21–30 of 33 posts
So much to disagree with here. The path to gathering wealth is simple, and anyone has a good chance of success. See Bogleheads.org for details. ( Once the path is clearly understood, discipline is the primary factor. You have to live below your means, there is no exception. Also, a long compounding timeframe is useful. ) You can live YOLO like the rabbit or you can live like Warren Buffet the tortoise. You don’t get…
Articles like this are unfair to boomers. Yes they have 50% of the wealth or whatever despite being 20% of the population, but they also have had time to earn that wealth fair and square and are not quite elderly enough to have spent it all on average. I'm sick and tired of articles blaming normal people who worked for what they have for issues that amount to geopolitical struggles.
I agree with you, except the "fair and square" part. Can we please stop pretending there's any fairness to any of it? That the reward is proportional to merit, effort, strength of character, utility, or any respectable and desirable quality? That everyone was on equal footing when trying to succeed? That would be great, thanks.
We may not all be on equal footing, but life is a game of skill and chance. It's easy to look at some people who, for example, made money from buying a house, while forgetting all those who didn't actually gain anything. Playing by the same rules is what makes it fair.
If you want to cry about something unfair, cry about inflation. It makes all the supposed "wealth" figures go up as everyone gets poorer. That sure isn't fair. It might be unavoidable at this late stage in our societal decay, but that is hardly any consolation.
Articles like this are unfair to boomers. Yes they have 50% of the wealth or whatever despite being 20% of the population, but they also have had time to earn that wealth fair and square and are not quite elderly enough to have spent it all on average. I'm sick and tired of articles blaming normal people who worked for what they have for issues that amount to geopolitical struggles.
Not going to pick on Boomers specifically, but I entered the workforce in 2011. I watched my late Gen-X and Elder Millenial seniors swoop up cheap houses post recession for cheap rates then flip and sell them and go remote in cheap locations. I’m talking buy at 300k and sell at 800k-1M type of deals in 10 years. While you’re right, there is work involved on the part of the boomers, the amount of leaving scorched eart…
This may be true but many just a few years earlier lost everything. The people who bought houses cheap were the ones who saved diligently just like you may be doing, who had money to take advantage of an opportunity. I was not one of these lucky ones but I can't fault people for making good financial decisions. If you want to be pissed at anyone, be pissed at the ones who bought houses they obviously couldn't afford, and the people behind the exorbitant loan issuances for overpriced houses. THAT is what we will ultimately suffer for. Not someone buying a house that they can afford at a time when everyone is desperate to get money.
Articles like this are unfair to boomers. Yes they have 50% of the wealth or whatever despite being 20% of the population, but they also have had time to earn that wealth fair and square and are not quite elderly enough to have spent it all on average. I'm sick and tired of articles blaming normal people who worked for what they have for issues that amount to geopolitical struggles.
I'm also always curious to know what happens if you remove wealthy boomers from this pool. I forget the exact numbers, but let's say ten billionaires own 50% of all the wealth in the US; how many of those folks are boomers? That'd remarkably change this ratio if it were the case that much of this wealth is held by only a few very wealthy boomers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All this 21st century activity you're pointing out was mainly carried out by those about 20 years younger than the youngest baby boomers. All we had were multi-million-dollar bailouts to go with that. You know, the value of the dollar and all. There was major presidential malfeasance and this thing called "inflation" back then too. It was devastating with no actual recovery since . Or young people wouldn't be complai…
The activity I describe started well before the 21st century. Remember "yuppies" - the boomer ideology that dialed up consumerism and financialization of all aspects of life. Reaganomics? The 1989, 2000, and 2008 crashes? The Great Outsourcing? Also in the eve of 21st century, boomers were merely from 40 to 54, so well represented in all positions of power and business. Clinton and Bush J were boomers. And Boomers go…
These are the significant minority that prevailed both in the US and Europe.
There's always been plenty of them, and they have had some remarkable windfalls.
Who else was left with any chance of power to prevent your prominent, legendary old-timers from doing the damage they did?
Too many times they couldn't really be stopped from taking the reins any time they could, and steering things to their own advantage more so than anything else.
The great majority of everybody else was brought to the edge of ruin by all those financial disaters not of their own making.
Just like the decades-younger crowd today, it's the same type of greed playing out in the same way.
Articles like this are unfair to boomers. Yes they have 50% of the wealth or whatever despite being 20% of the population, but they also have had time to earn that wealth fair and square and are not quite elderly enough to have spent it all on average. I'm sick and tired of articles blaming normal people who worked for what they have for issues that amount to geopolitical struggles.
I'm also always curious to know what happens if you remove wealthy boomers from this pool. I forget the exact numbers, but let's say ten billionaires own 50% of all the wealth in the US; how many of those folks are boomers? That'd remarkably change this ratio if it were the case that much of this wealth is held by only a few very wealthy boomers.
- Top 1% -> 31.0% of total US household wealth
- Top 10% but excluding the top 1% -> 36.4% of total US household wealth, i.e. the top 10% have 67.4% of total US household wealth
- The bottom 90% -> 32.6% of total US household wealth
It’s no different than telling a desperate person to get on a boat where work and income are waiting for them, but in reality they will be enslaved once they reach their destination. We are rapidly heading this direction worldwide as more and more people become desperate and those in power will be waiting to take advantage of the situation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree with you, except the "fair and square" part. Can we please stop pretending there's any fairness to any of it? That the reward is proportional to merit, effort, strength of character, utility, or any respectable and desirable quality? That everyone was on equal footing when trying to succeed? That would be great, thanks.
Do you seriously expect middle aged people to not have like double or more in savings compared to young people? I think you need to do some calculations... We may not all be on equal footing, but life is a game of skill and chance. It's easy to look at some people who, for example, made money from buying a house, while forgetting all those who didn't actually gain anything. Playing by the same rules is what makes it…
Carry on. You need that to live.
Unfortunately that very belief is perpetuating the issue you’re complaining about, but your worldview may very well hinge on you not making the connection.
So much to disagree with here. The path to gathering wealth is simple, and anyone has a good chance of success. See Bogleheads.org for details. ( Once the path is clearly understood, discipline is the primary factor. You have to live below your means, there is no exception. Also, a long compounding timeframe is useful. ) You can live YOLO like the rabbit or you can live like Warren Buffet the tortoise. You don’t get…
Well, trust the multi-millionaire bogleheads :)
The people living on two dead end jobs that don't properly feed their families and leave them vulnerable to dismissal if their car breaks down so they can't get to work really do not have 'a good chance of success'.
They are not in a position to live below their means without imposing monastic levels of discipline and deprivation on their children.
Horatio Alger was a mythologist, not a documentarian.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, trust the multi-millionaire bogleheads :)
> anyone has a good chance of success. .. discipline is the primary factor. You have to live below your means, there is no exception. The people living on two dead end jobs that don't properly feed their families and leave them vulnerable to dismissal if their car breaks down so they can't get to work really do not have 'a good chance of success'. They are not in a position to live below their means without imposing…