• bassomitron@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    205
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yikes, when did we become the majority workforce demographic?

    But seriously, 72 million working people don’t even account for 5% of wealth… What a broken fucking system.

    • ReallyKinda@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      82
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Google says there are about 160M employed people in the US, so 72M is roughly 45% of the workforce. Vs 5% of the wealth. crazy.

      • bassomitron@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        30
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I meant majority in terms of demographic. Like we now outnumber gen X and boomers individually. But yeah, it’s nuts. You also have to consider that it’s 4.6% total, so even the millennials that are very rich (multi millionaire++) are tallied in that figure. So average middle class and low income millennials probably account for like 2-3% of that wealth.

        • Zron@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          27
          ·
          1 year ago

          On the scale of wealth inequality we’re dealing with, a multimillionaire might as well be penniless.

          There’s a few hundred people in this country that control more money than most countries. A couple of them have private fucking space agencies, and those are the ones that advertise their wealth.

          Billionaires are a cancer on our economy.

          • bassomitron@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            1 year ago

            I added ++ because I didn’t mean the millionaires with like $5-15 million net worth, but dozens or hundreds of millions. I agree with you, though. Billionaires shouldn’t exist, period.

        • stevehobbes@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          The word you’re looking for is plurality fwiw. When you’re the biggest group but under 50% +1 you have a plurality.

        • SuckMyWang@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          You really need to factor in time spent working, these articles are usually worded to stoke generational war instead of class war. The main reason boomers and gen xers have more wealth is because they’ve spend more time working. It shouldn’t be shocking that someone who has worked for 30 years longer has a disproportionate amount of wealth. They’ve also had compound interest and compound dividends for 30 years longer too. The system is fucked but it’s not really old peoples fault. The only difference being inheritance - which if you think about it, the average life expectancy is 80 or so, people back then had kids around 25years old, so the average age for receiving inheritance would be around 55 years old. Making boomers a bit better off

    • Pohl@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      57
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s fashionable to boil everything down to class warfare but this struggle is generational in a way that seems important. It’s probably not even fair to look at this like a systemic problem. We have an older generation that is fighting with everything they have to prevent power and wealth flowing to their children’s cohort. That’s not just “capitalism”. That is a unique pathology. I struggle to see analogs in history of this sort of thing.

        • Pohl@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          24
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s like the country can’t even imagine a younger person being credible for the jobs anymore. No matter where you are on the political spectrum, America has an 80yr old man for you to vote for!

      • David_Eight@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s amazing how many laws and initiatives where put in place to help Boomers and older generations succeed in life and how they slowly stripped everything away after they benefited from it.

      • rchive@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        Sort of an extension of the constantly growing period of adolescence. Boomers don’t think Gen X and Millennials will do it right, so they hold onto power.

        • Pohl@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          This is my operating theory as well. That coupled with decades of media convincing them that “the kids” are lazy, unreliable, and taken with strange ideas leads them to believe that they cannot responsibly turn the nation over to us.

      • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s bullshit, the majority of boomers aren’t happy to see their kids and grandkids struggling, they get manipulated into voting for these things by voting based on other things they’re preoccupied with, just like people of all generations are.

      • Sabin10@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        24
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The millennial equivalent to 1997 is about 5vor 6 years ago and there are more of them than us gen xers. They’re definitely worse off with a proportionally higher cost of living.

    • ripcord@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Are you really surprised that all the 20ish to early 40 year olds are the majority of the workforce?

    • Ashen@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Also isn’t this skewed because Zuck accounts for 2% himself? I had read that in an earlier post mentioning the same.

          • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            No, he has 2% of millennial’s wealth, so 0.02 x 0.046 = 0.00092 or 0.092% of the grand total and millennials without him have 4.6% - 0.092% = 4.508% of the total wealth. If his wealth was how you interpret it he would be a trillionaire.

    • Zippy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Because they are young. Would you expect an 18 year old to have 10 percent of the assets that say a 30 year old? Would you expect a 30 year old to have anywhere near the saved up assets as someone that is 70 and retiring after working 50 years?

      It would be like saying it is unfair they have higher wages on average than the boomer generation. Being that later is half retired.