Live data from Hacker News

The great wealth transfer reality check

usa.visa.com

51–60 of 120 posts

Re: The great wealth transfer reality check

#51

What is shocking to me is how can so many boomers still have a mortgage? They could buy a house when you could easily get one for >plant to do a Skip gen trip? I have no earthy idea what this could mean but they just casually drop it in there. Thats how you can tell what social class you were born into. I had a school friend whom's grandparents were one of these in the list it seems. The bought him a 3bed/bath house…

One reason is older homes need repairs. Furnaces, roofs, windows, etc. What to do when faced with $20k in repairs? Borrow it.

Re: The great wealth transfer reality check

#52
post #35

This whole premise is bullshit. They include the 1% in the wealth calculation, and then exclude it from the wealth transfer to say "see how much taxation is happening?" If you don't want to include the 1% in the second number, don't include it in the first number.

They also hold disproportionate wealth. It is absurd to arbitrarily exclude them.

Re: The great wealth transfer reality check

#53
post #2

Despite TFA coming from Visa, of all places, I found it to be a read worthy of my time. Basically, inheritances might not be as large as one might suspect, and the all that "inheritance spending lift" might already be happening (my parents are blowing my inheritance). I might take issue with the conclusion at the very bottom that GenX and Millenials are ahead of Boomers on a capital per-capita basis. That might be tr…

> That might be true, but (for example) when this youngest-of-them Boomer bought his first house, housing was much more affordable.

I think my fellow millennials are overlooking something in our complaints about housing prices, which is that the positional status of neighborhoods doesn't stay constant. There's a good chance that the neighborhood you fondly remember growing up in was much less desirable in relative terms than it is today.

My wife and I, for example, bought a house 10 years ago. In that time, the value has easily doubled, growing far faster than wages or inflation. But it's also a completely different product today. 10 years ago, we were young parents willing to make a lot of compromises to get a house on the water. Pre-COVID, the commute was 1:15 minutes each way, 5 days a week. The house next door was a tear-down with a tree growing in the living room. The other houses on the street were small cottages from the 1920s. Today, half of them have been torn down, rebuilt, and filled with more affluent neighbors.

If my kids grow up and say, "I have a professional job, why can't I afford a house like you guys did?" A big part of the answer is: we couldn't have afforded to live in their neighborhood at your age. We bought our house in a completely different neighborhood.

Re: The great wealth transfer reality check

#54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If your home 10x’s in value so does your property tax. That depends on where you live. For example, in California we have Prop 13, which limits how much the assessed value for a home can increase without being sold. This means that even if your house goes up 10x in value, California will only increase the assessed value for tax purposes by 2% each year.

It's similar where I am - a bank and a realtor might say a home is worth .5M but the tax man still assesses it at around 115K. I bought my home over 20 years ago and it is worth much more than I paid on the market. Yet the value of the property for tax purposes is only 3K more than what I paid for it in 2002.

Curiously, most homeowners, even recent ones, vote against changing that, because nominal value of the tax would go up for everyone, so we have the status quo.

But the solution I think should come out of the budget -- say, a municipal budget gets $100 today from property taxes, while recent homeowners pay $80 of that. If we just change the assessment rules to make it fair with long-time homeowners, then recent homeowners will pay $90, and long-timers will pay, say, $70. But budget only needs $100, not $160. So we can lower taxes at the same time as equalizing the assessment rules.

Re: The great wealth transfer reality check

#55

What is shocking to me is how can so many boomers still have a mortgage? They could buy a house when you could easily get one for >plant to do a Skip gen trip? I have no earthy idea what this could mean but they just casually drop it in there. Thats how you can tell what social class you were born into. I had a school friend whom's grandparents were one of these in the list it seems. The bought him a 3bed/bath house…

> What is shocking to me is how can so many boomers still have a mortgage?

