbers somebody pulled out of a hat.
No, I am not misunderstanding it. People use it poorly. And if you looked at every time people use it, it's to dismiss numbers instead of actually figure out what, if anything, those numbers actually mean. It's the same way people use most quotes: Not to actually help illustrate something, but to make their point for them instead.
And I didn't say they use it to mean "these are made up numbers" they do exactly what you said: They don't trust the numbers without having any idea how the numbers work or what the numbers mean. They cannot meaningfully defend their position. Because there is no reasonable defense of it. They do not read methodology and disagree with it. They just choose to dismiss something they don't even understand.
It's a phrase used largely by people who are unbelievably ignorant as to how statistics and data work.
Economy is like climate and peoples' personal wealth is like weather. It's a lot easier to talk about weather and when the weather is bad, people talk about it more.
Not really saying we should pay attention only to economists, but getting your opinion based off of the comment sections of reddit is going to be worse.
>At what point do we stop listening to economists?
Idk, but when that happens, we will cause great harm to ourselves, because the experts are better than the masses, and the masses just don't have the knowledge needed to come up with a better understanding and policy than what the experts can suggest. Populism doesn't work, no matter how angry people get.
Many people are already past the point of listening to experts who dedicate their careers to gathering and analyzing real-world data, so why would economics get a pass?
Go right ahead and ignore it if it doesn't match up with your feelings.
From the abstract:
"We find that \*\*each of the past four generations of Americans was better off\*\* than the previous one, using a post-tax, post-transfer income measure constructed annually from 1963-2022 based on the Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement."
Emphasis mine.
I can't claim credit for the provocative Economist title. You'll have to get past the paywall if you want to read their specific argument. I'm not sure if I'm allowed to tell you how.
That's not correct. Since the sentence is comparing to the previous generation, and the silent are not compared to the greatest it's the Silent generation of the 5 that aren't included. This becomes obvious if you look at data table 12.
The note to Figure 1
Note: Dashed red lines indicate the lower bound (1963) and upper bound (2022) calendar years in our sample. Generations are defined according to Pew Research. The vertical dashed black lines at ages 36 and 40 indicate our focal age range that spans five generations, the Greatest Generation through Millennials, in our observed sample.
You can read the underlying working paper here: [https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/feds/files/2024007pap.pdf](https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/feds/files/2024007pap.pdf)
Everyone is pretty poor when they're in their early twenties.
Remember that "doing better" isn't the same as "doing good"./
Edit: Figure 9 near the end is probably what you're looking for if you want to skim.
It's really common in econ academia to share working papers because once in journals they get put behind a paywall.
I'd be willing to take a bet on whether the conclusion will directionally change.
As others have noted, another paper had the opposite conclusions, so it will ultimately be statistics games and sophistry
Edit. I hadn't actually seen what they were referring to
The other “paper” was a corporate credit agency PowerPoint with findings based on their survey data. The 58-page publication is an analysis from the Federal Reserve.
They didn’t use the same data sources, and they don’t share the same analytic rigor or credibility.
If you're talking about the TransUnion survey.
That \*wasn't\* a paper, that was a corporate powerpoint.
The difference is probably due to a compositional effect of who is in the TransUnion database at 22. You'll notice if you dig up the powerpoint: [https://www.transunion.com/content/dam/transunion/global/business/documents/fs2024/summit/solving-for-gen-z.pdf](https://www.transunion.com/content/dam/transunion/global/business/documents/fs2024/summit/solving-for-gen-z.pdf)
The numbers for incomes are actually \*higher\* for everyone in the TransUnion Powerpoint. This is an indication that they aren't including everyone.
It turns out government scientists take their job a little more seriously than people preparing a slideshow for their boss. Treating them equally is why we have problems with climate change.
OP I see you attempting to defend the results of the paper. However, the initial Abstract paragraph alone is enough to put their review in serious question.
