A discussion on the great myth of the ‘lost Millennials’

Liberal: There is a generation that continues to portray itself as a victim of history even as it conquers the world. Millennials were the young people of the financial crisis, of Occupy Wall Street, of unaffordable housing. Now aged between thirty and forty-five, they run companies, buy property and build up their wealth. The Economist has compared real incomes across 32 wealthy countries: in 29 of them, Millennials earn more than previous generations did at the same age. Isn’t it time to stop calling them the ‘lost generation’?

Progressista: Not so fast. At the age of twenty, they faced a severe recession, stagnant wages, precarious jobs and unaffordable housing. The fact that many have caught up by the age of forty does not mean that their starting point was imaginary. And do not forget the three exceptions: Italy, Greece and Japan. In Italy, at the age of thirty, Millennials were earning ten per cent less than Generation X at the same age.

Liberale: But there is a huge difference between highlighting an Italian anomaly and recounting a global failure: the former is a political issue, the latter a fairy tale. In the United States, a study by Kevin Corinth and Jeff Larrimore has shown that the median household income of Millennials aged between 36 and 40, after tax and transfers, is 20 per cent higher than that of Generation X at the same age. Even at the 25th percentile, the improvement exceeds 20 per cent. Where, then, is this generation condemned to be worse off than their parents?

Progressista: Pay attention to the wording: ‘household income’ does not mean ‘individual salary’, and ‘median’ does not mean that everyone is better off. The OECD states that growth over the course of one’s working life has become less dynamic. Those who start slowly can catch up, but in the meantime they have endured years of uncertainty, and those years weigh heavily on their life choices.

Liberale: Yet even the researchers who had confirmed the lag were forced to report the turnaround. In 2016, the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis calculated that, for those born in the 1980s, median wealth was 38 per cent lower than expected for their age group; by 2022, it was 37 per cent higher. Why do we always remember the first snapshot and almost never the second?

Progressista: Because wealth is distributed unevenly and property price inflation creates winners and losers: those who own a home see their wealth increase, whilst those who need to buy one see the entry price rise. But I recognise the point: we are not facing universal impoverishment.

Liberale: Even the housing issue is starting to show cracks. In the United States, amongst Millennials who have reached their forties, the home ownership rate has caught up with that of Generation X at the same age. In Britain, the gap – which stood at twenty points at the age of thirty – has halved by the time they reach forty. Isn’t this simply a home bought later, rather than lost forever?

Progressista: For many, yes, but you’re confusing a recovery with the solution. In the UK, home ownership amongst 25–34-year-olds has risen to 39 per cent, still a long way from the 59 per cent recorded in 2000. Buying at forty rather than thirty means paying rent for longer and postponing decisions. A recovery is taking place, but the delay has come at a cost.

Liberale: Certainly, but let’s not turn every delay into a diagnosis of poverty. The Economist has noted that even young Americans earning over 200,000 dollars a year have lower home ownership rates than their well-off peers of the past. People are studying for longer and getting married later: the median age at first marriage for American men has risen from 27 to 31. Not every different choice signifies a failure.

Progressista: Let’s admit that the situation has improved: why? One explanation is demographics. The baby boomers are retiring, positions of responsibility are becoming vacant, and the working-age population is declining. A generation can catch up not only because the system works better, but because the ratio between those in work and those in retirement is changing.

Liberale: That strikes me as an excellent reason to change the question. No longer: ‘Why have the world’s Millennials been betrayed?’ But: ‘Why have almost all rich countries allowed them to progress, whilst Italy has not?’ It is a more uncomfortable question, because it forces us to talk about productivity, wages and social mobility, and does not allow us to use the fate of a generation as an excuse for national stagnation.

Progressista: Agreed, but watch out for another misconception. Millennials account for almost ten per cent of American billionaires and are at the helm of OpenAI, Anthropic and Meta, but Zuckerberg is not a statistically representative sample. The evidence still lies in median incomes and wealth figures; otherwise, we are simply replacing one pessimistic caricature with an optimistic one.

Liberale: Correct. So let’s add that, according to the Fed, between 2022 and 2025 the median wealth of households aged between 35 and 44 increased by five per cent in real terms, whilst that of households under 35 fell by 23 per cent. The problem may now have shifted to Generation Z, the first generation to grow up with artificial intelligence and the one most exposed to the replacement of entry-level jobs.

Progressista: And then there is the issue of inheritance: the Institute for Fiscal Studies estimates that in England the median inheritance for those born in the 1980s will be around 136,000 pounds, compared with 66,000 for those born in the 1960s. This will exacerbate differences linked to family background: even within a wealthier generation, there may be profound inequalities.

Liberal: I’m not ignoring it. But it’s one thing to say that wealth is unevenly distributed; it’s quite another to turn an entire generation into an army of defeated souls. Millennials have continued to use the language of youth even as adults, executives, business owners and heirs. Otherwise, pessimism ceases to be an analysis and becomes an identity.

Progressista: So there is one point on which we agree. The difficulties were not fabricated, but we mistook a phase of life for a permanent state of affairs. This does not erase inequalities or the Italian problem, but it forces us to update our narrative and to pay closer attention to the generations that follow.

Liberale: We have confused a snapshot from 2010 with an iron law of history. Now, Millennials have become precisely what they were protesting against: the adult generation that holds power, owns a growing share of wealth, and decides which technologies to develop. The interesting question is no longer what the world has denied Millennials, but what Millennials – now that they have conquered a significant part of the world – are willing to offer others.

For years we have been told that they would be poorer than their parents, without a home, without wealth, without a future. An optimistic liberal and a sceptical progressive discuss generational redemption, the new privileges, the Italian exceptions and the problem of those who come after