No one wants to be against Grandma, who \u201d\u201d as portrayed in the media \u201d\u201d is kindly, often suffering from some condition, usually financially precarious and somehow needy. But projecting this sympathetic portrait onto the entire 65-plus population is an exercise in make-believe and, frequently, political propaganda. The St. Louis Fed study refutes the stereotype. Examining different age groups, it found that since the financial crisis, incomes have risen for the elderly while they\u2019ve dropped for the young and middle-aged.<\/p>\n
The numbers are instructive. From 2007, the year before the financial crisis, to 2010, median income for the families under 40 dropped 12.4 percent to $39,644. For the middle-aged from 40 to 61, the comparable decline was 11.9 percent to $56,924. Meanwhile, those aged 62 to 69 gained 12.3 percent to $50,825. For Americans 70-plus, the increase was 15.6 percent to $31,512. (All figures adjust for inflation and are in 2010 \u201cconstant\u201d\u009d dollars. The \u201cmedian income\u201d\u009d is the midpoint of incomes and is often considered \u201ctypical.\u201d\u009d)<\/p>\n
There has been a historic shift in favor of today\u2019s elderly. To put this in perspective, recall that many family expenses drop with age. Mortgages are paid off; work costs vanish; children leave. Recall also that incomes typically follow a \u201clife cycle\u201d\u009d: They start low in workers\u2019 20s, peak in their 50s, and then decline in retirement, as wages give way to government transfers and savings. Against these realities, the long-term gains of the elderly and losses of the young are astonishing. From 1989 to 2010, median income increased 60 percent for those aged 62 to 69 while falling 6\u201d\u2030percent for those under 40 and 2\u201d\u2030percent for those 40 to 61.<\/p>\n