[perpetualpatzer]

The chart you linked stops before it gets to the cohort discussed in the article. The youngest cohort shown is the 25-34 cohort in 2016 would have been born in 1982-1991 ("gen y"/"millenials"). The economist article is discussing the cohort born starting in 1997. It seems to think the chart gets rosier for the young.

[Havoc]

Fair point on data comparability. The trend (younger generations substantially worse off) is pretty clear though.

> It seems to think the chart gets rosier for the young.

That seems comical optimistic to me. Between gig economy, covid and rising cost of living, unaffordable housing, college loans I struggle to see the young ones building rapid wealth all of a sudden. If anything id expect even worse than where that chart stops.