If you have a low-interest mortgage then it doesn't make financial sense to pay it off any faster than you have to. I know many people that carry a mortgage they could easily pay down but choose not to purely on financial optimization grounds.

Re: The great wealth transfer reality check

#56
post #2

Despite TFA coming from Visa, of all places, I found it to be a read worthy of my time. Basically, inheritances might not be as large as one might suspect, and the all that "inheritance spending lift" might already be happening (my parents are blowing my inheritance). I might take issue with the conclusion at the very bottom that GenX and Millenials are ahead of Boomers on a capital per-capita basis. That might be tr…

In many places you couldn't even buy "starter houses" like they had anymore. They wouldn't meet modern building codes. When people do manage to buy a house, it will likely be a nicer one.

At least in part, that's because the positional status of "many places" has changed dramatically. We have a growing population with a high degree of internal mobility. That means that places don't stay in a fixed position on the product lineup. Santa Clara County today isn't Santa Clara County in 1990. It's more akin to what Beverly Hills or the Gold Coast were in 1990.

Re: The great wealth transfer reality check

#57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything that can be done is being done to ensure that white-collar labor transitions from skilled workers to low-cost fungible operators of AI. Even if no further jobs are lost it will be a massive hit to the average salary.

Why do you think it will be low cost operation rather than highly paid specialized talent (but only very few of them)? If AI becomes a widespread job displacer, I think we’re going to see an amplification of the value of talent. If you think there’s 2x or 10x talent now, you might find there’s 10x or 50x talent with AI.

I think it's reasonable to expect amplification but I am not sure how reasonable it would be to expect sustainable amplification. I feel that AI removes the meaning from work and with that gone we eventually start loosing the talent.

And 0 talent by 10 ( or even 50 ) is a fucking 0!

Re: The great wealth transfer reality check

#58

Ag, so it’s not really “eat the rich” but “eat the boomers”.

The article says the exact opposite.

Wealth isn't with boomers: it is with rich boomers, pointing the high mortgage and debt that a lot of boomers have.

And they explain that the wealth is going to stay and be kept by these rich families (which will invest and not spend).

Re: The great wealth transfer reality check

#59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It may look nicer, and have more features, but it's probably not built any better. Older homes were built with copper plumbing, plaster walls, solid hardwood floors, wood trim, and plywood subfloors, roof deck, and sheathing. New homes use PVC or PEX pipes, drywall, OSB (basically glued-up wood chips) instead of plywood, laminate floors, and plastic or styrene trim. The only things really better today are insulation…

In California, a big difference is earthquake retrofitting. Older houses often aren't retrofit until sale, and retrofitting is expensive. Also, I've noticed newer houses (2000s-present) are airier and have more natural light compared to older (pre-90s) houses.

> Also, I've noticed newer houses (2000s-present) are airier and have more natural light compared to older (pre-90s) houses.

This depends a bit more on the specific era of the home, rather than just being pre-90s, but it's particularly present in 1970s housing stock. The energy crisis led to a style of home design that favored small windows (energy efficient windows weren't yet really a thing, or at least not widely available at affordable prices) with lower ceilings. After the energy crisis through the 80s things started opening up again, and then improvements in insulation and windows (for two specific features) and improved efficiency in AC units led to a further opening up of home designs (with larger windows, higher ceilings) through the 90s and to today.

Re: The great wealth transfer reality check

#60
post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Not all households are as dysfunctional as the ones you described". This comment of course needs to be taken in the context of HN. In the wider world, we have literal tens of millions of people in the United States who are in poverty and experience daily hunger and deprivation.

We do not have tens of millions of hungry people unless you're including being a bit peckish before lunch time.

USDA says that 13.7% of US households experienced food insecurity in 2024 [0]. Extrapolate that against population and you get 47 million people.

[0]: https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/fo...

EDIT since I can't reply to irish-coffee for some reason: nobody said literally starving, OP said experiencing hunger or deprivation.

Post reply on HN