Okay, this is actually the most insane eighth-baked charting I've ever seen, so here I go.
Heinous reporting by WP data science - at best, it just tells half the story of pumping the system unilaterally with debt during COVID. Without even looking at the source data itself -
1) I think this is really bad: the x axes are slightly different ranges which they obfuscate in the labeling. The first is 64 - 18 (46y), and the second is 69 - 18 (51y). In contrast the labels suggest 46y and 44y, respectively.
As a result, the second graph has higher visual slope for the same real period - thus appears to show steeper rates of growth.
2) In any case, this should all be plotted on one coherent x axis (age intervals) with dual-tone histograms showing the extension of net worth (hint: != net future wealth) from 2019-2022.
3) The sample set for each cohort changes for each measurement. By 1989, the average Boomer was 34yo, and the eldest was 43yo. So for x < 43, the set of Boomers is (increasingly) clipped.
At least for the youngest they got the starting age right - you can see data correctly begins at 25yo.
4) Extension of 2. In 1989, the eldest Millennial is EIGHT YEARS OLD. They don't enter the data until 1999. The last ones enter at 2014.
So from this alone, what you're really showing is that real net worth of a median (1989) Millennial - who comes into this dataset in 2007 - didn't grow at all relative to a median (1955) Boomer who enters the dataset in 1973.
That is, until COVID. At which point the Boomers (aged 56 - 74) massively outperformed their parents who held fewer properties and risk assets. And Millennials (aged 24 - 39), holding an even higher proportion of risk assets than the elder Boomers, slightly pulled ahead.
So in median terms, despite massive compound gains in productivity, that's 48 years (2020 - 1972) with NO ZERO ZILCH relative growth in wealth creation across generations. If you assume that roughly the same numbers hold for the eldest Boomers, it's 56 years of stagnation in wealth creation.
The same is NOT true for the Boomers relative to the Silent Generation, but their outperformance is not in the data either because the youngest of that cohort is already 44yo by 1989.
Doesn't that seem....really, really fucked? Wasn't the pitch a better outcome for *all* future little-Johnnys?
Ok moving on. We're not done quite yet.
5) This growth in property and equity values, which is the only damn thing these charts show, is hugely financed by public debt - I've heard that by some measures 85% of $5-7 trillion in COVID stimulus money was saved and invested, not spent.
So if you really want to see what's going in net future wealth terms, you have to discount the numbers shown here in some way by the debt burden on the future tax base. Since the majority of that debt falls on people who have longer remaining lifespans, it disproportionately destroys the Millennials - especially those without equities.
The YOUNGEST Boomers have 16 years left according to average USA lifespan. The median more like 7. The eldest? Been dead for two years.
So here's the thing.
At this point, the story is obvious. We feel it in our inflation, and we hear the strain when talking to anyone under 45yo. We sense it the birth rate, and how society boils over in strange, strange ways.
Millennials in America should be swimming with wealth from multiplicative productive gains and lubricating the economy, to the benefit of their entrepreneurial children, with their spending.
Instead those decades of gains are (almost) entirely hoarded by their parents (which of course drives up rent costs, but I don't even have the energy left to dig into that factor).
So if you thought these charts told a good story, you really need to update your priors.
Misallocation of resources has pushed this society to the fucking limit, and it really shows.
After all, the data doesn't lie.