But the subject of the article is younger low/middle income people in wealthy countries like Britain now getting a raw deal relative to older asset-rich people because the young people spend most of their incomes on maintaining a level of property older people paid for at much lower cost (in terms of real goods or as a proportion of income), whilst simultaneously having more of their income diverted to the older, often asset-rich people's rising-in-real-terms public pensions. Your graph of world income changes does not demonstrate that British public policies aimed at boosting house prices and transferring a greater proportion of national income to today's pensioners aren't [close to] a zero sum game stacked against the young, or that the chief beneficiaries of this increase in economic rent captured by older generations and the asset-rich in Britain are the global poor, which obviously isn't true.

It might be open to question how many young people with much less living space than previous generations actually are worse off given that thanks to economic development they'll live longer and have access to digital goods that didn't exist and more opportunity to avoid expensive housing through increased relocation opportunity than their elders did at the same age. But then again, if I wanted a graph which indicates a large fraction of people in countries like Britain who would be considered low-mid income by national standards are actually worse off, I could always use yours...