Hmm... I'm not convinced this image has the dates right. I always though Gen X was 1966-1980, Millennials 1981-1995, etc. Anyway...
Continuing the debate of Millennials being worse off than Boomers and replying to Showing My Receipts: Millennials and the Wider Economy
For the record, as a Gen Xer, while I concede Millennials have their own problems I don't think they are worse off, on average, than any other generation but I do think they complain more (again, on average).
First, comparing housing prices to the past depends significantly on exactly which years you are comparing because housing prices tend to move in cycles. For example, in 2003-2004 houses were (relatively) affordable. Afterwards, prices spiked and by 2008-2009 (these are rough dates based on memory) houses were selling for 3x to 4x what they were in 2003-2004. By 2008-2012 prices were plummeting, not quite reaching their previous lows but losing in many cases well over 50% of their value. This is anecdotal based on where I live but I think it is representative of what was going on across most of the country. This was a more extreme cycle than most but cycles of rising and falling prices are the norm in housing. If you are comparing prices over the last couple of years with the past I don't doubt these numbers but they are misleading when taken out of context. It would appear that we are just coming off of the peak of a cycle. Prices are currently declining. How long and how far will they decline? Only time will tell but history suggests it could be quite a bit. Point being you get significantly different numbers if you are comparing the peak of a cycle or the bottom of one and right now you are comparing a peak. Also (see below), I don't think the time range being compared in the OP is entirely accurate if you are trying to compare to what Boomers were paying.
Another issue to consider is square footage. The average new house size in 1960 was in the neighborhood of 1200 square feet. Today the average new house is around 2600 square feet. To make this a fair comparison, you would really have to compare price per square foot. On average, people have been buying bigger, more expensive houses but you can still get a 1200 square foot house.
Yet another thing to consider is financing costs. We have had below average financing costs since at least 2000 until very recently. Right now, with the recent rises in interest rates, we are at about the historical average. So up until very recently, the cost to finance a mortgage was lower that the historical average, and by a significant amount most of the last 20 years. The absolute worst time in modern history to have financed a house was the entire decade of the 1980s. Mortgage rates averaged from ~12% to ~18% depending on the specific year. Interestingly enough, comparing 1980 house prices to 2023 house prices very closely tracks inflation. Average inflation rate from 1980 to 2023 is 3.11% while average house price increase per year over the same period is 3.24% (see https://www.in2013dollars.com/Housing/price-inflation/1980). Given the MUCH higher finance costs of the 1980s it makes it seem to me that houses are much more affordably now than they were in the 1980s. The most significant house inflation occurred between 1960 and 1980, before most Boomers would have bought their houses (in 1980, the oldest Boomers would have been 34..the youngest only 16). Maybe Boomers should be bitching at their parents how hard they have it? You know, if you ignore all that World War stuff and its consequences.
And now that I look at the actual numbers, Millennials aren't really that far behind Boomers in home ownership. 62% of 40 year olds owned their own home in 2022. For Baby Boomers at the same age, that percentage was 69% (https://www.redfin.com/news/gen-z-millennial-homeownership-rate-home-purchases/). To me this indicates that affordability isn't significantly different even if that is the sole reason for the 7% discrepancy (which it probably isn't).
Speaking of the specific problem with rent tripling in a decade... Only you can decide whether moving is the right option. However, clearly such an area is well outside the norm statistically speaking so this is a relatively local problem with relatively local drivers. Not something to say Millennials as a generation are suffering from or to blame Boomers for or to even blame inflation for (at least not exclusively). I would just say that the overall housing data suggests that Millennials don't have it worse than Boomers on average in terms of the affordability of houses. The exception might be early Boomers that could afford houses in their 20s however I do not believe that demographic to be representative of most Boomers with houses.
I would also suggest that moving to find the right job/affordability combo has been the norm for a long time, at least for jobs you expect you might be working at long term. My parents made a couple of minor (~1 hour away) moves and one major (12 hours and several states away) moves when I was growing up and a couple of other major moves since then. I'm fortunate to have only had to have moved once within the same state a few hours a way. There was a time more recently when I was considering moving much further away. Sometimes people of any generation have to move. So when people ask why you don't consider moving, it's a legitimate question, certainly a fair one, and there is at least a reasonable chance the person asking has done it before. Having lots of family and friends you are close to in the area is of course a strong reason for staying but this is something people have struggled with for generations. Stay at home with potentially poorer job prospects/standard of living or seek greener pastures elsewhere. I assure you this is not some sort of new concept that arrived with Millennials.
