Olivia
Online
Christian Lanier
@ChristianMogs
Gen Z survivalist and firm believer in 'no one knows what they are doing'.
Florida, USA
Joined June 2026
78 Following
49 Followers
366 Posts
ChatGPT deals with you again:
The claim that "multiple references used inappropriate time frames" needs an actual example.
The major datasets used in the comparison have exactly the time ranges you would expect for comparing Boomer-era young adulthood with young adulthood now.
BLS married-couple earner data:
1967 -> 2019/2020
Relevant because Boomers were born 1946-1964.
A Boomer born in 1950 was 20 in 1970.
A Boomer born in 1955 was 25 in 1980.
The 1960s-1980s are therefore exactly where the historical data SHOULD be.
NCES college-cost data:
1963-64 -> 2023-24
Relevant because it directly shows what college cost when Boomers were entering adulthood compared with what young adults face now.
It also provides constant-dollar figures specifically for long-term comparisons.
Pew young-household housing data:
1975 -> 2024
Relevant because it compares home prices with the incomes of households headed by people under 40.
1975 captures young-adult Boomers.
2024 captures the current young-adult housing market.
That is almost literally the comparison being argued about.
Census family data:
1975 -> 2025
Relevant because Census itself uses the 50-year comparison to show changes in marriage, households and families.
Again:
Boomer-era adulthood -> today.
CBO federal-tax data:
1979 -> 2022
CBO explicitly says 1979 is the earliest year for which the required tax-return data are available.
1979 is also directly inside the period when Boomers were young adults.
Using 1979 to compare their tax burden with later generations is not an inappropriate timeframe.
It is the earliest appropriate federal dataset available.
About the repeated "2016" claim:
A report's publication date is not the date of all the observations inside it.
More importantly, the argument does not depend on an old 2016 edition anyway.
BLS has newer editions of the same historical Current Population Survey series extending through 2019 and 2020.
The underlying historical observations remain the same because 1970 does not become a different year when a newer report is published.
Historical data does not expire simply because history happened a long time ago.
About data "going back to 1989":
That is not evidence of an inappropriate timeframe either.
In 1989:
The oldest Boomers were 43.
The youngest Boomers were 25.
1989 was literally a year in which a huge portion of the Baby Boom generation was still in early or middle adulthood.
And most of the datasets used go considerably farther back than 1989 anyway.
So the actual time spans are:
Marriage/earners: 1967 -> 2019/2020
College costs: 1963-64 -> 2023-24
Young-adult housing: 1975 -> 2024
Family structure: 1975 -> 2025
Federal taxes: 1979 -> 2022
Those are not random years.
They deliberately span the period when Boomers were young adults through the modern period being compared with them.
If a particular statistic uses an inappropriate year, identify:
The statistic
The year used
The year that should have been used
How using the correct year changes the conclusion
Simply saying "wrong timeframes again and again" is not a data correction.
It is an unsupported assertion about the data.
And yes, I checked the work.
ChatGPT to school you again:
This criticism confuses the publication date of a report with the years of data inside it.
Historical datasets are supposed to contain old numbers.
The entire question is whether young adults in the Boomer era had different economic conditions from young adults now. You cannot answer that question using only 2025 data.
Examples:
BLS married-couple earner data:
Historical series: 1967-2019
The table directly contains:
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
etc.
The fact that a version of the BLS databook was published years later does not turn the 1980 observation into "2016 data."
It is a historical Current Population Survey series.
NCES college-cost data:
Historical series:
1963-64 -> 2023-24
The table contains both current-dollar and inflation-adjusted constant-dollar values across roughly 60 years.
It was prepared in 2024.
Using its 1979-80 observation to compare Boomer-era college costs with 2023-24 is exactly what a historical time series is for.
Pew housing data:
Published: 2026
Comparison:
1975 -> 2024
Underlying sources include the American Community Survey, Current Population Survey and historical house-price data.
So this is literally a current analysis using old observations to measure long-term change.
Census family data:
Published: 2025
Comparison:
1975 -> 2025
Census explicitly compares family and marriage statistics across that 50-year period.
Again:
Current publication.
Historical observations.
CBO tax data:
Current CBO analysis covers:
1979 -> 2022
That is precisely what is needed to compare federal tax burdens over the relevant generations.
EPA vehicle data:
Current EPA Automotive Trends report covers:
1975 -> 2024
Again, the historical numbers being old is the entire point.
So:
A report published in 2016 can contain data from 1970.
A report published in 2025 can contain data from 1975.
A report published in 2026 can contain data from 1979.
Publication year ≠ observation year.
And complaining that one dataset "goes all the way back to 1989" makes even less sense.
If the subject is Boomers in young adulthood, 1989 is actually fairly late.
Baby Boomers were born 1946-1964.
A Boomer born in 1955 was already 34 in 1989.
To study Boomers in their 20s, the data SHOULD go back into the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s.
That is not stale data.
That is historical data.
AI was used to locate, organize and compare the sources.
AI did not invent the BLS, Census, NCES, CBO, EPA or Pew datasets.
The numbers remain the numbers regardless of whether someone finds them through Google, a library database, AI search or by manually clicking government tables for six hours.
If the claim is that a number is wrong, identify the number and show the conflicting data.
Pointing at the publication date of a historical report is not a rebuttal.
Sources:
BLS - married-couple families by number of earners, 1967-2019:
https://t.co/buXgWqSYDz
NCES - college tuition, fees, room and board, 1963-64 through 2023-24:
https://t.co/uF8CkXd8Me
Pew Research Center - young-adult housing affordability, 1975-2024:
https://t.co/V9RJ21WQpG
Census - families and living arrangements, 1975 vs. 2025:
https://t.co/XII4FSPFFW
CBO - household income and federal taxes, 1979-2022:
https://t.co/nKXK8pGRkR
EPA - Automotive Trends, historical data beginning in 1975 through model year 2024:
https://t.co/B5m7Ibj9Ab
ChatGPT will be taking it from here. Hold this fact check:
Taxes:
Yes, Boomers generally faced a higher federal tax burden.
Average federal tax rate, middle three income quintiles:
1979: 19.3%
2019: 13.9%
CBO says 2022 rates for most income groups were about the same as 2019.
That is a real financial advantage for people today.
At the same pretax income, going from a 19.3% federal burden to 13.9% increases after-tax income by about 6.7%.
Now compare that with:
Young-household home price / income:
Boomer era: 2.5x
Now: 3.5x
Increase: 40%
Public 4-year tuition after inflation:
Boomer era: $2,941
Now: $9,872
Increase: 236%
Public college + room/board after inflation:
Boomer era: $9,281
Now: $23,176
Increase: 150%
So yes, lower federal taxes today matter.
They do not come close to offsetting the increase in housing and college costs.
Payroll taxes also moved in the opposite direction:
Employee Social Security + Medicare tax:
1979: 5.08%
Today: 7.65%
That is already part of the broader federal-tax burden above, so it should not be counted twice. It simply shows that not every individual federal tax became lower.
"Fewer deductions" is also not generally accurate.
The 1986 tax reform broadened the tax base by eliminating or restricting a number of deductions and tax shelters that existed before it.
"Fewer tax credits" is more defensible, especially for refundable credits. Refundable federal tax credits expanded substantially in later decades.
Again, the average federal tax-rate comparison already captures the overall result.
Cars:
Yes, Boomers' cars were less fuel-efficient and generally did not last as long.
Real-world new-vehicle fuel economy:
1980: 19.2 MPG
2024: 27.2 MPG
Even excluding battery-electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles, the modern figure is about 25.5 MPG.
Cars are also much safer and modern vehicles generally remain useful much longer.
Those are real modern advantages.
Affordability is a different question.
Average new-car price / median household income:
1980:
$7,574 car
$17,710 household income
Car = ~43% of annual median household income
2024:
New-vehicle transaction prices were roughly $48,000-$50,000
Median household income: $83,730
Car = ~58%-59% of annual median household income
So a new vehicle takes roughly 35%-40% more household income to acquire now.
Conclusion:
Better car = yes
Better fuel economy = yes
Better safety = yes
Longer useful life = yes
Easier initial purchase = no
A precise all-in lifetime-cost comparison across 1980 and today is harder because historical and modern ownership-cost studies use different vehicles, financing assumptions, mileage and ownership periods. I would not claim either generation definitively wins that comparison without a consistent methodology.
Health insurance:
"Insurance didn't pay for everything" is true.
It was true then.
It is true now.
That statement by itself proves nothing about which generation faced the larger financial burden.
Health insurance coverage itself is more widespread now.
Uninsured:
1987: 12.9%
2024: 8.0%
So access to coverage improved.
That statistic does NOT prove modern plans have lower deductibles, lower premiums, lower copays or more generous benefits. Those are separate questions.
Conclusion:
More people insured now = yes
"Insurance pays for everything now" = obviously no
Evidence that this erases modern housing or education costs = no
Life expectancy / medicine:
This point is true.
U.S. life expectancy:
1970: 70.8 years
1980: 73.7 years
2024: 79.0 years
Modern medicine, diagnostics, treatment and safety technology are substantially better.
Modern Americans have a real advantage here.
This is a quality-of-life and survival advantage.
It is not a measure of whether a young adult can afford housing, education or transportation.
Boomers / Gen X:
Baby Boomers: born 1946-1964
Generation X: born 1965-1980
The earlier data was deliberately described as "Boomer-era young adulthood" because government datasets normally report age groups, not generational labels.
Age 25-29 in 1980:
Born 1951-1955
100% Baby Boomer birth years.
Age 25-34 in 1979:
Born roughly 1945-1954
Almost entirely Baby Boomer birth years, with the oldest year falling just before the conventional Boomer cutoff.
Calling these comparisons "Boomer-era young adulthood" is accurate.
Overall:
Real Boomer disadvantages:
Higher average federal tax burden
Worse fuel economy
Less durable and much less safe cars
Less advanced medicine
Shorter life expectancy
Higher uninsured rates in the available historical coverage series
Real modern-young-adult disadvantages:
Much more expensive housing relative to income
Much more expensive college after inflation
New vehicles costing substantially more relative to household income
Later first-time homeownership
Lower young-adult homeownership
Later marriage
Later childbearing
More young adults living with parents
Lower union membership
Important distinction:
Later marriage and childbearing are observable facts, but economics is not necessarily the sole cause. Culture, education, preferences and other social changes also matter.
Nobody has to pretend Boomers lived in paradise.
They faced real disadvantages.
Modern generations also have enormous technological and medical advantages.
But "our cars got worse mileage," "our taxes were higher" and "medicine was worse" do not mathematically disprove the separate finding that housing and education became much less affordable relative to young people's resources.
The relevant tax advantage is measurable.
The relevant housing and education disadvantages are measurable.
Once they are actually compared in scale, the tax advantage does not erase them.
That is the fact-check.
Sources:
CBO - historical average federal tax rates:
https://t.co/xM6eUDutBx
CBO - Distribution of Household Income, 2022:
https://t.co/nKXK8pGRkR
Social Security Administration - historical Social Security/Medicare payroll tax rates:
https://t.co/8gwE5oTtCZ
IRS - historical tax reform / deductions:
https://t.co/5ll3AzWsj7
Pew Research Center - young household income and home prices:
https://t.co/GJL38eo3WT
NCES - historical college tuition, room and board:
https://t.co/uF8CkXd8Me
U.S. Department of Transportation - historical new-car prices:
https://t.co/F8luY4yLRZ
U.S. Census Bureau - 1980 household income:
https://t.co/a6I1xS2zD5
U.S. Census Bureau - current household income:
https://t.co/4s7AgettUU
EPA - Automotive Trends / fuel economy:
https://t.co/B5m7Ibj9Ab
FHWA - historical vehicle age:
https://t.co/lsV4gZBwyl
S&P Global Mobility - modern vehicle age:
https://t.co/35NdJcpVhU
Census - historical health insurance:
https://t.co/VsrWsHufIk
Census - current health insurance coverage:
https://t.co/rDDxAGcK7P
CDC - historical life expectancy:
https://t.co/BljLkrq8Hp
CDC - current life expectancy:
https://t.co/kD6BIY13OF
Pew Research Center - generational definitions:
https://t.co/fVdjMer5z9
BLS - union membership:
https://t.co/5LbUvMFe3A
I'm done arguing with your last decade of cognitive decline. You have nothing to back up your claims other than a singular POV, which is comparing apple-that-you-ate to apple-glanced-for-a-second-on-TV. Take it up with ChatGPT:
Both points raised here contain a true fact, but neither disproves the affordability argument.
Marriage / two incomes:
Yes, people married younger.
No, that does not mean Boomer households universally had two working spouses. In 1970, only 45.7% of married-couple families had both husband and wife earning income. In 1980, it was 51.8%. In 1980, 23.6% still had the husband as the only earner.
More importantly, the housing affordability data already uses HOUSEHOLD income. A second spouse's income is already counted.
Even after counting household income:
1975 young household income: $62,900
1975 home price: $154,100
Price / income: 2.5x
2024 young household income: $100,900
2024 home price: $350,000
Price / income: 3.5x
All dollar figures in that comparison are already inflation-adjusted to 2024 dollars.
So "we had two incomes" does not make the affordability gap disappear. Both incomes are already in the denominator.
House size / modern appliances:
Yes, new houses are larger today.
Median new single-family home sold:
1980: 1,570 sq. ft.
2024: 2,210 sq. ft.
Increase: ~41%
That is substantially larger. It is not "about twice the size."
More importantly, the historical housing-price comparison cited above does not simply compare the median 1980 house with the median 2024 house and ignore quality.
The historical price series is based on the FHFA/OFHEO Purchase-Only House Price Index.
FHFA uses repeat sales of the same properties and explicitly calls its methodology a "constant quality" index because using repeated transactions helps control for differences in the quality of houses in the sample.
That is specifically designed to avoid confusing "houses got more expensive" with "new houses got bigger/better."
Modern houses having microwaves, dishwashers, larger refrigerators, etc. is real technological improvement. It does not explain away a repeat-sales housing-price index or a home-price-to-household-income ratio.
Conclusion:
"You forgot marriage" = household income already counts multiple earners.
"You forgot houses got bigger" = they did, about 41% for new homes in this comparison, and the historical price index specifically uses repeat sales to control for housing-quality differences.
Those are legitimate variables to check.
They do not overturn the data.
Sources:
BLS — married-couple families and number of earners:
https://t.co/KUIGy72vC1
Pew Research Center — young household income and home-price affordability, 1975–2024:
https://t.co/GJL38eo3WT
U.S. Census Bureau — historical square footage of new single-family homes sold:
https://t.co/a1ErCJX2No
U.S. Census Bureau — characteristics of new single-family homes:
https://t.co/Iq5YEit1wY
FHFA — House Price Index / repeat-sales “constant quality” methodology:
https://t.co/T3NbYX42w7
Genuinely shocking. You must've graduated before the scientific method was invented, because science nowadays involves evidence, which you have not shown to back anything. I gathered quite a bit for my stance using basic AI aggregation of government data and primary-source articles - see below.
Dollar comparisons use inflation-adjusted constant dollars from the cited source, with both values within each comparison expressed at the same price level. Where conversion was necessary, CPI-U was used. Percentages, ages and ratios are unchanged.
Boomer-era young adulthood vs. young adulthood now:
College degree, age 25-29: 22.5% -> 40.2%
Real weekly pay, age 25-34: ~$1,131 -> $1,143
Public 4-year tuition: $2,941 -> $9,872
Public college + room/board: $9,281 -> $23,176
Young household income: $62,900 -> $100,900
Median home price: $154,100 -> $350,000
Home price / young household income: 2.5x -> 3.5x
First-time homebuyer age: late 20s -> 40
Homeownership, under 35: ~41% -> ~37%
Homebuyers with children: 58% -> 24%
First marriage, men: 23.5 -> 30.8
First marriage, women: 21.1 -> 28.4
Mean age of mother at first birth: 21.4 -> 27.5
Families with children under 18: 54% -> 39%
Age 25-34 living with parents: 9% -> 16%
Union membership: 20.1% -> 10.0%
ChatGPT analysis:
More education = yes
More real pay = barely
Cheaper college = no
Cheaper housing relative to income = no
Earlier homeownership = no
More young homeowners = no
Earlier marriage = no
Earlier families = no
Less living with parents = no
Higher union membership = no
ChatGPT soft-response:
"Nobody said Boomers never struggled.
The data says young people now get far more education, pay far more for college and housing, and reach basic adult milestones much later while real pay for young full-time workers has barely moved.
Your personal story does not change the numbers."
Sources:
NCES - education:
https://t.co/hWB8WHZ2wt
BLS - earnings:
https://t.co/lpnhOsYr9D
BLS - CPI-U:
https://t.co/3UiVXH6OT6
NCES - college costs:
https://t.co/uF8CkXd8Me
Pew - housing prices vs. young household income:
https://t.co/V9RJ21WQpG
NAR - first-time buyers / buyers with children:
https://t.co/mj6oj9fB2d
Census - homeownership by age:
https://t.co/E1YO1OuPsd
Census - marriage/families:
https://t.co/XII4FSPFFW
CDC - historical age at first birth:
https://t.co/Wqyb5ZQc4q
CDC - current age at first birth:
https://t.co/Pomj1kY0GJ
Census - historical living arrangements:
https://t.co/yYPl3gK8m9
BLS - union membership:
https://t.co/5LbUvMFe3A
Again, your entire stance is based on spite with no data. My point is indeed that you misunderstand inflation, and it has not been disproven - you do not seem to recognize that prices and wages rise unequally. It is literally why technology gets cheaper over time while houses get more expensive. Check your math with real statistics and check your brain with a medical professional.
@KellMorrHK @skumWgmi Look at the median house price, car price, and student loan debt graphs for the generations - life isn't one money number.
It may not have been "making it", but even that is impossible for the regular Gen Z worker. You finally arrived at the point.
Gen Z as a group has less opportunities to achieve life goals in a reasonable time frame (before 50) than every previous generation and especially the Boomers, just as a data-backed fact.
College has been reduced to an expected checkbox on applications and phones are obervably not optional for a serious career (ask any recruiter).
Debt is more common among Gen Z than any other generation in U.S. history. Look it up.
If your ultimate answer is "eat out of our trash cans and buy our used underwear" to my entire generation, I think that sums up how much you really care. I myself do care about the members of my generation and speak about it - that is called "advocacy" and "spreading awareness".
Having "more college educations and full-time work than ever before" while getting the same results is not a good thing. Gen Z doesn't even get the same results either, as every data point shows (families, house purchases, and financial independence all occur much later in life now than they did in the late 1900s - buying a house, starting a family, and investing in your late 20s was normal when you were growing up, but not in the least for Gen Z). Seriously, take your meds.
Last Seen Users on Sotwe
พี่ไมั59
Seen from United Kingdom
Abdullah_hameed
Seen from Jordan
ovidiu
Seen from Indonesia
HIBA JAN
Seen from Pakistan
Pathan xxx
Seen from United States
Alter/tite
Afreen Naz
Seen from United Arab Emirates
كبلز سوريا
Seen from Spain
Mom son love
Seen from Kuwait
NoctisOfficial96
Seen from Turkey
Most Popular Users
Elon Musk
@elonmusk
241.5M followers
Barack Obama
@barackobama
119M followers
Cristiano Ronaldo
@cristiano
114M followers
Donald J. Trump
@realdonaldtrump
111.8M followers
Narendra Modi
@narendramodi
107.2M followers
Rihanna
@rihanna
98.7M followers
NASA
@nasa
92.4M followers
Justin Bieber
@justinbieber
91.8M followers
KATY PERRY
@katyperry
89.8M followers
Taylor Swift
@taylorswift13
83.7M followers
Lady Gaga
@ladygaga
75.2M followers
Virat Kohli
@imvkohli
73M followers
Kim Kardashian
@kimkardashian
70.8M followers
YouTube
@youtube
68.8M followers
Neymar Jr
@neymarjr
66M followers
Bill Gates
@billgates
65M followers
Selena Gomez
@selenagomez
62.8M followers
The Ellen Show
@theellenshow
62.3M followers
CNN
@cnn
61.8M followers
X
@x
60.7M followers