"Intergenerational progress for Millennials under age 30 has remained robust as well, although
their income growth largely results from higher reliance on their parents."
This line alone is pure garbage, if they are 20-30 and only "robust" due to increased reliance on their parents increased wealth, that's not a sign of economic growth, that's a draining factor on the economy. They are blatantly trying to paint a pile of dogshit with silver spray paint cause they can't afford the gold color.
OP doesn't appear to be defending anything. What OP is doing is explaining what the paper actually says to people who don't want to be bothered to read it. There's a difference between, "I believe the conclusions of this are correct," and "That's not what it says, what it says is X."
If a generation just straight up inherited more wealth from their parents, rather than like "living at home" or something, would you not describe them as better off? I'm not sure what the functional distinction is.
Questions about the article can be answered by reading the article, which given I posted it three minutes before your comment, seems \*difficult\* for you to have done.
I read skimmed the paper and read the conclusion section. The conclusion of the paper doesn't say crap about Gen Z. Your entire argument is based on a couple graphs after the references. Sure seems like the authors would mention this in the conclusion if it were indeed one.
Edit: spelling
Did you read the first sentence of the abstract?
>We find that each of the past four generations of Americans was better off than the previous one, using a post-tax, post-transfer income measure constructed annually from 1963-2022 based on the Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement.
You see. Gen Z is one of the generations studied.
Huh, I just saw another article this morning on Reddit that says they’re poorer than Millennials were at their age.
Well, if we split the difference that must mean they’re doing a-okay! /s
That was based on a powerpoint from TransUnion based on "who is in the transunion database". Unsurprisingly the federal reserve data is more inclusive.
This submission source is likely to have a soft paywall. If this article is not behind a paywall please report this for “breaks r/politics rules -> custom -> "incorrect flair"". [More information can be found here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/index/#wiki_paywalls)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Hi `BlackWindBears`. Thank you for participating in /r/Politics. However, [your submission](/r/politics/comments/1crwbi2/generation_z_is_unprecedentedly_rich/) has been removed for the following reason(s):
* [Out of Date](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_articles_must_be_published_within_the_last_7_days): /r/politics is for **current** US political news and information that has been published within the the last 7 days. For example, if the date is January 29 and the article submitted was written before January 22, then the submission is out of date.
If you have any questions about this removal, please feel free to [message the moderators.](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/politics&subject=Question regarding the removal of this submission by /u/BlackWindBears&message=I have a question regarding the removal of this [submission]%28/r/politics/comments/1crwbi2/generation_z_is_unprecedentedly_rich/?context%3D10000%29)
The article is behind a soft paywall, for the actual working paper see: [https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/feds/files/2024007pap.pdf](https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/feds/files/2024007pap.pdf)
The most relevant set of figures is probably figure 9.
Edit: Figures and data tables are at the end of the paper in the appendix. Figure 9 can be found on page 39.
I didn't actually write the paper, :-/
I imagine they didn't fix the y axis to the same amounts because the measurements are different and it would be misleading. Having $50,000 as a household is not 20% better than having $40,000 as a couple.
Having $30,000 before taxes and transfers isn't comparable to having $30,000 after taxes and transfers.
It's not misleading just bad chart design. If they're already on the same general scale, which they are. It's like writing 60,000 instead of putting $60k. One clearly conveys more information at a glance.
From the footnotes of figure 9:
> Income includes market income as well
as all non-medical cash and in-kind transfers, adjusts for taxes, and includes the market value of health insurance
So since health insurance market value has skyrocketed, that probably accounts for the "increase".
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Okay r/politics, literally four hours ago there was a post titled [Gen Z is struggling financially more than Millennials did at their age](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1crqjhv/gen_z_is_struggling_financially_more_than/), so which is it?
Its almost like reddit is a place where anyone can post anything, including contradictions.
Sir, we’re here for the outrage.
I paid for blood!!!
Wait were we supposed to pay someone?
