You seem to mistake having a salary for having money.
America now has more than 6,000 Zoomer chief executives and 1,000 Zoomer politicians.
Also, what if you’re not a CEO or a politician? Also, plus, too, how on earth is “small town city councilman” or “part-time New Hampshire legislator” a sign of wealth?
That was one single indicator. I agree it’s not the best, to your point, unemployment, homeownership, and salary averages are the ones that show middle class wealth.
I don’t get the point you’re trying to make with your graph. Obviously there wouldn’t be many Zoomers working full time; most are still in school.
Zoomers born after 2006 haven’t graduated high-school, and those born between 2002-2006 are in college. That’s leaves only a 5 year window of people you’d expect to be employed full time.
The line for millenials looks about the same as Zoomers.
Rich = Full Time Employed?
You seem to mistake having a salary for having money.
Also, what if you’re not a CEO or a politician? Also, plus, too, how on earth is “small town city councilman” or “part-time New Hampshire legislator” a sign of wealth?
That was one single indicator. I agree it’s not the best, to your point, unemployment, homeownership, and salary averages are the ones that show middle class wealth.
I don’t see any of that in the article. Is it hidden behind the paywall?
You just need an account for the first few articles.
I don’t get the point you’re trying to make with your graph. Obviously there wouldn’t be many Zoomers working full time; most are still in school.
Zoomers born after 2006 haven’t graduated high-school, and those born between 2002-2006 are in college. That’s leaves only a 5 year window of people you’d expect to be employed full time.
The line for millenials looks about the same as Zoomers.
shrug
Take that up with the Economist, its their claim and their chart.
I’m trying to understand your argument against the article and what point you’re trying to make by using their chart.
The data in the article doesn’t support the headline.