alt Hacker News> Age-adjusted?...So if you take out the fact that it took up more of the one resource that matters more than anything else to become property owners
Ask before assuming.
Age adjusted means taking each generation when they were the same age, how wealthy were they? A Boomer today is wealthier than a Millenial because they've had more time to accumulate. But when a Boomer was Millenial-aged, she had on average less wealth than a Millenial today.
Wealth is the preponderance of resources.
If you have more wealth, you can theoretically purchase more goods and services than if you had less.
The exception to this, of course, is if the goods and services cost more, and for things that you need to exist in American society (healthcare, education, transportation, housing, food), those things generally cost several times more for younger people than they did, "age-adjusted", when their parents were the same age, often with a difference that is more than that in wealth. That's why wages have been flat.
There's also the question of how that wealth is distributed among the generations and how it's stored. If the property-owning Millennial owns a few rental properties that their peers have to pay to live in, the "average" properties owned by the group can be the same (or even higher) but the number of people those properties are spread among is lower.
There's also the fact that lots of wealth is held in the casin... er... stock markets as people need to participate in those markets with their 401(k)s to be able to retire some day. You can't sleep in a stock certificate, but if you want to have any savings, it's easier to enter the equities market than it is to get into real estate from a startup cost perspective. People are having to compromise the "stability" of their fundamental needs (like housing) in order to grow more abstract definitions of wealth.