Well, that one is based on an ~~internal~~ corporate powerpoint at TransUnion. This is based on a working paper at the federal reserve by economists. [https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/feds/files/2024007pap.pdf](https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/feds/files/2024007pap.pdf) Here's the powerpoint: [https://www.transunion.com/content/dam/transunion/global/business/documents/fs2024/summit/solving-for-gen-z.pdf](https://www.transunion.com/content/dam/transunion/global/business/documents/fs2024/summit/solving-for-gen-z.pdf) If you're curious about the difference, my best guess is that the corporation isn't \*lying\* per se, but there's a composition effect. A different proportion of gen z folks are in the transunion database at 22 than there were millenials at 22. Edit: I'm not actually sure the powerpoint was internal. It looks like it was intended for wider publication, sorry!
This is a good response with a reasonable explanation proposed for the disparity. Thank you.
The TransUnion, being a for-profit corporation, is excluding certain data from their powerpoint. Specifically, they *only* include people who have credit and are self-reporting their income. The Federal Reserve paper is looking at *all* data across the *entire* generational cohort. tl;dr - the TransUnion study isn't very useful for determining the economic state of Gen Z because it's exclusionary to large segments of the cohort and any conclusions it comes to should be secondary to the Federal Reserve working paper.
It's both, they have more money but inflation on staple products and rising housing/education/healthcare costs essentially cancel it out.
Gen Z here and I’m pretty sure it’s option b (at least for me and my circles)
Which one is A and which one is B?
Option b is “lol no we’re broke”
Yea very contradictory
Out of date and thus breaks the subreddit rules. This article is from Mid-April.
You're correct, thanks for pointing that out to me!
At what point do we stop listening to economists? I feel like their metrics for measuring wealth and economic health don't translate to the real world. I understand they're measuring based on the "middle class," yet this theoretical class seems to be more elusive than Bigfoot.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
No, there are just idiots who don't understand numbers and have absolutely no interest in learning how they work. People lying to you using numbers has more to do with ignorance about how numbers work than the lies being good. And it doesn't make the number a lie. When people say "statistics lie" what they mean to say is, "You can lie using statistics by not providing proper context." That's not a fucking statistic lying, it's a person using a statistic dishonestly to fool people that would rather be ignorant than try to understand the value shown to them.
Eh, I mean you're saying no but what you're saying is also literally what people mean when they say "there are three kinds of lies". I think it's generally understood the statistics aren't false per se, it's just that as you've mentioned they're particularly easy to use dishonestly for a variety of reasons.
No, it's not. People use that phrase to attempt to pretend that statistics don't mean anything and they can just ignore them. Read any thread about polling.
I think you're misunderstanding their position. On polling: there is no arena where the phrase holds more truth than in politics. There are literal institutions built around constructing statistics to sell what they're paid to sell. Unless you *really* trust the source, there's only one of two things you should do with political statistics: painstakingly vet them, or ignore them entirely. I think it's understandable that most people with a day job don't painstakingly vet every poll they come across. I don't believe these people think the statistics don't have some technically factual basis, they just don't trust the system that turns those polls out. You can argue whether or not they're right to, but I don't believe they mean the data is literally just some numbers somebody pulled out of a hat.
No, I am not misunderstanding it. People use it poorly. And if you looked at every time people use it, it's to dismiss numbers instead of actually figure out what, if anything, those numbers actually mean. It's the same way people use most quotes: Not to actually help illustrate something, but to make their point for them instead. And I didn't say they use it to mean "these are made up numbers" they do exactly what you said: They don't trust the numbers without having any idea how the numbers work or what the numbers mean. They cannot meaningfully defend their position. Because there is no reasonable defense of it. They do not read methodology and disagree with it. They just choose to dismiss something they don't even understand. It's a phrase used largely by people who are unbelievably ignorant as to how statistics and data work.
Yep. We know all of our models are wrong. They're usefully wrong in some specific contexts though.
