3 ms·
Seems perfectly reasonable to me. Below that, you have 20-50 year olds. Above that, you have 50-80 year olds. Let's pretend 80+ doesn't exist for the sake of a
by esotericn 8y ago
Seems perfectly reasonable to me.
Below that, you have 20-50 year olds.
Above that, you have 50-80 year olds. Let's pretend 80+ doesn't exist for the sake of argument.
Perfect random distribution would be 50%.
But it's not random. A 50 year old obviously has more wealth than a 20 year old (unless the 20 year old's parents die early and they inherit a wad; which is unlikely given that most don't inherit much, and their parents don't die when they're young).
- jf- 8y agoReasonable is not the term I would use. I've read elsewhere that the rate of home ownership in the UK for 30-somethings is half that of 15 years ago, which is half that again of 30 years ago. Extrapolate that to this distribution and it must have been vastly different for previous generations. Housing has become increasingly unaffordable and those that got in early reap the rewards. I actually looked for figures like those given by the economist on a whim previously, but couldn't find any readily available data. It's nice to see them now. Too bad there's no comparison to what that distribution would have looked like in the past. I can't find exactly the article I'm thinking of above, but these two have a similar gist: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/dec/27/home-ownership-figures-are-exaggerated-says-thinktank-resolution-foundation https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/dec/27/home-ownersh... https://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/nov/17/generation-rent-young-adults-housing-ladder-2025 https://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/nov/17/generation-ren...