At the age of 36, Peter Wright makes his living doing lots of little things: He makes coffee, manufactures and sells “eye pillows” for yoga practitioners, and serves as a handyman for his landlord.

It’s not a bad life, but it doesn’t bring in big bucks. Wright doesn’t have health insurance, and he doesn’t have a retirement account. It’s a far cry from his childhood, when both his parents were comfortably employed – his father as a therapist, his mother as a kindergarten teacher.

“I don’t think we were ever hurting too hard. I got Nikes when I needed them,” Wright said last week. “Often, I feel like people of our generation work a lot harder to get to the level where our parents were.”

He might be right. The income of workers under age 44 declined between 2001 and 2004, the Federal Reserve reported last month, raising questions about whether the newest generation of Americans will be able to approach the prosperity of their parents.

According to the report:

¢ The median income of families with the head of household under 35 fell from $35,600 in 2001 to $32,900 in 2004. The median income in the 35-44 age group fell from $54,700 to $49,800.

Peter Wright, 36, hangs out with his dogs, St. Augustine, left, and Issa, Saturday on the land north of Lawrence where he lives and works as a handyman for his landlord. While Wright can stay afloat with a number of part-time jobs, he doesn't have health insurance or a retirement plan, and, like many people of his generation, his economic prosperity is nowhere near that of his parents when they were his age.

¢ The mean income of families with the head of household under 35 fell from $47,100 in 2001 to $45,100 in 2004. The mean income in the 35-44 age group fell from $82,100 to $73,800.

“For the remaining age groups, median incomes rose strongly, except for the 75-or-older group,” the Federal Reserve reported. “Over the preceding three-year period, median income had increased for most age groups, particularly for the oldest.”

Changed lifestyles

The recession that struck after 9-11 isn’t solely to blame for the drop in young workers’ wages, the reserve said. By 2004, economic and employment levels had largely returned to their previous levels.

The news didn’t surprise Bill Tuttle, professor of American studies at Kansas University. He arrived on campus in the late 1960s – and proceeded to raise three kids and buy a house with his wife, all on a $9,500-a-year income.

“With one small income, you could do all those things,” Tuttle said. “Now you need two incomes – really substantial incomes – to buy a nice house.”

Clancy Martin, a 38-year-old Lawrence resident who teaches philosophy at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, said once his wife graduates from law school, the couple might be able to achieve his parents’ level of income.

But, he said, the couple probably won’t save the same amount of money.

“I think we will have a comparable lifestyle with significantly less financial security,” he said.

Academia doesn’t pay badly compared with other jobs, but Martin took a pay cut to go into philosophy after working in the jewelry business.

But Tuttle doesn’t think most younger workers are deciding to work for less income.

“I’m skeptical of that,” he said. “I find my students are playing it safe, sacrificing their hopes and their ideals and taking jobs that are pretty mundane, more than they used to.”

Meanwhile, Wright and his girlfriend, an architect, have had a hard time finding a home to buy. Without the insurance and retirement savings, he said, financial security is precarious.

“My relative well-being,” he said, “is week-to-week.”