The New Consumer, in collaboration with Coefficient Capital, just published its latest Consumer Trends report, which you can download for free over here (registration required). There's a lot in the report to flip through, but I thought I would share these two slides:
Generation Z and Millennials now make up ~40% of the US population and they are soon entering their prime consumer spending years. What's noteworthy about these charts, but perhaps not surprising, is the extent in which self-expression and a sense of community have shifted from offline to online.
Very few Boomers, at least according to this report, feel like themselves online. But nearly half of Gen Z feel most like themselves online. What it means to be part of a "community" has also shifted dramatically, with more if it happening online or at least partially online.
All of this ties into what happened earlier in the week with Nike announcing the acquisition of RTFKT Studios. As I mentioned in this post, the so-called metaverse doesn't necessarily have to mean VR goggles and living in video games. It can simply mean placing value on the parts of our lives that are now digital. The above two charts suggest that many are already doing this.
Of course, what all of this means for our physical lives is an important question. Josh Stephens recently argued, over at Planetizen, that the metaverse is going to be really bad for cities. The more we focus on seductive virtual worlds, the less we will focus on our physical spaces. I get this logic.
But again, I think it depends on how you define the metaverse. And I think VR headsets are a pretty narrow definition. I am both a lover of technology and a lover of cities. And throughout this pandemic I have been fairly consistent in writing about the resiliency of cities. Nothing in this post changes that for me.
https://twitter.com/graykimbrough/status/1198703644721524744?s=20
This is a chart by economist Gray Kimbrough from 2019. I recently saw it resurface and so I thought I would reshare it here on the blog.
The y-axis is the percentage of US household wealth (by demographic cohort). And the x-axis is median cohort age. So one way to look at this chart is as follows.
When the median age of a Baby Boomer was 35 (which happened in 1990), they owned about 21% of US household wealth.
When the median age of a Gen Xer was 35 (which happened in 2008), they owned about 9% of US household wealth.
Millennials haven't yet hit a median age of 35, but in 2019 they owned about 3.2% of US household wealth.
Of course, one thing to keep in mind is that these demographic cohorts are not the same size. In 1990, Boomers represented 31% of the US population. And in 2008, Gen Xers were only 22% of the population.
But even if you normalize, there are some intergenerational wealth gaps here.
City Observatory has a new report out called, Youth Movement: Accelerating America's Urban Renaissance. In it, they look at and track the number of 25 to 34-year-olds with a 4-year college degree living in "close-in neighborhoods" within the 51 largest metro areas in the United States. The first thing I asked myself when I read this was, "what's a close-in neighborhood?" They define it as being a three mile radius centered on the CBD of each metro area. They opted for a distance-based measurement because municipal boundaries usually vary a lot and can therefore be misleading.
So what did they discover? From 2010 to 2016, the number of young and well-educated people in central neighborhoods increased by about 32% or 1.2 million. And it happened in every single large US metro area. In 80% of these cities, the growth rate also increased compared to the period of 2000 to 2010. Overall, City Observatory believes that this demographic cohort is now about 2.5x more likely to live in a close-in neighborhood compared to other Americans. And I don't believe that this pandemic is going to change that.
One of the things that's interesting about this study is that it takes you below some of the top line numbers that you might hear. For example, the above chart starts by showing you the total population living "close-in" within the top 51 metro areas -- again, people living within 3 miles of a CBD. From 2000 to 2010, this population figure was more or less flat at about 9.4 million people. But the number of adults and young adults with a 4-year degree increased pretty significantly, driving up the college attainment rate. So even though the total population may not have changed, the demographic composition did.
For a copy of the full report, click here.
The New Consumer, in collaboration with Coefficient Capital, just published its latest Consumer Trends report, which you can download for free over here (registration required). There's a lot in the report to flip through, but I thought I would share these two slides:
Generation Z and Millennials now make up ~40% of the US population and they are soon entering their prime consumer spending years. What's noteworthy about these charts, but perhaps not surprising, is the extent in which self-expression and a sense of community have shifted from offline to online.
Very few Boomers, at least according to this report, feel like themselves online. But nearly half of Gen Z feel most like themselves online. What it means to be part of a "community" has also shifted dramatically, with more if it happening online or at least partially online.
All of this ties into what happened earlier in the week with Nike announcing the acquisition of RTFKT Studios. As I mentioned in this post, the so-called metaverse doesn't necessarily have to mean VR goggles and living in video games. It can simply mean placing value on the parts of our lives that are now digital. The above two charts suggest that many are already doing this.
Of course, what all of this means for our physical lives is an important question. Josh Stephens recently argued, over at Planetizen, that the metaverse is going to be really bad for cities. The more we focus on seductive virtual worlds, the less we will focus on our physical spaces. I get this logic.
But again, I think it depends on how you define the metaverse. And I think VR headsets are a pretty narrow definition. I am both a lover of technology and a lover of cities. And throughout this pandemic I have been fairly consistent in writing about the resiliency of cities. Nothing in this post changes that for me.
https://twitter.com/graykimbrough/status/1198703644721524744?s=20
This is a chart by economist Gray Kimbrough from 2019. I recently saw it resurface and so I thought I would reshare it here on the blog.
The y-axis is the percentage of US household wealth (by demographic cohort). And the x-axis is median cohort age. So one way to look at this chart is as follows.
When the median age of a Baby Boomer was 35 (which happened in 1990), they owned about 21% of US household wealth.
When the median age of a Gen Xer was 35 (which happened in 2008), they owned about 9% of US household wealth.
Millennials haven't yet hit a median age of 35, but in 2019 they owned about 3.2% of US household wealth.
Of course, one thing to keep in mind is that these demographic cohorts are not the same size. In 1990, Boomers represented 31% of the US population. And in 2008, Gen Xers were only 22% of the population.
But even if you normalize, there are some intergenerational wealth gaps here.
City Observatory has a new report out called, Youth Movement: Accelerating America's Urban Renaissance. In it, they look at and track the number of 25 to 34-year-olds with a 4-year college degree living in "close-in neighborhoods" within the 51 largest metro areas in the United States. The first thing I asked myself when I read this was, "what's a close-in neighborhood?" They define it as being a three mile radius centered on the CBD of each metro area. They opted for a distance-based measurement because municipal boundaries usually vary a lot and can therefore be misleading.
So what did they discover? From 2010 to 2016, the number of young and well-educated people in central neighborhoods increased by about 32% or 1.2 million. And it happened in every single large US metro area. In 80% of these cities, the growth rate also increased compared to the period of 2000 to 2010. Overall, City Observatory believes that this demographic cohort is now about 2.5x more likely to live in a close-in neighborhood compared to other Americans. And I don't believe that this pandemic is going to change that.
One of the things that's interesting about this study is that it takes you below some of the top line numbers that you might hear. For example, the above chart starts by showing you the total population living "close-in" within the top 51 metro areas -- again, people living within 3 miles of a CBD. From 2000 to 2010, this population figure was more or less flat at about 9.4 million people. But the number of adults and young adults with a 4-year degree increased pretty significantly, driving up the college attainment rate. So even though the total population may not have changed, the demographic composition did.
For a copy of the full report, click here.
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
