Young people earn 35% less than average, study shows

No youth, no future: the entrenched 35% gap

The generational gap is no longer just a dinner-table complaint: it has figures and dates. A January 2024 study by the Valencian Institute of Economic Research (IVIE) and the BBVA Foundation concludes that Spaniards aged 16 to 29—the 14.8% of the population—earn on average 35% less than all employees and mostly sign part-time contracts. The diagnosis touches on four pieces hanging from the same paycheck: salary, leaving home, birth rates, and future pensions.

What does the study say about salaries for those under 30?

The difference is 35% compared to the average, and these workers are more exposed to the economic cycle. Five out of ten admit difficulties making ends meet. Equalizing their salary to the rest of the population will take seven more years than it took their parents and grandparents, leading to delayed independence, fewer children, and worse retirement conditions.

Nevertheless, this is not a homogeneous block. Education levels and employment status introduce notable differences. What does appear is a common pattern: their vulnerability compared to older age groups has skyrocketed in the last decade.

Why has the gap skyrocketed in the last decade?

Two consecutive blows. First, the 2008 crisis, which left those entering the market at the starting line. Then the pandemic, which abruptly halted the job creation process that began in 2014. Neither episode explains everything on its own; together, they explain a lot.

The report’s conclusion is that, without correcting it, the gap leaves deep scars. Shortening the path to prosperity for young people requires, according to the study itself, the involvement of the State, political parties, the education system, business owners, and even older colleagues, who should facilitate the professional development of newcomers.

The clash of narratives: from 'effort pays off' to 'no future'

Here, the conversation splits. One part of the analysis argues that the youth situation is not historical: working-class youth have always started with low wages, and with time, work, and a bit of luck, things eventually improve. The mistake, in this reading, is believing oneself to be middle class and getting a slap in the face in one’s twenties, when leaving what is described as an adult daycare.

The opposing shore responds that the problem is not patience, but the example set from above. If a 20-year-old sees their father or 50-year-old neighbor with three decades of work behind them, not knowing if they will even retire, the story of sacrifice fades on its own. From this arises another thesis: the young generation has proge up and simply does not accept certain working conditions.

And a third, uncomfortable one: that today’s youth are the most docile generation in history, with no capacity for collective reaction. The reproach has a historical answer: did the streets burn during the reconversions of the eighties, with temporary contracts and staffing agencies, or with university fee hikes?

Reforms on the table: work, education, and pensions

Almost all diagnoses agree on the menu: structural reforms in the labor market, educational offerings, and the pension system. They do not agree on who pays. One current argues that debt no longer covers the holes and that adjustments will fall on old-age incomes, pointing as a clue to the end of loopholes for tourist and seasonal housing and deductions for rentals outside stressed areas.

Another current reverses the reasoning: retirees own property and, if their pensions are cut, will draw on reverse mortgages to maintain their standard of living. Those left without inheritance are those at the bottom. The result, in this reading, is that young people end up paying the party regardless of cuts.

Does housing price threaten the Welfare State?

The Chamber of Commerce has warned that buying and rental prices hinder life projects, stable employment, and social security contributions. In the thread, some quantify this in rentals between 900 and 1,100 euros for paid-off flats, two months’ deposit, and one month’s agency fee paid by the tenant, all against a minimum wage. A tweet circulating in the conversation sums it up: a landlord who paid off their flat in five years in 1985 now collects the transfer fee without breaking a sweat.

Then there is the succession. In specialized trades—electromechanics, plumbing, IT, certain branches of electrical engineering—it is not enough to place someone: training and experience are needed. It is argued that neither the national market nor the influx of workers from abroad fill these gaps at the necessary pace.

The anecdote also slips into the conversation: a former footballer who, according to a forum poster, accumulated 84 apartments paid for with football money, told aloud to a beach neighbor. An involuntary portrait of a country where brick income retires much earlier than the paycheck.

What can be expected

If demography pushes in one direction and the electoral calendar in the other, what is foreseeable is not an orderly adjustment, but a succession of patches. Before touching a pension, the discourse will be touched. And when cheap credit does not return and the pyramid continues to narrow at the base, someone will have to say aloud who pays the party. That someone may not yet have been born.