SPOILER: Article assumes that Boomers will die and leave their wealth to Millenials.

        • anarchrist@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          8 months ago

          I don’t get why we’re scoffing? Presumably many of the old leeches have millennial heirs who will turn around and continue leeching so the number will continue to go up. Unless, oh idk, the whole system were to suddenly explode for some reason

          • DeathbringerThoctar@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            I’m scoffing because as a 35 year old millenial myself, it hardly feels like I’m the “richest generation” when I can’t afford to heat my home and have to wait for my parents to die and divide their estate amongst me and my siblings before I have a meaningful shot at economic security.

            Edit: spelling.

            • anarchrist@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              8 months ago

              Right but cumulatively it’s the same pot of money. I’m not arguing we’re not poor, just that this article is dumb.

              • DeathbringerThoctar@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                8 months ago

                Oh I agree the article is dumb. That’s why I’m scoffing at it.

                What I’m saying is that my parents will probably be alive another 15 years. If I get that inheritance then I’ll be 50 or more. That’s 15 years from what’s generally considered retirement age (like I’ll get to retire), and 30 or less from my life expectancy. Even if I get be ‘rich’ for a few decades, I’ll still have spent the majority of my life poor.

                In totality, I would not be considered a rich person, but a poor one who got some money in the end. That feels like an extremely important distinction to me.

                This is of course all leaving out the inherent issues with generational wealth accumulation and the effects it has on economic disparity. As previously agreed, the article is dumb.

      • ChocoboRocket@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Any chance this wealth is a byproduct of inflation?

        Both the value of the dollar, and its purchasing power are heavily eroded over time.

        Someone making 10k a year is pretty wealthy when a home is $4,000 in the year 1900

        Someone making 80K a year is relatively broke when a home costs 600K in the year 2024 (should cost 32k by comparison)

        Let alone everything else that skyrockets in price as wages crawl