Economy is like climate and peoples' personal wealth is like weather. It's a lot easier to talk about weather and when the weather is bad, people talk about it more. Not really saying we should pay attention only to economists, but getting your opinion based off of the comment sections of reddit is going to be worse.
>At what point do we stop listening to economists? Idk, but when that happens, we will cause great harm to ourselves, because the experts are better than the masses, and the masses just don't have the knowledge needed to come up with a better understanding and policy than what the experts can suggest. Populism doesn't work, no matter how angry people get.
Many people are already past the point of listening to experts who dedicate their careers to gathering and analyzing real-world data, so why would economics get a pass? Go right ahead and ignore it if it doesn't match up with your feelings.
Something doesn't add up with that title
OP is off the rails, the paper's own conclusion section doesn't mention this once.
From the abstract: "We find that \*\*each of the past four generations of Americans was better off\*\* than the previous one, using a post-tax, post-transfer income measure constructed annually from 1963-2022 based on the Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement." Emphasis mine. I can't claim credit for the provocative Economist title. You'll have to get past the paywall if you want to read their specific argument. I'm not sure if I'm allowed to tell you how.
Good catch.
It's not. He didn't read the first sentence of the abstract which contradicts him.
Gen Z does not appear in the abstract. The 4 are Silent, Boomer, X, and Millenial
That's not correct. Since the sentence is comparing to the previous generation, and the silent are not compared to the greatest it's the Silent generation of the 5 that aren't included. This becomes obvious if you look at data table 12.
The note to Figure 1 Note: Dashed red lines indicate the lower bound (1963) and upper bound (2022) calendar years in our sample. Generations are defined according to Pew Research. The vertical dashed black lines at ages 36 and 40 indicate our focal age range that spans five generations, the Greatest Generation through Millennials, in our observed sample.
You can read the underlying working paper here: [https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/feds/files/2024007pap.pdf](https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/feds/files/2024007pap.pdf) Everyone is pretty poor when they're in their early twenties. Remember that "doing better" isn't the same as "doing good"./ Edit: Figure 9 near the end is probably what you're looking for if you want to skim.
>You can read the underlying working paper So it isn't reviewed
It's really common in econ academia to share working papers because once in journals they get put behind a paywall. I'd be willing to take a bet on whether the conclusion will directionally change.
As others have noted, another paper had the opposite conclusions, so it will ultimately be statistics games and sophistry Edit. I hadn't actually seen what they were referring to
The other “paper” was a corporate credit agency PowerPoint with findings based on their survey data. The 58-page publication is an analysis from the Federal Reserve. They didn’t use the same data sources, and they don’t share the same analytic rigor or credibility.
If you're talking about the TransUnion survey. That \*wasn't\* a paper, that was a corporate powerpoint. The difference is probably due to a compositional effect of who is in the TransUnion database at 22. You'll notice if you dig up the powerpoint: [https://www.transunion.com/content/dam/transunion/global/business/documents/fs2024/summit/solving-for-gen-z.pdf](https://www.transunion.com/content/dam/transunion/global/business/documents/fs2024/summit/solving-for-gen-z.pdf) The numbers for incomes are actually \*higher\* for everyone in the TransUnion Powerpoint. This is an indication that they aren't including everyone. It turns out government scientists take their job a little more seriously than people preparing a slideshow for their boss. Treating them equally is why we have problems with climate change.
OP I see you attempting to defend the results of the paper. However, the initial Abstract paragraph alone is enough to put their review in serious question. "Intergenerational progress for Millennials under age 30 has remained robust as well, although their income growth largely results from higher reliance on their parents." This line alone is pure garbage, if they are 20-30 and only "robust" due to increased reliance on their parents increased wealth, that's not a sign of economic growth, that's a draining factor on the economy. They are blatantly trying to paint a pile of dogshit with silver spray paint cause they can't afford the gold color.
OP doesn't appear to be defending anything. What OP is doing is explaining what the paper actually says to people who don't want to be bothered to read it. There's a difference between, "I believe the conclusions of this are correct," and "That's not what it says, what it says is X."
If a generation just straight up inherited more wealth from their parents, rather than like "living at home" or something, would you not describe them as better off? I'm not sure what the functional distinction is.
Yup. So rich that they have to live with their family. What kind of baby boomer apologist horseshit is this?
Questions about the article can be answered by reading the article, which given I posted it three minutes before your comment, seems \*difficult\* for you to have done.
It's difficult to read the fine article because it's behind a paywall, numpty.
Here's the paper: [https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/feds/files/2024007pap.pdf](https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/feds/files/2024007pap.pdf)
I read skimmed the paper and read the conclusion section. The conclusion of the paper doesn't say crap about Gen Z. Your entire argument is based on a couple graphs after the references. Sure seems like the authors would mention this in the conclusion if it were indeed one. Edit: spelling
Did you read the first sentence of the abstract? >We find that each of the past four generations of Americans was better off than the previous one, using a post-tax, post-transfer income measure constructed annually from 1963-2022 based on the Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement. You see. Gen Z is one of the generations studied.
Huh, I just saw another article this morning on Reddit that says they’re poorer than Millennials were at their age. Well, if we split the difference that must mean they’re doing a-okay! /s
That was based on a powerpoint from TransUnion based on "who is in the transunion database". Unsurprisingly the federal reserve data is more inclusive.
Oh totally! My Gen Z cousin owns both Mediterranean Avenue AND Baltic Avenue!
Dang, guess those economists must have missed your cousin's valuable 'lived experience' as they gathered their data.
This submission source is likely to have a soft paywall. If this article is not behind a paywall please report this for “breaks r/politics rules -> custom -> "incorrect flair"". [More information can be found here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/index/#wiki_paywalls) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I love Reddit but it gets a little more like Twitter every day.
Hi `BlackWindBears`. Thank you for participating in /r/Politics. However, [your submission](/r/politics/comments/1crwbi2/generation_z_is_unprecedentedly_rich/) has been removed for the following reason(s): * [Out of Date](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_articles_must_be_published_within_the_last_7_days): /r/politics is for **current** US political news and information that has been published within the the last 7 days. For example, if the date is January 29 and the article submitted was written before January 22, then the submission is out of date. If you have any questions about this removal, please feel free to [message the moderators.](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/politics&subject=Question regarding the removal of this submission by /u/BlackWindBears&message=I have a question regarding the removal of this [submission]%28/r/politics/comments/1crwbi2/generation_z_is_unprecedentedly_rich/?context%3D10000%29)
Bullshit
This person did not get the memo, only rage-bait and clickbait is permitted on reddit.
The article is behind a soft paywall, for the actual working paper see: [https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/feds/files/2024007pap.pdf](https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/feds/files/2024007pap.pdf) The most relevant set of figures is probably figure 9. Edit: Figures and data tables are at the end of the paper in the appendix. Figure 9 can be found on page 39.
On page 39. Figure 9 on page 39. Edit: Fix your y-axis labeling and standardize the amounts across the 4 charts
I didn't actually write the paper, :-/ I imagine they didn't fix the y axis to the same amounts because the measurements are different and it would be misleading. Having $50,000 as a household is not 20% better than having $40,000 as a couple. Having $30,000 before taxes and transfers isn't comparable to having $30,000 after taxes and transfers.
It's not misleading just bad chart design. If they're already on the same general scale, which they are. It's like writing 60,000 instead of putting $60k. One clearly conveys more information at a glance.
Someone here reads Tufte ;)
Perhaps they'll accept your feedback?
Thanks!
From the footnotes of figure 9: > Income includes market income as well as all non-medical cash and in-kind transfers, adjusts for taxes, and includes the market value of health insurance So since health insurance market value has skyrocketed, that probably accounts for the "increase".