Horsing

This is utter crap. Itโ€™s just complete dipshittery. Smart people think they can lie with impunity because they donโ€™t usually encounter anyone more intelligent than they are.

Well, I am smarter than every single one of them and have read wayyyyyyyyyyyy more โ€” which is lucky for all of you. Words have meanings, motherfuckers, and I know them all. To wit, lie number one:

The drawback to using family income measures is that they disregard persons living in nonfamily households, who tend to be disproportionately young or old.

Conversely, in some situations it is appropriate to exclude nonfamily households: for example, housing affordability. It is based on family income rather than household income, because nonfamily households are not typically buyers.

This clown is using โ€œfamilyโ€ income rather than โ€œhouseholdโ€ income so that he can deliberately exclude those most affected by how much more expensive various life needs are now. Thatโ€™s the first deception. The second bit of hokum is that the female labor participation rate roughly doubled since 1953, meaning the already-duplicitous โ€œfamily incomeโ€ is quite a different thing compositionally since that time. In other words, it takes more people earning more money to buy not even the same things available in 1953.

One of my points was covered more eloquently by someone else in another thread, so I will just stick that on down there at the bottom. But another very important factor this omits is health care costs. Toss that in and the calculus changes enormously. Of course, thatโ€™s exactly why it was left out.

Another issue is โ€œAverage college tuition rate.โ€ Many colleges were completely free in 1953 so the average cost here is utterly meaningless. In most states, for a state school, your tuition wouldโ€™ve been $0.

The US was also in recession in 1953. That probably also changes things a bit, but thatโ€™s incidental.

If what clown Quantian claims is in fact true, this would also not be true: โ€œMillennials only hold 3% of total US wealth, and thatโ€™s a shockingly small sliver of what baby boomers had at their age.โ€

Hereโ€™s what I mentioned Iโ€™d put at the bottom โ€” hedonic adjustments. This really distorts what is actually affordable.

What puzzles me about doofballs like Quantian and his sophistry is attempting to figure out what they are trying to prove here? Do they just want to have us believe that Millennials and Gen Z are inherently lazy, and thatโ€™s why they are not buying houses nor building real wealth? What? I mean, they obviously have it much worse. An old girlfriendโ€™s dad had his own apartment working part-time at a grocery store in the early 1960s, for fuckโ€™s sake. That is completely impossible anywhere now.

Quantian is a liar. Reality tells a different story.