College costs, on average, have gone up ~6%/year on average since 1977 as opposed to the ~3.5%/year inflation rate. This is a significant increase over inflation but even that can be a little misleading. First, it is generally cheaper to get a student loan than it used to be. Yes, I am aware of the negatives of this but it can be very worthwhile to make use of such a loan if you need it for getting a useful degree. Also, if you are a good student, you often don't have to pay for all (or any) of your tuition. For example, in Florida, if you have a 3.5 grade point average or above, your tuition at a state college is free. With a 3.0 GPA you can get it reduced by half. If your GPA is less than that, maybe you should explore other options. I'm speaking specifically as to how it is in Florida but I suspect many other states have similar programs. Also, there are a vast number of both public and private scholarships available for virtually everything. Far more than there were in the past and far easier to find given the Internet. At the end of the day, the issue isn't college costs so much as it is choice of degree. I'm not trying to be completely dismissive of increased college costs but a degree should be thought of as an investment for the future. How much you are spending vs. how much it will be worth in the job market. Many degrees are worthless. Some are gold. Some pay for themselves relatively quickly, some never will. That isn't to say that what I'm calling "worthless" degrees have no value. Learning something new and the experience of getting the degree can have great personal value. However, from a financial perspective you have to be concerned with their value in the marketplace. College can have a huge impact on future earnings and can be immensely valuable for a lot of people. However, it certainly isn't for everybody.
As far as choosing a degree, how many Boomers do you think would be surprised that a Bachelor's degree in Philosophy is worthless? I'm guessing exactly 0. I don't know who is suggesting that prospective students should spend huge amounts of money to get any degree but it isn't Boomers as a group. Millennials should stop whining that their Art History degree is worthless. I mean did you even look at the job market at jobs you were interested in to see what the requirements were? Did you ask anybody else with an Art History degree how it worked out for them? If the answer is no then you have no one to blame but yourself (you can of course replace "Art History" or "Philosophy" with any other financially dubious degree). If the answer is yes then you probably didn't get that Art History degree. It's also important to note that there are many degrees that are useful stepping stones or prerequisites to more advanced degrees but are useless on their own as undergraduate degrees. Things like Biology, Physics, etc. Point being if you major in Biology with plans to become a doctor and then quit after your undergraduate degree you've just done a great job of screwing yourself. In any case, even if some Boomer told you getting "any" degree is worth it, you are seriously going to spend tens of thousands of dollars and four years getting that degree without doing the tiniest bit of research on its value? Did the Boomer take out that loan or you? I sympathize with others when they make mistakes. Everybody makes them and it often sucks. I sympathize far less when they blame others for those mistakes. If a Boomer told you to jump off a bridge, would you?
As far as the CNN article shared on how Millennials are doing worse than their parents... First, their statistics are VERY selective. Second, the numbers are more indicative of Millennials doing about the same as their parents (44% are doing better than their parents...presumably some percent are doing about the same and the rest are doing worse). Not doing better isn't the same as doing worse but I digress. This has been a long term trend. Boomers did hugely better than their parents, Gen Xers did somewhat better than their parents, Millennials about the same as their parents. Just because we've plateaued (whether that is temporary or not) doesn't mean Millennials are doing worse than everybody. It just means they didn't improve upon the generation before in terms of wealth.
Another article was shared called "Financial Health of Young America: Measuring Generational Declines between Baby Boomers and Millennials". I only skimmed it but a lot of the focus talked about how the net wealth of Millennials was lower in large part due to student debt. I would only point again to the points I made above about education. I don't believe Boomers as a group encouraged younger generations to just get any degree. But even if they did, when taking on a financial responsibility that large is it not incumbent upon the person doing it to do at least a little bit of research? Taking on student debt is OK under the right circumstances but there's lots you can do to minimize expenses and ensure the degree you are pursuing has value in the workplace. Even that article concluded that "On average, college continues to be a good investment, with better financial outcomes for those with a college degree." College debt hurts you in the short run but not as much as the right college degree (not underwater basket weaving) will help in the long run.
As far as inflation, wars, etc. For the most part I agree with most of what was said. However, I think these are because of ideologies that transcend generations going back further than Boomers. Boomers didn't start it and it seems unlikely to end with that generation either but I'll be happy to be proven wrong.
My personal perception of Millennials isn't that they are lazy or frivolous. However it is my perception that they complain more about problems everyone has, think they have it worse than everyone (but don't), and are more apt to blame their problems on others (damned Boomers). However, that is by no means universal. I work with a number of Millennials that I would not describe in that way.
