GenX didn't have any wealth either; Millennials dealt with 2008 while GenX didn't but both generations suffered comparative poverty. The principle difference is that in general, Millennials had 'boomers for parents.

This isn’t stuff that millennials just got into. It’s stuff that was first loved by boomers and that the millennials were introduced to by boomers.

You're making my point - the stuff 'boomers and GenX marketed to Millennials was almost as sticky as the stuff Millennials found themselves, which is pretty much Harry Potter. Grunge started out as the GenX anti-consumerist anthem Smells Like Teen Spirit, passed through Smashing Pumpkins' 1979 and by 2007, The High School Musical 2 Soundtrack spends 4 weeks at number one.

Xenials and later generations don’t have enough money to bother appealing to.

IN 2000 you could presume that 80% of any movie audience was under 25. Now it's 50%. 20% of retail spending is for Christmas, 65% of that is to family and friends and most of that is to children. brand lock-in happens before the legal drinking age.

As you catalog, the brands created when GenX were kids are truckin' along while the brands created when Millennials were kids had no traction. The argument of the article is that there's nothing popularized by Millennials as kids and young adults that had any holding power. You seem to argue that this is because they "had no money" when in fact, spending on children in the top 50% brackets increased steadily when Millennials were kids.

The creators and curators of culture don’t care whether the ideas are good or interesting. They want to sell merch, tickets to self-indulgent cons, theme-park experiences, and subscriptions.

And the argument put forth by the article is Millennials were the least-discerning young consumers of recent memory, which is why their culture is sinking into the sand.