The Kids Are Alright: What the Data Actually Says About Young People and Money

In a September 22, 2026 report from BCG's Centre for Macroeconomics — The Kids Are Alright: The Timeless Angst Over Young People and Money¹ — Chief Economist Philipp Carlsson-Szlezak, Senior Economist Paul Swartz, and Economist Henry Rubin mount a rigorous, data-driven challenge to one of the most widely held beliefs in contemporary economic discourse: that Gen Z and Millennials are falling behind.

They are not. In fact, the reverse is true.

The Narrative vs. The Numbers

The authors open with a disarming historical anchor. A quote that reads like a modern op-ed complaint about housing costs — "It requires a little fortune, now, to buy a house, and every article of furniture costs about three times as much as it did ten years ago" — was published in 1866. The point is deliberate and precise. Generational angst, Carlsson-Szlezak, Swartz, and Rubin argue, is not a new condition. It is a recurring one. "Little has changed in the 160 years since," they write. "As a new generation is finding its footing, the challenge of wealth creation appears insurmountable, the playing field stacked against them, and the flashpoints of societal debate (e.g. housing) remain the same."

That said, the authors are equally clear that historical recurrence does not excuse analytical sloppiness. Their argument is not that the young face no headwinds, but that the headwinds are being systematically mischaracterized. "The facts don't line up with this narrative," they state directly. "Gen Z has not fallen behind but forged ahead of prior generations — both in terms of income and wealth."

Income: A Clear Lead

On income, the data is unambiguous. At age 28, the oldest Gen Z workers earn approximately $42,000 in inflation-adjusted constant dollars — 25% more than Millennials earned at the same age, and 50% more than Baby Boomers. The report notes that real wage growth over the past decade has run at nearly 2% per year, outstripping long-run historical norms. The authors also address the obvious counterargument — that inequality is skewing the average upward — by pointing to the median: "The data we show is the generational median, not average. And while there is significant inequality, we have no evidence that there is more inequality in Gen Z than in older generations. If anything, income inequality should be lower."

Wealth: Delayed, Not Denied

The wealth picture is more nuanced but arrives at the same conclusion. Millennials did lag early in their careers, partly due to the Global Financial Crisis. But the trajectory has since bent decisively upward. "At 34 years of age, Millennials' average net worth stands at $331,000 compared to $251,000 for Gen X and $229,000 for Boomers," the authors note. This is not an anomaly. It follows the same pattern of every prior generation exceeding the one before it.

The sequencing matters. Carlsson-Szlezak, Swartz, and Rubin map the climb decade by decade with precision: income leads in the 20s, wealth overtakes prior generations by age 32, and homeownership catches up to Gen X levels by age 42. The path is delayed and less linear — but it is intact.

What Is Distorting the Picture

Three forces, the authors argue, are driving the gap between perception and data. First, expectations have become unmoored. A 2024 survey found Gen Zers believe they need a $600,000 annual salary to feel financially successful — a figure that sits above the 99th percentile of actual U.S. earnings. "Such financial 'dysmorphia,'" the report states, "likely fueled by constant exposure to extraordinary wealth on social media, translates into frustration when digital and actual reality come into conflict."

Second, the generational benchmark being used is fundamentally flawed. The Boomer generation's wealth creation was powered in no small part by a one-time structural shift — the mass entry of women into the labour force, which created the double-income household. "By definition, it cannot be repeated," the authors write. "If we're using the fast social climb of Boomers as a benchmark for younger generations, we're literally setting them up for failure."

Third, the so-called K-shaped economy narrative — the idea that the bottom of the distribution is being left behind — does not hold up to scrutiny. The data shows that since 2020, bottom-quartile wage growth has actually outpaced top-quartile growth. "The popular 'K-shaped economy' narrative cannot be supported with data," the authors state plainly.

A Different Path, Not a Broken One

To be fair, Carlsson-Szlezak, Swartz, and Rubin are not declaring victory for every young person. "Our analysis of generational progress is not a claim that all is well for all," they write carefully. "It is a push back against the thin claims that all is wrong." The climb is harder in specific ways — student debt is real, housing costs in urban centres are genuinely elevated, and the sequence of wealth accumulation has shifted away from homeownership and toward equities. At age 34, Millennials hold 19% of their assets in equities, compared to 11% for Gen X and 8% for Boomers at the same age. That greater market exposure, it turns out, has been rewarded.

"Generational progress remains intact — that remains true even if it's not universal or easy."

5 Key Takeaways for Advisors and Investors

1. The generational wealth story is more constructive than the narrative suggests. Gen Z and Millennial clients are not falling behind prior generations on either income or wealth metrics. Advisors should be cautious about reinforcing the doom narrative in client conversations — the data does not support it.
2. The path to wealth has shifted from homeownership to equities. Younger clients are accumulating wealth through market exposure rather than real estate. This has implications for portfolio construction, financial planning timelines, and how advisors frame asset allocation conversations with clients who are renting by circumstance or choice.
3. Unrealistic benchmarks are creating a client engagement challenge. The expectation gap — particularly among Gen Z clients — is measurable and significant. Advisors who frame financial success around realistic, data-grounded milestones will be better positioned to build trust and retain younger clients who otherwise feel perpetually behind.
4. The K-shaped economy is a narrative, not a fact. Since 2020, wage and wealth gains have been broad-based across income quintiles. Advisors and investors anchoring macro views to the K-shape thesis should revisit the underlying data.
5. Homeownership delays are not permanent setbacks. The data shows Millennials catching up to Gen X homeownership rates by age 42. For clients frustrated by the housing market, the planning message is one of sequencing, not failure — wealth is being built through other asset classes in the interim.

Footnote:

1 Carlsson-Szlezak, Philipp, Paul Swartz, and Henry Rubin. "The Kids Are Alright: The Timeless Angst Over Young People and Money." The Macroscope, BCG Centre for Macroeconomics, 22 Sept. 2026, https://shockscrisesfalsealarms.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/BCG_CME_PW-263-6-221_ON_2026.09.22_Generations.pdf.