It's the Ideas section ("ARGUMENTS. ESSAYS. INQUIRIES."), so it's editorial. Either way, it seems to be well-researched as far as I can tell. What's your specific gripe with it?

e.g.

> The net worth of your average Millennial household is 40 percent lower than for Gen X households in 2001 and 20 percent lower than for Baby Boomers’ households at the end of the 1980s.

This links to a federal reserve study.

> What's your specific gripe with it?

My specific gripe with it and most articles these days is that it's driving an agenda, the hallmark of which is the omission of any contradictory evidence. In the course of their research, they certainly encountered evidence that contradicted their hypothesis, yet when they went to print all this was omitted.

If someone is exploring an idea, I like it to at least approximate the approach of good scientific research paper. Propose a hypothesis, present the data (supporting or otherwise), have a discussion and then suggest a conclusion for consideration.

As opposed to find data that supports your hypothesis, throw out all other data you encountered along the way and since you have a foregone conclusion, no discussion is necessary.

The other thing I'd like to see if anyone predicting the future to also pen an alternate piece using scenario planning.

"In my previous essay, I predicted X will happen around year Y. In this essay, I'm going to imagine that it is year Y and it turns out that my prediction of X was completely wrong and I will explore all the possible flaws in my previous essay to determine what went wrong.

This approach forces people to be their own devil's advocate.

Not every issue has a "both sides". Data is pretty universal in showing that the millenial cohort is pretty financially precarious

Do you have a link to that data?

There were multiple links in the article. 30 seconds on google scholar will show you as many additional ones as you want, ex. [1][2]. Asking for links here is not really appropriate.

[1] https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2014/beyond-bls/millennials-aft...

[2] http://www.frbatlanta.org/documents/pubs/econsouth/14q1.pdf

Can you please point me towards some legit data that shows Millenials are crushing it and are not, in fact, having worse financial outcomes than previous generations?

While inequality is up, the median income is at an all time high:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United...

Lowest infant mortality rate at all time:

https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/infa...

I'd also say that we're lucky to be alive at a time when you can make a very generous salary without having a degree as a professional software developer (source: myself).

I think there are a lot of people who overextended themselves getting a degree with little to no monetary value but that's definitely not the whole story for this generation.

How does low infant mortality refutes the poor economic prospects of millenials, a generation having less kids than any to date? That is a complete non-sequitur.

Median household income is very marginally higher than ever, while debt is substantially higher. Cost of living isn't inclusive of the cost of education that is probably the biggest economic burden unique to millenials.

No one is debating that you can (momentarily) make a lot of money as a software dev without a degree. It still accounts for a small portion of the economy.

From TFA: “With the baby boomers occupying most of the top jobs and much of the housing, Millennials are doing less well than their parents,” concluded Credit Suisse. “We expect only a minority of high achievers and those in high-demand sectors such as technology or finance to effectively overcome the ‘millennial disadvantage.’”

Yes, the Wikipedia article I posted refutes the article's claim and does so with data.

Which part of the Wikipedia page you linked to refutes the article? If anything, the figures in the Wikipedia page corroborate the article.

For example, this one shows net worth broken down by age range. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Income_and_Net_Wor...

You can see that the median net worth of households below 35 gained a paltry 4% in net worth, while the 35-65 cohort gained 2-6x times that. If you look at the mean net worth, it's even more skewed.

You might read the article you linked to at wikipedia. It doesn't really support your point. Real (inflation adjusted) figures are more useful than nominal for measuring income growth.

From the Wikipedia article:

"According to the CBO, between 1979 and 2011, gross median household income, adjusted for inflation, rose from $59,400 to $75,200, or 26.5%.[18] However, once adjusted for household size and looking at taxes from an after-tax perspective, real median household income grew 46%, representing significant growth."

Are you actually trying to use a time series starting before Millennials were even born to try to prove a point about financial situations today? On top of trying to apply median household numbers at the national level to a single cohort? Please stop. Look at actual data like [1]. Or at least look at the whole picture like [2] instead of cherry picking income data and acting like you can just stop there.

[1] https://news.stanford.edu/2016/12/08/todays-children-face-to...

[2] https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/11/millennials-households-earn-...

Also things like: "U.S. economic growth is not translating into higher median family incomes. Real GDP per household has typically increased since the year 2000, while real median income per household was below 1999 levels until 2016, indicating a trend of greater income inequality"

And: "Total compensation's share of GDP has declined by 4.5 percentage points from 1970 to 2016. This implies that the share attributed to capital increased in that period."

Also: "Measured relative to GDP, total compensation and its component wages and salaries have been declining since 1970. This indicates a shift in income from labor (persons who derive income from hourly wages and salaries) to capital (persons who derive income via ownership of businesses, land and assets). This trend is common across the developed world, due in part to globalization.[16] Wages and salaries have fallen from approximately 51% GDP in 1970 to 43% GDP in 2013. Total compensation has fallen from approximately 58% GDP in 1970 to 53% GDP in 2013"

The whole picture here is a pretty mixed bag and not at all a case for how median wage to the average worker is phenomenal.

As I said, inequality is up hence the lower portion of GDP going to labor. Overall, labor is making more than they were before though.

What factors are causing that rise? More people living at home? More roommates to lower enormous housing costs?

Since 1979 probably the biggest driver to increasing household income would be increased participation of women in the workforce.

You might find that it's better to seek out writing from a variety of sources if what you want is to see a wide spectrum of opinions. There is a type of news that tries to fit in everyone's opinion, but it is dying because very few people actually want that.

I already do that. The problem is that too many people all over the political spectrum don't do that and they have the right not to seek out competing viewpoints, but they also have the right to vote. As a result, an externality of all this biased agenda-driven content masquerading as journalism is that bad politicians with bad policies are elected, and I and others are hurt by that.