Economic mobility describes changes in people’s economic positions, either within their own lifetimes (intragenerational mobility) or across generations (intergenerational mobility). Two principal concepts are used:

The authors use the U.S. Census Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement (CPS ASEC) for 1963–2022 to construct annual income measures by cohort. They define “generations” by birth year (e.g. Silent: 1928–45; Boomers: 1946–64; Gen X: 1965–80; Millennials: 1981–96) following Pew Research conventions. In each generation, they compare incomes at the same ages – focusing on age 36–40 as a “prime age” when most education is complete. Because generations span many birth years, each cohort is observed over different calendar years, and the analysis only includes ages 36–40 that fall between 1963 and 2022.

Two income definitions are constructed for each individual/couple/household each year: (i) market income (earnings, business income, etc.) and (ii) post-tax, post-transfer income (market income minus taxes plus cash and in‑kind transfer benefits such as EITC, SNAP, etc., excluding health insurance). The CPS lacks tax and transfer detail in early years, so the authors impute federal and state taxes (via NBER TAXSIM) and nonmedical transfers (via published algorithms) to create comparable full incomes back to 1963. Income is converted to real (2019) dollars using the U.S. Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) price index. (The PCE index is used because it spans the full period; it likely understates true consumer inflation, so real income gains would be even larger under an ideal deflator.)

All income values are measured on a per-capita, equivalized basis. The primary “sharing unit” is the household, with household income divided by the square root of household size to allow for economies of scale. This captures total resources available to each generation at home. The authors also analyze couple-level income (equal-splitting total income of a married couple between spouses) and individual incomes (for singles), to distinguish earnings from spouses or parents and account for changes in cohabitation. (Throughout, “couple income” means the per-person income of married adults, “household income” means all household members’ income per equivalent adult.)

Thus, the study compares, for example, the median real household income of 36–40-year-olds in the Millennial generation to that of 36–40-year-olds in Generation X (or Boomers, etc.), controlling for age and inflation. Growth is reported as percent gains over the previous generation. All findings use this consistent methodology (same sharing unit, inflation index, etc.) across 60 years of CPS data.

The headline finding is that every younger generation has had higher real incomes in mid-life than the one before it. In the authors’ words:

“We find that each of the past four generations of Americans was better off than the previous one, using a post-tax, post-transfer income measure”. Specifically, at age 36–40 the median Millennial had about 18% higher household income (2019 dollars) than a Gen X cohort at the same age. By comparison, Silent-Generation 36–40-year-olds had 34% higher median income than the Greatest Generation at the same age, and Boomers had 27% higher than Silents. (Generation X’s gain over Boomers was about 16%.) These gains are for the 50th percentile; both the 25th and 75th percentiles also show positive, if slowing, intergenerational growth.

Notably, the slowing of progress for Gen X and Millennials is linked to labor supply. The paper finds that Millennials and Gen X have experienced stagnant work hours, whereas earlier cohorts saw large hours gains. Holding hours fixed, Millennials’ market earnings growth would have been even larger than Boomers’. In other words, younger adults today work a little less than past cohorts did, which dampens their income growth; but per hour, their wages grew faster.

After accounting for taxes and transfers, income growth remains positive. Indeed, government transfers and lower taxes have softened the slowdown. The authors report that the growth in post-tax, post-transfer median income (household basis) for 36–40-year-olds was roughly 15–19% for each of Gen X, Boomers, and Millennials. By contrast, using only pre-tax market income shows a much steeper slowdown (Millennials had +14% over Gen X).

In short, each generation’s income in real, per-capita terms is higher than the last – Millennials are richer at age ~38 than Gen Xers were, etc. The gains have decelerated, but remain positive. The authors emphasize that comparisons are at equal age and adjusted for inflation and household size; they note that recent narrative claims of Millennial stagnation reflect narrower measures or different time frames, but using full incomes the trend is upward.

The paper compares Black vs Non-Black Americans (the CPS racial data allow only Black vs non-Black over the whole period). They find positive intergenerational income growth for both groups, but slower gains for Black Americans in recent generations. For example, Black Baby Boomers (age 36–40) earned 36% higher incomes than Silent-Generation Black adults; but Black Millennials earned only 20% higher than Black Gen X (a 16-point drop in the growth rate). Among non-Black adults, Boomers had +27% over Silents, and Millennials +18% over Gen X. (Table 9 shows: Boomers vs Silents +36% for Black households vs +27% for non-Black. Millennials vs Gen X: +20% (Black) vs +18% (non-Black).)

Thus, Black Americans’ incomes rose more steeply mid-20th century but slowed more recently: gains were larger than whites through the Boomer generation (narrowing the racial income gap), but Millennials’ gains have been smaller so far. The authors stress that every group saw positive gains (no generation was worse off), but Black Millennials face a notably lower boost than Black Boomers did. (The paper does not analyze Hispanic, Asian or other groups, due to data limits in early years.)

