My point is that most of these metrics just use sticker prices. If you say something like wages have decreased in relation to housing and automotive prices, you can't ignore that houses are bigger today and automobiles are more reliable. If the median car price has stayed the same but your car now lasts you almost 100% longer [1], that is a stable sticker price but a 50% percent reduction is the yearly cost. If the median price of a house has increased by 75% [2] but the house is 50% bigger, the effective price increase is barely above inflation.

[1] - http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/pub...

[2] - https://www.census.gov/const/uspricemon.pdf

The problem with the argument that uneconomic factors have improved is not just that these are hard to measure but that a lot of folks have an interest in fudging the measurements.

Inflation adjusted wages have been quite stagnant while measures of inflation are rather dubious to say the least. My old car is indeed a bit more reliable than my previous old car but both were reliable - I can't see that compensating for more or less everything costing more relative my relatively fixed income.

You seem like the type who is unlikely to change an opinion, so I'm not going to expend any more effort on this. However, for your own edification, you might want to stop and ask yourself whether this:

"If the median price of a house has increased by 75% but the house is 50% bigger, the effective price increase is barely above inflation."

can be reconciled to this:

"For the first time since the 1880s, more young Americans are living with their parents than with a romantic partner."

People are angry about the decline in the standard of living, and for most us, the justification for that anger is obvious.

>You seem like the type who is unlikely to change an opinion

There is no need to be rude. I posted twice in this conversation and linked to sources both times. I'm not sure how that gives the impression that I am being unreasonable.

>ask yourself whether this...can be reconciled to this...

It certainly can because they are measuring two separate things. Housing costs are up, but on a rate basis they are not as far up as most think. More Americans are living at home. The former is likely partially responsible for the latter, but it is unlikely that it is the only cause. As the article suggests, another cause is likely that younger people simply aren't living with romantic partners as much as the number of people living alone is also higher.

You really seem stuck on that one sentence from the article, but it doesn't say what you're trying to read into it. It does not say that standard of living has decreased. Heck, it doesn't even imply that. The only thing you can really get out of that text is that people's circumstances and priorities have changed. The change might be a decrease, but there's no need to read that into it.