The wealth gap between young and old people
washingtonpost.com
The wealth gap between young and old people
1–10 of 70 posts
Re: The wealth gap between young and old people
#2There is a huge generational disconnect between the boomer-driven media and political establishments and the X'ers and millenials.
My prediction/hope is that the stereotype of millenials as relatively happy socialites will end up reversing, with them falling in with us burn-it-to-the-ground X'ers once they are old enough to realize how screwed they are.
Re: The wealth gap between young and old people
#3>If you’re over 62, your odds of having at least $1 million in net wealth (your total assets minus your total debt) are relatively achievable -- about 1 in 7. But if you are under 40, your odds are low: 1 in 55.
So the older you are the more time you have had to grow wealth. The younger you are the less time you have had. This is then forcibly tied into median family income?
this is huffington post tier article.
Re: The wealth gap between young and old people
#4>If you’re over 62, your odds of having at least $1 million in net wealth (your total assets minus your total debt) are relatively achievable -- about 1 in 7. But if you are under 40, your odds are low: 1 in 55. So the older you are the more time you have had to grow wealth. The younger you are the less time you have had. This is then forcibly tied into median family income? this is huffington post tier article.
> Young people (generally defined here as those under 40)
What is with the media and this strange concept of "young people" now being the 28-40 age bracket? Back in my day, "young people" meant 8-18 year olds.
This isn't the only article making this bizarre wordplay. One of the previous USDS "submarine" articles referred to "young people" on a team as the members who were over 28.
Re: The wealth gap between young and old people
#5>If you’re over 62, your odds of having at least $1 million in net wealth (your total assets minus your total debt) are relatively achievable -- about 1 in 7. But if you are under 40, your odds are low: 1 in 55. So the older you are the more time you have had to grow wealth. The younger you are the less time you have had. This is then forcibly tied into median family income? this is huffington post tier article.
Did you even read past the first paragraph? The piece addresses your point directly and shows how the situation is getting worse, with the older generation having become increasingly likely to be wealthy over the past few decades and vice versa.
Re: The wealth gap between young and old people
#6>If you’re over 62, your odds of having at least $1 million in net wealth (your total assets minus your total debt) are relatively achievable -- about 1 in 7. But if you are under 40, your odds are low: 1 in 55. So the older you are the more time you have had to grow wealth. The younger you are the less time you have had. This is then forcibly tied into median family income? this is huffington post tier article.
That's missing the point entirely: yes, older people usually have more money than younger people. But there's been a drastic, meaningful change in just how much richer older people are than younger.
Maybe there are good reasons for this, maybe not, but it's not just a restatement of the obvious.
Re: The wealth gap between young and old people
#7There is a huge generational disconnect between the boomer-driven media and political establishments and the X'ers and millenials. My prediction/hope is that the stereotype of millenials as relatively happy socialites will end up reversing, with them falling in with us burn-it-to-the-ground X'ers once they are old enough to realize how screwed they are.
True, but there is definitely a lot of staying power in those currently of retirement age, kicking the can down the road, with a growing proportion of the population over age 65 (20% in 2020 versus 9% in 1970) receiving the benefits of Social Security and Medicare which are largely unfunded.
There will have to be a number of cut-backs in retirement benefits for future retirees, including means-testing, removing the maximum wage for Social Security contributions, and higher Medicare premiums.
Re: The wealth gap between young and old people
#8There is a huge generational disconnect between the boomer-driven media and political establishments and the X'ers and millenials. My prediction/hope is that the stereotype of millenials as relatively happy socialites will end up reversing, with them falling in with us burn-it-to-the-ground X'ers once they are old enough to realize how screwed they are.
True, but there is definitely a lot of staying power in those currently of retirement age, kicking the can down the road, with a growing proportion of the population over age 65 (20% in 2020 versus 9% in 1970) receiving the benefits of Social Security and Medicare which are largely unfunded. There will have to be a number of cut-backs in retirement benefits for future retirees, including means-testing, removing the m…
> removing the maximum wage for Social Security contributions
This sounds like a great idea to me. It's absurd that only the first $118,500 of earnings are subject to to social security tax, and it means that our tax structure is much less progressive than it appears at first glance (which is one reason certain people strenuously avoid talking about any taxes except Federal Income Taxes).
Re: The wealth gap between young and old people
#9>If you’re over 62, your odds of having at least $1 million in net wealth (your total assets minus your total debt) are relatively achievable -- about 1 in 7. But if you are under 40, your odds are low: 1 in 55. So the older you are the more time you have had to grow wealth. The younger you are the less time you have had. This is then forcibly tied into median family income? this is huffington post tier article.
Did you make it to the end of the article?
While I agree that's not a stunning insight, I don't think the author should be punished for stating the clearest conclusion of a graph before talking more about it.
Re: The wealth gap between young and old people
#10A large reason for that is a leveraged economy.
I still remember how hard it was to build up enough credit to move beyond prepaid cellphones.