The paper notes a divergence in male vs female earnings across cohorts: women’s real earnings have risen more across generations than men’s (consistent with other studies). However, when looking at household-level or couple-level incomes for 36–40 year-olds, male and female members show similar intergenerational progress, because most adults are married at those ages. In Appendix Table A4, median couple incomes for men rose by ~15–17% per generation, and for women by ~16–20% (couple basis) from Gen X to Millennials. In short, household incomes grew for both sexes, but individual men often feel stagnation since their personal earnings grew little while women’s earnings rose more. (The authors caution that these perceptions can differ from the couple/household trends.)

Educational attainment rose sharply across cohorts: among 36–40 year-olds, only 33% of Millennials have a high-school degree or less, compared to 47% of Boomers. The share with a bachelor’s or higher jumped from 27% for Boomers to 43% for Millennials. This compositional shift matters for income comparisons.

When comparing within education groups, incomes also rose across generations, but with important nuances. Table 7 (p.47) reports median household income growth by education. In general, those with at least a college degree saw larger multi-decade gains (though these too have slowed). For example, Boomers with a bachelor’s had ~17% higher income than Silents did at the same age, whereas Millennial bachelor’s-holders earned only ~10% more than Gen X had. (The paper notes Millennials with only a bachelor’s earned ~$4,600 more than Gen X peers, a smaller gap than the earlier 17% jump.) Among holders of advanced degrees, generational income growth was also high for Boomers and Gen X but much smaller for Millennials. At the low end (high-school or less), Gen Xers saw almost no growth over Boomers, though Millennials appear to have recovered somewhat (Table 7 shows a positive uptick for Millennials with ≤HS). The key point is growth slows for later generations at every education level, and extra schooling costs have not fully offset income gains.

Implication: Rising education has helped boost incomes (each generation is more educated than the last), but the authors note the extra cost of education is small relative to the extra lifetime income. They estimate that higher college costs for Millennials amount to only about three years of their additional earnings, and as a share of lifetime income the gap is small. In short, college pays off: even after loans and aid, the younger generation’s income gains outweigh their extra costs.

Because all incomes are expressed in real (2019) dollars, the analysis already accounts for inflation and cost of living in aggregate. The authors use the PCE price index (which covers all major consumer spending and allows substitution) to deflate incomes. In this framework, each generation’s real incomes are higher. They also check sensitivity to using the CPI-U (which tends to report higher inflation): even with CPI adjustment the intergenerational gains remain positive, though slightly smaller. Thus, young adults today truly have higher purchasing power incomes than past cohorts at the same age, despite rising prices.

However, the paper acknowledges that some costs (e.g. housing, healthcare) have risen faster than average. They note that higher housing prices have made homeownership harder for Millennials, but the share of young adults holding other wealth (like stocks) has risen dramatically. Indeed, wealth accumulation appears to mirror the income gains: other research (Horpedahl 2021) finds that younger cohorts hold more wealth at each age than their predecessors, consistent with the income trends here. In 2022, 35–44 year‑olds were much more likely to own stocks than in 1989 (64% vs 39%), partially offsetting housing unaffordability.

In summary, after adjusting for inflation, Millennials are better off than Gen X was, and Gen X is better off than Boomers. The gains are real: a 36–40-year-old Millennial in 2018–2022 had ~18% higher post-tax household income than a Gen X peer in 2001–2005, which translates to significantly higher lifetime and present consumption possibilities. These income advances have generally outpaced increases in college or basic living costs. Coupled with rising transfers and assets, the evidence is that each generation is better off in real terms than the one before (even as subjective measures of well-being and mobility have changed).

The authors conclude that long‑term data do not support the narrative that “Millennials are worse off than Boomers/Gen X” in broad financial terms. On median, each generation has had higher living standards after taxes/transfers. The slowdown in growth (especially from Boomers onward) means that relative mobility has declined, consistent with Chetty et al. (2017) finding fewer Millennials exceeding their parents’ incomes. But crucially, the direction of progress has remained up: “intergenerational progress is no longer slowing,” in fact Millennial growth slightly exceeds Gen X’s.

These findings suggest that concerns about income stagnation need to account for taxes/transfers, family structure, and inflation. For example, more Millennials live with parents early on, but by age 36–40 few rely on parental support. Higher education and health costs are real, but incomes have grown faster. The paper also hints at tensions: men’s flat wages vs women’s rising wages can create a sense of stagnation for some, and blacks saw smaller recent gains. Nevertheless, on average and across major subgroups, younger Americans in their late 30s have higher real incomes than previous cohorts at that age.

Data Tables. For illustration, Table 7 of the paper reports median post-tax income growth by education. (For brevity we summarize its key points rather than reproduce it here.) Notably, Boomers with high school or less earned ~5% more than Silents, whereas Gen X saw only ~2% more, and Millennials ~12% more than Gen X. By contrast, Bachelor’s degree holders: Boomer incomes were ~17% above Silents, Gen X ~17% above Boomers, but Millennials only ~10% above Gen X. These patterns show how earlier cohorts saw larger income gains (especially among the highly educated) than recent ones.

Sources: Corinth and Larrimore (2024), “Has Intergenerational Progress Stalled? Income Growth Over Five Generations of Americans,” Federal Reserve FEDS Working Paper 2024-007. All statistics cited above are drawn directly from this study.