This is really intellectually bankrupt, whether on purpose or not.<p>The main issue is that they're basing a large part of their claims on ZIRP-era data, but the economy (obviously) changed completely once the 14-year gush of money was turned off in summer 2022. For example, "Quiet quitting", which the article cites to support its argument, was only possible in the peak ZIRP period 2020-2022 and today is unimaginable. Really, I would expect The Economist of all outlets to grasp this.<p>Also, the article is very light on specifics, e.g. it says "Their home-ownership rates are higher than millennials at the same age. They also save more post-tax income than youngsters did in the 1980s and 1990s." OK, but how much? If it's a few percentage points or less, that's largely noise, but if it's a double-digit amount, it's a genuine difference. As it is, we don't know, so the "unprecedentedly rich" claim in the headline is unsubstantiated.<p>Besides this, a bunch of areas related to inflation and prices are handled sloppily. For example, the article says Zoomers are paying about the same percentage of income as previous generations for housing and education, but it doesn't look at the quality of either -- I wouldn't be surprised if Zoomers are getting less for their money (less square feet of housing, degrees with worse job prospects, etc.). Also, as someone who lives in a southern European country, I can tell you that plummeting unemployment numbers in places like this (they cite Spain's and Greece's in a graph) are due to people emigrating en masse in search of high-paying, year-round jobs.<p>All in all, my biggest takeaway from this article is to confirm my impression that The Economist today is intellectually sloppy and baldly makes arguments with weak or no evidence in support. I'd gotten that impression after having subscribed for a few weeks not long ago, and this article, which I might have written off as a fluke otherwise, cemented it.