How Do Boomers and Millennials Really Stack Up?

As you know, I’ve spent a fair number of posts trying to persuade people that millennials don’t have it any harder than the generations before them. It’s really true, too. So here’s another bite at the apple.

This time I went to the Consumer Expenditure Survey from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. It’s exactly what you think it is: a survey that estimates how much people make and how much they spend. Here are the results for the most recent three generations, all of them at times when they were about 30 years old:¹

(NOTE: This table has been corrected and updated. It now shows income before taxes rather than income after taxes. Explanation here. The mortgage line has been corrected to show total mortgage payments, not just interest charges.)

There are a few interesting things to note:

  • Income growth has been sluggish but not zero since 1972. Millennials make more money than either Xers or boomers. In addition, they pay lower taxes.
  • Auto ownership among millennials is higher than boomers and a little lower than Xers.
  • Both boomers and millennials spend about the same percentage of their incomes. Xers are the odd ones out here, spending mearly all of their income and owning homes at a slightly higher rate.
  • That said, homeownership is similar for all three generations, and identical between millennials and boomers.
  • I broke out telephone charges just because a lot of people might not realize that nothing much has changed on that front. Yes, we all own cell phones now, but back in 1972 we paid the equivalent of nearly $100 per month just for local calls on a normal landline plus a little bit of long distance calling.
  • Millennials, on average, spend about $1,000 more per year on education loans compared to Xers, and about $2,000 more than boomers.
  • Total housing costs have gone up about $4,000 per year since 1972. However, food, clothing, and entertainment cost significantly less.
  • Health care spending hasn’t changed much.

Overall, young millennials face higher costs than young boomers did, but they also have higher incomes. When you add it all up, millennials have about the same amount of money left over at the end of the year as boomers, but they get quite a bit more for their spending (cell phones, computers, internet access, better cars, videogames, etc.).

As always, keep in mind that these figures are averages. So housing, for example, is an average of everyone from the poorest renter to the richest McMansion owner. Obviously things might be different for a very specific demographic (like, say, a 30-year-old college educated woman working at a nonprofit and living in New York City). But on average, the CES gives a pretty good idea of how different generations compare.

¹TECHNICAL NOTES: Choosing representative years is tricky. My main goal was to avoid cherry picking years that were peaks or troughs of economic cycles. This made the whole exercise difficult. I chose 1972-73 for the boomers because that’s what was available. They didn’t conduct the CES every year back then. For Gen X I chose 1994-95. This makes the Xers a little older than the boomers, but I wanted to avoid choosing a year close to the 1991 recession. Millennials posed a real problem. The ideal comparison year is around 2008, but that’s the peak of the housing bubble and wouldn’t be representative. Likewise, a few years later is in the trough of the Great Recession, which receded very slowly. In the end, I chose 2013-14 because it seemed like the earliest year that was solidly part of an economic expansion. This makes the millennials in the survey older than the other the other two generations, but I needed to avoid the Great Recession by several years to get a fair comparison. You can argue with my choices, but the key is that all of these years are fairly similar: several years into an economic expansion but not at the peak of a bubble (1999, for example, or 2008).

Also, by coincidence, 1972-73 is the peak year of postwar income growth. After that, income growth slumped and has been sluggish ever since. So we’re comparing recent generations to boomers in their best years.

Education loans come from the Fed’s Survey of Consumer Finances. For 1972-73 (before the SCF existed), I plugged in a rough estimate based on CES data. The annual payments are based on a 15-year repayment schedule using interest rates prevalent at the time.

For the inflation adjustment I used the CPI-U-RS, backed out from the Census Bureau’s historical income figures.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate