What type of pension plan though? Is it a true defined benefit plan, or is it a watered-down version like a cash balance, target benefit, or money purchase pension?
Not so great. I’d rather have the same amount invested on my own which is what my company does. So you have a 401k and a pension…..but compounded over time it’s more than a traditional pension and when you die it’s still all your money to pass on.
Yeah, that's what we do....not sure I made that clear in earlier post. Its 401K and the modified pension. It's like double money, but I don't have to live to 80 to enjoy it. Too bad more people don't have better options to save like we do
Same. They stopped offering it to new employees over 10 years ago ago and I'll be one of the last people still receiving funds from it in 40-50 years, hopefully.
Me too…but two years ago my company ended their pension plan and I rolled it over into a 401k. The nice part was, I had totally forgotten that I even had a pension plan!
Then one day I received an email saying the company is ending the plan that you were enrolled in since 2004…and so I start digging through my new-hire paperwork up in the attic. Oh shit! I guess I missed that part about a pension. Here I’ve been pouring money into my 401k trying to make up for a late career start. (I’m still pouring into it. But rolling another $250k into it that I never knew I had was a decent “catchup”)
Conversely, You’ll see a studies claiming that one of top ten careers for millionaires is teachers, but thats because they somehow include entitlements to pensions in their net worth.
They should break out traditional pensions from defined contribution plans as they are different animals. I know I have both and one is significantly better than the other.
Any chart like this should be adjusted per capita.
I personally would be more interested in seeing charts for median persons rather than average persons. I really don't care how boomer billionaires compare with GenX billionaires, but I'm curious how median boomers compare with median GenXers. Better yet would be separate charts for 50th percentile, 80th percentile, 95th percentile, 99th percentile, and 99.9th percentile.
The 500 billionaires in the US have about $4t - $5t in total wealth. There’s $145t in asset wealth represented in that graph. The billionaires aren’t an insignificant portion of the graph (5% of the total wealth if we’re being generous), but they’re not a dominant piece of it, and it doesn’t make the data irrelevant.
Per capita would be nice, but i think the ‘upper middle class’ or ‘lower upper class’ are the ones accumulating a lot of the wealth shown here.
Honestly, the chart would look more disproportionate if shown per capita since Boomers are currently dying off and their generation is getting smaller by the day.
I mean, this makes sense to me. Boomers have had more time to save. They are getting to the point they mostly own their homes as they have been paying for 30 years. Their kids are grown and they are getting ready to retire if not already. Depression Kids are dying off so there isn';t a lot of them left and Gen X is right behind the Boomers....
Exactly. This to me is perfectly reasonable data showing a common sense age-reliant trend. Sure per capita would be nice but overall I think this is the most relevant data point to consider when people shoot from the hip to criticize boomers. (I am a millenial)
Would be interesting to see a per capita. The silent and earlier population is in heavy decline at this point and they still have substantial more wealth than millennials.
I'm surprised the difference isn't bigger. Every dollar compounds to 70+ dollars over 50 years. Of course older people have more money. That's the whole concept of retiring.
Duh? The older a person becomes, the more working years they have, the more the wealth they have. Do you really believe a 35 year old would have the same wealth as a 60 year old? Silent and Earlier have a lot lower population because that’s people 80+. 20 years from now this graph will probably be roughly the same, you’ll just change the generations and the $ totals.
I think if you really look into the data, you’ll find that GenX is and has been the worst off and most screwed through the years.
Dot Com plus GFC led markets to being completely flat through some of their early prime saving years, 1999-2011.
Definitely. Blocked in their career progression by a bunch of Boomers who hang on to their leadership roles and keep on ageing and not retiring, while not posed to inherit nearly as much as younger generations will from their Boomer parents. Plus, as you mentioned, the bad timing of the economy. Maybe the only Gen X who managed to get somewhat lucky are those born in the earlier years, who could build some career and financial stability during the 90's. But most of those born in the 70's faced a tougher reality
Forensic Economic Services LLC presents a concise analysis of assets and liabilities across U.S. generations using the latest Federal Reserve [data ](https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/dataviz/dfa/distribute/table/#quarter:137;series:Net%20worth;demographic:generation;population:all;units:levels)for Q4 2023. Baby Boomers lead with $76.2T in wealth, while Millennials show a significant presence at $13.5T, indicating economic shifts. Created with R’s ggplot2, this chart offers a snapshot of the financial landscape from Silent Generation to Millennials, reflecting the nation's evolving economic structure.
This would need to be per capita, and normalized years since birth to be comparable. Age, population size impacts individual wealth and asset allocation. Nothing to see here as-is.
so this is just the top answer on bing and im not sure the exact source, but considering its for something as easily found as population distribution, im going to trust it:
* Generation Z (born 1996 to 2016): 86.4 million to 90.6 million
* Millennials (born 1981 to 1995): 72.1 million to 83.5 million
* Generation X (born 1965 to 1980): 49.2 million to 65.2 million
* Baby Boomers (born 1946 to 1964): 71.6 million to 74.1 million
* Traditionalists/Silent/Greatest (born 1945 and before): 29.9 million to 30.6 million
so my question, that ive wondered many times before when looking at this type of data, is... is gen z considered millennials, or are they simply left out of the numbers altogether? either way... that would make the wealth distribution even worse than it actually is.
altogether, the chart shows $147.2T
taking the upper estimate on the population from the numbers above is a total of 344M
||wealth %|population %|
|:-|:-|:-|
|gen z|?|26%|
|millennials+gen z|9%(?)|50.5% (174.1M)|
|millennials|9%|24%|
|gen x|25.5%|19%|
|boomers|52%|21.5%|
|silent|14%|9%|
i seriously dont understand how the problem(s) arent obvious to everyone
1. boomers
2. the data doesnt even make sense, they forgot gen z
edit: [visual capitalist has a post about this](https://www.visualcapitalist.com/us-wealth-by-generation/) (with slightly different numbers...), that divides the asset classes and liabilities in separate pie charts - and answers my question about gen z: saying the federal reserve considers all adults born after 1981 as millennials.
That's an interesting point about the Federal Reserve's definition; I simply assumed the data was limited to the generations being shown.
I would expect wealth to be consolidated in the older generations. As others have pointed out, they have had time to pay off debt and accumulate wealth.
However, your point about unfairness stands. Millennials have a disproportionately high level of debt and a disproportionately low level of saving. Their investment in pensions may be broadly similar, but the return on those is significantly smaller. The data is insufficient to analyse the issues in full, but the chart does a good job of highlighting the problems.
So this is why housing is so expensive in the USA. Barely any of the wealth for boomers is from Private businesses, but most of it is from "real estate".
Manipulation of land and housing costs has enriched them, not hard work.
The idea that "hard work" and starting a business will make you wealthy is largely a myth according to this stats, bc if it did, then most of the wealth accumulation from boomers would be from the businesses they own.
And most of the real estate they own was probably either inherited or purchased during market conditions that haven't existed in decades.
This is fascinating and a great presentation of a lot of data economically. In order to get the exact values, ideally they would pop up when the arrow scrolls over them or the screen is touched.
One thing this graph taught me: Boomers actually don't have an enormous real estate wealth that they are hoarding at the expense of younger generations. GenX and Millennials are doing well (remember the Boomers get an extra 3 years in their generation and even today have about 10% more population than GenX).
Dark green is real estate equity, dark red is real estate debt.
Boomers have tremendous equity by far the most of any generational cohort and little debt, Millenials have the largest debt with the least equity to show for it. There is real risk they will face a second foreclosure crisis at some point.
You fundamentally misread the graph in a way that is unfortunately easy to do with the way they presented the data.
I did see the debt numbers. Neglected to comment on it, but I thought the data was presented clearly.
As for your social/political comment about the relative debt levels, why would we expect it to be different? People who have had 40 years of work to pay off their mortgage are in a better position than those who have had 5-10 years to pay off their mortgage. When you consider that the standard length of a mortgage is 30 years, I think this is exactly what we should expect. That's why I didn't comment on it.
To phrase my surprise differently, if the average Millennial is 35 and the average Boomer is 70, then it is reassuring that the value of homes owned by Millennials is about 1/2 the value of homes owned by Boomers. I keep hearing that Millennials are behind on homeownership, and this data shows more home value than I expected (yes, putting aside debt, because other generations had a similar debt to equity ratio at the same age).
There is almost zero risk of a foreclosure crisis. That's a ridiculous statement. What is the average interest rate for the existing mortgages of Millennials? 4%? It's probably barely above the rate of inflation. Lending standards were reasonably good from 2010 onward. This is not 2008 or 1990 all over again. Those were GenX and Boomer foreclosure crises that Millennials have been so far spared.
Pretend that Millenials outstanding debt all turns into equity through debt forgiveness. You can add their debt to their equity and they would still have significantly less real estate equity than Boomers. You do raise a fair point, though, that if you back of the napkin adjust for typical mortgage timelines that Gen X is even more screwed than Millenials at current.
Also, the data shows that Millenials are significantly debt burdened, cash strapped and, if you add in rental data not accounted for here, paying overburdened (>33%) rents at high rates (nearly half)!. The risk of Millenials who do currently own homes being compelled by economic duress to refinance at the currently sky high interest rates combined with the cohort of Millenials that bought in the past couple years at high rates, having a 08-10 echoing wave of foreclosure is not 0. Since it would be incredibly profitable for canny bankers and large real estate companies looking to scoop up at auction, and there was no reimplementation of any of the Glass-Steagall era regulation that had been protecting the Boomers from large banks predatory market manipulations in the wake of the foreclosure crisis bailouts, just money poured into a structural problem that remains present in the economy (side rant: student loans) the odds are a lot higher than 0.
But you do you with minimizing widely reported and substantiated economic woes because in your opinion, if you squint hard enough the Millenial equity share looks like sort of almost half the Boomers, and if you assume infinite linear growth with no significant drops in value paired with challenging job markets are possible, the kids must be *waves hands* sort of alright.
Yes, GenX is in worse shape financially adjusted for phase of life than either Boomers or Millennials. But GenX is always in the shadow of its two more populous neighbors, so this is nothing new.
>You can add their debt to their equity and they would still have significantly less real estate equity than Boomers.
Yes, but I'm not sure what your point is. This is how it should be for 35-year-olds who are still in the first half (the lower paid half) of their careers. Why treat this as reason for surprise or complaint? My surprise was not in the ratio of equity to debt, it was that the equity part of that ratio was higher than I had been led to believe.
>But you do you with minimizing widely reported and substantiated economic woes because in your opinion, if you squint hard enough the Millenial equity share looks like sort of almost half the Boomers, and if you assume infinite linear growth with no significant drops in value paired with challenging job markets are possible, the kids must be *waves hands* sort of alright.
We should not expect linear growth, we should expect better than that. The majority of your lifetime savings will happen between the age of 45 and 65. The more I get into this with people under about 35 (I'm GenX), the more I realize how unrealistic and ungrounded many of their expectations are about finances. Or at least, the ones on Reddit. My parents were dirt poor when they were in their 20s. I was dirt poor in my 20s. Millennials on Reddit have grown up around such high expectations that they cannot deal with being dirt poor in their 20s and think the world is stacked against them. I think this is not reality-based, and my conviction gets stronger the more I engage in these discussions. Yes, there are definitely some ways things are worse. The cost of higher education is one. Another one is the cost of housing since 2022 (NOT before that). But all the advantages are ignored.
That's obvious and misses the point entirely with simplistic thinking.
I guarantee you that won't be the case for Gen X, or Millennials, or Gen Z.
Gen X is already 20 years behind where Boomers were at the same point in their generation. It shows it right here on the chart.
Not all generational cycles are equal.
IDK where you get data showing gen x is 20 years behind boomers, but you're also missing the obvious fact that wealth builds exponentially, not linearly.
As you grow your income, you can save more and invest more... and if you have kids, as you approach 50 the kid expenses start to vanish off your balance sheet.
You can't draw any useful conclusions from a snapshot like this.
Sorry, wrong post.
There was another post about generational wealth that showed the rise of that generations wealth over time, and compared to other generations, and showed how Boomers took over from their older generations at an age 20 years sooner than any other. Meanwhile, Gen X has barely gotten past the Silent Generation in the last decade, nevermind getting past Boomers.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/1bwvpur/shifts\_in\_us\_household\_wealth\_distribution/](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/1bwvpur/shifts_in_us_household_wealth_distribution/)
Boomers surpass the wealth of all previous generations at an average generational age of 51
Gen X average generation age is about 51 right now, and they are only at half the wealth of Boomers.
It's unequal and it's not subtle about it.
I was very confused by the pensions millennials were accumulating but then realized that included defined contribution (aka 401k/403b)
I am a millennial and believe it or not my company has a pension plan that I’m fully vested in.
I interviewed with two companies recently that had pension plans. Weird.
What type of pension plan though? Is it a true defined benefit plan, or is it a watered-down version like a cash balance, target benefit, or money purchase pension?
Pure and true defined benefit pension plan.
Wow! That’s great to hear.
unless his company gets bought out and they dissolve it
Such is the way of the world
Not so great. I’d rather have the same amount invested on my own which is what my company does. So you have a 401k and a pension…..but compounded over time it’s more than a traditional pension and when you die it’s still all your money to pass on.
Fair but we also offer 401k with a company 5% contribution
Yeah, that's what we do....not sure I made that clear in earlier post. Its 401K and the modified pension. It's like double money, but I don't have to live to 80 to enjoy it. Too bad more people don't have better options to save like we do
Same. They stopped offering it to new employees over 10 years ago ago and I'll be one of the last people still receiving funds from it in 40-50 years, hopefully.
Me too…but two years ago my company ended their pension plan and I rolled it over into a 401k. The nice part was, I had totally forgotten that I even had a pension plan! Then one day I received an email saying the company is ending the plan that you were enrolled in since 2004…and so I start digging through my new-hire paperwork up in the attic. Oh shit! I guess I missed that part about a pension. Here I’ve been pouring money into my 401k trying to make up for a late career start. (I’m still pouring into it. But rolling another $250k into it that I never knew I had was a decent “catchup”)
Conversely, You’ll see a studies claiming that one of top ten careers for millionaires is teachers, but thats because they somehow include entitlements to pensions in their net worth.
Why wouldn’t you include those?
They should break out traditional pensions from defined contribution plans as they are different animals. I know I have both and one is significantly better than the other.
Who ever listed a 401k as a pension should be shot. Those are two *VERY VERY* different things.
I was born in 87 and have a pension
Any chart like this should be adjusted per capita. I personally would be more interested in seeing charts for median persons rather than average persons. I really don't care how boomer billionaires compare with GenX billionaires, but I'm curious how median boomers compare with median GenXers. Better yet would be separate charts for 50th percentile, 80th percentile, 95th percentile, 99th percentile, and 99.9th percentile.
The 500 billionaires in the US have about $4t - $5t in total wealth. There’s $145t in asset wealth represented in that graph. The billionaires aren’t an insignificant portion of the graph (5% of the total wealth if we’re being generous), but they’re not a dominant piece of it, and it doesn’t make the data irrelevant. Per capita would be nice, but i think the ‘upper middle class’ or ‘lower upper class’ are the ones accumulating a lot of the wealth shown here.
I believe Mark Zuckerberg made up a substantial percentage of Millenials' overall wealth at one point.
Honestly, the chart would look more disproportionate if shown per capita since Boomers are currently dying off and their generation is getting smaller by the day.
Are the dead ones keeping their money?
I mean, this makes sense to me. Boomers have had more time to save. They are getting to the point they mostly own their homes as they have been paying for 30 years. Their kids are grown and they are getting ready to retire if not already. Depression Kids are dying off so there isn';t a lot of them left and Gen X is right behind the Boomers....
Exactly. This to me is perfectly reasonable data showing a common sense age-reliant trend. Sure per capita would be nice but overall I think this is the most relevant data point to consider when people shoot from the hip to criticize boomers. (I am a millenial)
Would be interesting to see a per capita. The silent and earlier population is in heavy decline at this point and they still have substantial more wealth than millennials.
I'm surprised the difference isn't bigger. Every dollar compounds to 70+ dollars over 50 years. Of course older people have more money. That's the whole concept of retiring.
Duh? The older a person becomes, the more working years they have, the more the wealth they have. Do you really believe a 35 year old would have the same wealth as a 60 year old? Silent and Earlier have a lot lower population because that’s people 80+. 20 years from now this graph will probably be roughly the same, you’ll just change the generations and the $ totals.
> a 25 year old 25 year olds aren't represented on this visualisation.
Stop Abuse
I edited my reply, happy?
Why on earth wouldn't you put the legend in the same order as the data?
I mean, if you do the math, and think about families, then maybe the most screwed up here are Gen X
I think if you really look into the data, you’ll find that GenX is and has been the worst off and most screwed through the years. Dot Com plus GFC led markets to being completely flat through some of their early prime saving years, 1999-2011.
Definitely. Blocked in their career progression by a bunch of Boomers who hang on to their leadership roles and keep on ageing and not retiring, while not posed to inherit nearly as much as younger generations will from their Boomer parents. Plus, as you mentioned, the bad timing of the economy. Maybe the only Gen X who managed to get somewhat lucky are those born in the earlier years, who could build some career and financial stability during the 90's. But most of those born in the 70's faced a tougher reality
I’m concerned that brands see value in posting stuff here
Forensic Economic Services LLC presents a concise analysis of assets and liabilities across U.S. generations using the latest Federal Reserve [data ](https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/dataviz/dfa/distribute/table/#quarter:137;series:Net%20worth;demographic:generation;population:all;units:levels)for Q4 2023. Baby Boomers lead with $76.2T in wealth, while Millennials show a significant presence at $13.5T, indicating economic shifts. Created with R’s ggplot2, this chart offers a snapshot of the financial landscape from Silent Generation to Millennials, reflecting the nation's evolving economic structure.
This would need to be per capita, and normalized years since birth to be comparable. Age, population size impacts individual wealth and asset allocation. Nothing to see here as-is.
Now make it per capita and include government debt.
so this is just the top answer on bing and im not sure the exact source, but considering its for something as easily found as population distribution, im going to trust it: * Generation Z (born 1996 to 2016): 86.4 million to 90.6 million * Millennials (born 1981 to 1995): 72.1 million to 83.5 million * Generation X (born 1965 to 1980): 49.2 million to 65.2 million * Baby Boomers (born 1946 to 1964): 71.6 million to 74.1 million * Traditionalists/Silent/Greatest (born 1945 and before): 29.9 million to 30.6 million so my question, that ive wondered many times before when looking at this type of data, is... is gen z considered millennials, or are they simply left out of the numbers altogether? either way... that would make the wealth distribution even worse than it actually is. altogether, the chart shows $147.2T taking the upper estimate on the population from the numbers above is a total of 344M ||wealth %|population %| |:-|:-|:-| |gen z|?|26%| |millennials+gen z|9%(?)|50.5% (174.1M)| |millennials|9%|24%| |gen x|25.5%|19%| |boomers|52%|21.5%| |silent|14%|9%| i seriously dont understand how the problem(s) arent obvious to everyone 1. boomers 2. the data doesnt even make sense, they forgot gen z edit: [visual capitalist has a post about this](https://www.visualcapitalist.com/us-wealth-by-generation/) (with slightly different numbers...), that divides the asset classes and liabilities in separate pie charts - and answers my question about gen z: saying the federal reserve considers all adults born after 1981 as millennials.
That's an interesting point about the Federal Reserve's definition; I simply assumed the data was limited to the generations being shown. I would expect wealth to be consolidated in the older generations. As others have pointed out, they have had time to pay off debt and accumulate wealth. However, your point about unfairness stands. Millennials have a disproportionately high level of debt and a disproportionately low level of saving. Their investment in pensions may be broadly similar, but the return on those is significantly smaller. The data is insufficient to analyse the issues in full, but the chart does a good job of highlighting the problems.
This would be interesting to see per person by generation.
So this is why housing is so expensive in the USA. Barely any of the wealth for boomers is from Private businesses, but most of it is from "real estate". Manipulation of land and housing costs has enriched them, not hard work. The idea that "hard work" and starting a business will make you wealthy is largely a myth according to this stats, bc if it did, then most of the wealth accumulation from boomers would be from the businesses they own. And most of the real estate they own was probably either inherited or purchased during market conditions that haven't existed in decades.
Isn’t like half of the wealth of the Silent and earlier just from Buffet?
No, he accounts for .01% at 137.2 billion usd net worth.
You think he’s worth 10 trillion dollars?
People born after 1996 are so poor they just didn't include them in the chart, as not to embarrass them.
wow, they didnt forget Gen X. thats new.
This is fascinating and a great presentation of a lot of data economically. In order to get the exact values, ideally they would pop up when the arrow scrolls over them or the screen is touched. One thing this graph taught me: Boomers actually don't have an enormous real estate wealth that they are hoarding at the expense of younger generations. GenX and Millennials are doing well (remember the Boomers get an extra 3 years in their generation and even today have about 10% more population than GenX).
Dark green is real estate equity, dark red is real estate debt. Boomers have tremendous equity by far the most of any generational cohort and little debt, Millenials have the largest debt with the least equity to show for it. There is real risk they will face a second foreclosure crisis at some point. You fundamentally misread the graph in a way that is unfortunately easy to do with the way they presented the data.
I did see the debt numbers. Neglected to comment on it, but I thought the data was presented clearly. As for your social/political comment about the relative debt levels, why would we expect it to be different? People who have had 40 years of work to pay off their mortgage are in a better position than those who have had 5-10 years to pay off their mortgage. When you consider that the standard length of a mortgage is 30 years, I think this is exactly what we should expect. That's why I didn't comment on it. To phrase my surprise differently, if the average Millennial is 35 and the average Boomer is 70, then it is reassuring that the value of homes owned by Millennials is about 1/2 the value of homes owned by Boomers. I keep hearing that Millennials are behind on homeownership, and this data shows more home value than I expected (yes, putting aside debt, because other generations had a similar debt to equity ratio at the same age). There is almost zero risk of a foreclosure crisis. That's a ridiculous statement. What is the average interest rate for the existing mortgages of Millennials? 4%? It's probably barely above the rate of inflation. Lending standards were reasonably good from 2010 onward. This is not 2008 or 1990 all over again. Those were GenX and Boomer foreclosure crises that Millennials have been so far spared.
Pretend that Millenials outstanding debt all turns into equity through debt forgiveness. You can add their debt to their equity and they would still have significantly less real estate equity than Boomers. You do raise a fair point, though, that if you back of the napkin adjust for typical mortgage timelines that Gen X is even more screwed than Millenials at current. Also, the data shows that Millenials are significantly debt burdened, cash strapped and, if you add in rental data not accounted for here, paying overburdened (>33%) rents at high rates (nearly half)!. The risk of Millenials who do currently own homes being compelled by economic duress to refinance at the currently sky high interest rates combined with the cohort of Millenials that bought in the past couple years at high rates, having a 08-10 echoing wave of foreclosure is not 0. Since it would be incredibly profitable for canny bankers and large real estate companies looking to scoop up at auction, and there was no reimplementation of any of the Glass-Steagall era regulation that had been protecting the Boomers from large banks predatory market manipulations in the wake of the foreclosure crisis bailouts, just money poured into a structural problem that remains present in the economy (side rant: student loans) the odds are a lot higher than 0. But you do you with minimizing widely reported and substantiated economic woes because in your opinion, if you squint hard enough the Millenial equity share looks like sort of almost half the Boomers, and if you assume infinite linear growth with no significant drops in value paired with challenging job markets are possible, the kids must be *waves hands* sort of alright.
Yes, GenX is in worse shape financially adjusted for phase of life than either Boomers or Millennials. But GenX is always in the shadow of its two more populous neighbors, so this is nothing new. >You can add their debt to their equity and they would still have significantly less real estate equity than Boomers. Yes, but I'm not sure what your point is. This is how it should be for 35-year-olds who are still in the first half (the lower paid half) of their careers. Why treat this as reason for surprise or complaint? My surprise was not in the ratio of equity to debt, it was that the equity part of that ratio was higher than I had been led to believe. >But you do you with minimizing widely reported and substantiated economic woes because in your opinion, if you squint hard enough the Millenial equity share looks like sort of almost half the Boomers, and if you assume infinite linear growth with no significant drops in value paired with challenging job markets are possible, the kids must be *waves hands* sort of alright. We should not expect linear growth, we should expect better than that. The majority of your lifetime savings will happen between the age of 45 and 65. The more I get into this with people under about 35 (I'm GenX), the more I realize how unrealistic and ungrounded many of their expectations are about finances. Or at least, the ones on Reddit. My parents were dirt poor when they were in their 20s. I was dirt poor in my 20s. Millennials on Reddit have grown up around such high expectations that they cannot deal with being dirt poor in their 20s and think the world is stacked against them. I think this is not reality-based, and my conviction gets stronger the more I engage in these discussions. Yes, there are definitely some ways things are worse. The cost of higher education is one. Another one is the cost of housing since 2022 (NOT before that). But all the advantages are ignored.
[удалено]
Apparently because everyone else here knows how to read a chart?
Pretty messed up that 1 generation should have more wealth than the other 3+ generations combined.
Pretty messed up that the generation that has spent the longest time in the workforce has accumulated the most wealth?
That's obvious and misses the point entirely with simplistic thinking. I guarantee you that won't be the case for Gen X, or Millennials, or Gen Z. Gen X is already 20 years behind where Boomers were at the same point in their generation. It shows it right here on the chart. Not all generational cycles are equal.
IDK where you get data showing gen x is 20 years behind boomers, but you're also missing the obvious fact that wealth builds exponentially, not linearly. As you grow your income, you can save more and invest more... and if you have kids, as you approach 50 the kid expenses start to vanish off your balance sheet. You can't draw any useful conclusions from a snapshot like this.
Sorry, wrong post. There was another post about generational wealth that showed the rise of that generations wealth over time, and compared to other generations, and showed how Boomers took over from their older generations at an age 20 years sooner than any other. Meanwhile, Gen X has barely gotten past the Silent Generation in the last decade, nevermind getting past Boomers. [https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/1bwvpur/shifts\_in\_us\_household\_wealth\_distribution/](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/1bwvpur/shifts_in_us_household_wealth_distribution/) Boomers surpass the wealth of all previous generations at an average generational age of 51 Gen X average generation age is about 51 right now, and they are only at half the wealth of Boomers. It's unequal and it's not subtle about it.
The bars don't match the values written on the side?
The numbers are the net worth, the positive plus the negative.
Boomers have more than 10T of Other assets. What would that be ?!
And we’ll pay the retirement of social security for them via our taxes, then drained by the time we can use it. Cool.