Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The great wealth transfer reality check

usa.visa.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 120 posts

Re: The great wealth transfer reality check

#71

Post by cyanregiment »

cyanregiment wrote: post #17
atleastoptimal wrote: post #3

80% of the GDP over the next two decades will be siphoning money out of baby boomers (medical care, retirement homes, luxury cruises) before their children see a cent of it. Coupled with AI taking everyone's job, the end result is neo-feudalism where familial dynasties call all the shots.

I had the same fears but even the boomers sitting on million dollar homes are being called “cash poor”. You still need an income. You can only refinance so much, and then you’re paying off interest. If your home 10x’s in value so does your property tax. Some people are paying $1500/mo. in property tax. They need a job just to cover it. You can’t sell the house and cash out because you need that cash to buy the next h…

Should have just said “if value goes up 10x the tax increases” to keep it accurate.

The overall point stands though beyond that nitpick

Re: The great wealth transfer reality check

#72

Post by cyanregiment »

SoftTalker wrote: post #39
cyanregiment wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had the same fears but even the boomers sitting on million dollar homes are being called “cash poor”. You still need an income. You can only refinance so much, and then you’re paying off interest. If your home 10x’s in value so does your property tax. Some people are paying $1500/mo. in property tax. They need a job just to cover it. You can’t sell the house and cash out because you need that cash to buy the next h…

> I think boomers thought they would get rich off the real estate and it’s not really happening. It would have if they had paid off their mortgages instead of borrowing against equity, refinancing and taking equity out, etc. If you still owe 70-80% of your house to the bank when you retire, it's not really an asset.

Exactly, it’s not enough to just own it. They find themselves tapping into that sweet equity.

You have to do something with the land even if it means improving your home, paving a road, to increase the value above and beyond the market trend - to live off of! Otherwise you’re a buyer (or borrower) again

Re: The great wealth transfer reality check

#73

Post by edot »

CamJN wrote: post #69
jimbob45 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not. If you have older parents today, you can do the math on what activities they’re doing and quickly determine that you’re never going to see a cent from them. My friends all report the same. I may sound salty but I’m not. I’ve spent enough time on Reddit to know that the real nightmare is when your parents didn’t save anything and can’t still work. Then, you’re obligated to take care of them and they actively…

> Then, you’re obligated to take care of them No, you very much are not.

Well, in 3/5 of the United States you are. Look up filial laws. They’re rarely enforced but they’re there.

Re: The great wealth transfer reality check

#74

Post by rlucas »

dsauerbrun wrote: post #34
epistasis wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a very good read. And my only difference in option is that I think Visa of all places would be very knowledgeable about spending and where it all goes. They have an absolutely vast amount of information about how money flows in the economy, and an interest in finding out where it will flow in the future, and when.

They have the data but I wouldn't trust their analysis of it unless they release all the raw data which would be to the benefit of their competitors.

This piece is very much not sourced from payment rails transaction data. It's big demographic and macro data and the sources are all nicely cited

Re: The great wealth transfer reality check

#75

Post by jimbob45 »

CamJN wrote: post #69
jimbob45 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not. If you have older parents today, you can do the math on what activities they’re doing and quickly determine that you’re never going to see a cent from them. My friends all report the same. I may sound salty but I’m not. I’ve spent enough time on Reddit to know that the real nightmare is when your parents didn’t save anything and can’t still work. Then, you’re obligated to take care of them and they actively…

> Then, you’re obligated to take care of them No, you very much are not.

Most of us are thankful our parents took care of us and do love them. I recognize that it’s not everyone but I think most kids don’t want to see their parents suffer.

Re: The great wealth transfer reality check

#76

Post by HWR_14 »

NoDodgeQuestion wrote: post #44

>baby boomers are sitting on at least $93 trillion in assets > $36 trillion in baby boomer wealth will pass to Gen X and millennial heirs over the next 20 years after subtracting liabilities, excluding the top 1 percent of households (the outliers in how they spend their wealth) Why the fuck would you be allowed to include top 1% in first number but not second? They are outliers, yes, so what?

This is an article about how the 99% will spend all their money and their children will not inherit money. The 1% will not spend all their money. They are not who the article is about.

Re: The great wealth transfer reality check

#77

Post by michaelt »

skybrian wrote: post #13
mikestew wrote: 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 my area, the price of the land is a huge fraction of the value of a house.

Imagine a house-sized plot of land costs $250,000. That means a builder can offer buyers a $20,000 building for $270,000 or a $150,000 building for $400,000. And in the latter case, the buyer gets 7.5x the building for 1.5x the cost.

Re: The great wealth transfer reality check

#78

Post by anon7000 »

AshamedBadger56 wrote: post #61

Keep in mind these charts are almost useless if you're trying to determine how much the typical millennial or gen x person has compared to boomers. I'd go as far as to say it's misleading at best to portray "The kids are alright" and that "Gen X and millennial heirs are starting from a position of strength", when the charts used to back that up are based on net worth per capita, a very poor metric to use for this. Th…

You’re right but they do at least say this:

> by our estimate the amount spent will be smaller still at $8 trillion,* because most households receiving an inheritance are already affluent and likely to save or invest much of what they receive

Re: The great wealth transfer reality check

#79

Post by twister2920 »

Aurornis wrote: post #68
jakeydus wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You have to read their definitions. The broad 13.7% category includes everyone who was uncertain about being able to afford food. You have to drill down to "very low food security" to reach the point where someone reports having reduced their food intake, which is a 5.4% number. Still higher than I'd like! But it's not 47 million people.

That's correct, it's 18.5 million people, which is in the tens of millions

Re: The great wealth transfer reality check

#80

Post by Kirby64 »

SoftTalker wrote: post #29
skybrian wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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…

> New homes use PVC or PEX pipes, drywall, OSB (basically glued-up wood chips) instead of plywood, laminate floors, and plastic or styrene trim.

PEX is better than copper. Drywall is better than lathe and plaster. Modern OSB like Advantech are just superior to plywood subfloors in every metric. Maybe the hardwood floors were better back then in some ways, but engineered hardwood or vinyl planks are superior in many ways over hardwood flooring. Better wear resistance, less shift with moisture/temp, etc.

Most countertops are far superior these days, with wide availability of quartz, granite, etc.

I’d say almost everything is built better at a minimum standard. You could always find poorly built houses back then, but the difference is there wasn’t even any rules often…

Post reply on HN