4 ms·

First, "dropped" is sort of a misleading term since it's not saying anyone actually has lost money. Rather, the cohort of Americans in that age group has less m

First, "dropped" is sort of a misleading term since it's not saying anyone actually has lost money. Rather, the cohort of Americans in that age group has less money than previous cohorts did at that age. Second, 18 to 35 is sort of a crazy range, it seems to me, since the net worth of the group is likely going to be dominated by those in their 30s who are mid-career. Lastly, it's unsurprising that those who began their career in the throws of the 2008 collapse were stunted, relative to basically any other group.

baron816 7y ago
>Second, 18 to 35 is sort of a crazy range Agreed. The data can be skewed by more people going to college or grad school. Those people tend to not have much or any net worth.
eganist 7y ago
> Second, 18 to 35 is sort of a crazy range, it seems to me, since the net worth of the group is likely going to be dominated by those in their 30s who are mid-career. And yet, it still > has dropped 34% If you break it down to two sub-demographics, I suspect there'd be an even larger disparity within e.g. 18-25 than there is with 26-35 for reasons such as student loans, but 18-35 would seem appropriate for what's perhaps an overgeneralized view of when most career trajectories and preferences plateau/harden. Not sure if it's at all related to the key TV demographic of 18-34, but that wouldn't surprise me either for largely the same reason (hardening of preferences). But I think that's kinda the point. People were previously building more wealth at a time in their lives when said wealth would have a more profound impact as they approached retirement age some number of decades later. The current generation occupying that demographic has been tragically stunted by stagnation in wage growth + inflation of education charges, and here in the United States, this may well impose a cascading detrimental impact on the health of the economy as a whole.
- losvedir 7y ago
  > If you break it down to two sub-demographics, I suspect there'd be an even larger disparity within e.g. 18-25 than there is with 26-35 for reasons such as student loans, but 18-35 would seem appropriate for what's perhaps an overgeneralized view of when most career trajectories and preferences plateau/harden. My point is exactly that I don't think it's likely that 18-25 would show an even larger disparity, since my suspicion is that the disparity is driven entirely by those who began their career during the Great Recession. 18-25 year olds, who began their career as the economy was heating up, wouldn't show the same. But I'd love to see the data to know if that's the case.
thrower123 7y ago
From what I have seen, very few people prioritize paying off their student loans. But in any case, I would expect that the net worth of most in the 18-35 age bracket is negative, except maybe for those people in their late 20s that haven't yet bought a home and are still saving up for a down payment. On the front end, you have student loan debt, plus they haven't worked long enough to generate any savings, while on the back end, they might have some 401k savings invested, but they would have mortgages with little equity that would dominate the calculation.
bobbygoodlatte 7y ago
On the contrary, wouldn't having started your career at a market bottom meant 11 years of market growth and expanding career opportunities?

baron816 7y ago

>Second, 18 to 35 is sort of a crazy range Agreed. The data can be skewed by more people going to college or grad school. Those people tend to not have much or any net worth.

eganist 7y ago

> Second, 18 to 35 is sort of a crazy range, it seems to me, since the net worth of the group is likely going to be dominated by those in their 30s who are mid-career. And yet, it still > has dropped 34% If you break it down to two sub-demographics, I suspect there'd be an even larger disparity within e.g. 18-25 than there is with 26-35 for reasons such as student loans, but 18-35 would seem appropriate for what's perhaps an overgeneralized view of when most career trajectories and preferences plateau/harden. Not sure if it's at all related to the key TV demographic of 18-34, but that wouldn't surprise me either for largely the same reason (hardening of preferences). But I think that's kinda the point. People were previously building more wealth at a time in their lives when said wealth would have a more profound impact as they approached retirement age some number of decades later. The current generation occupying that demographic has been tragically stunted by stagnation in wage growth + inflation of education charges, and here in the United States, this may well impose a cascading detrimental impact on the health of the economy as a whole.

losvedir 7y ago
> If you break it down to two sub-demographics, I suspect there'd be an even larger disparity within e.g. 18-25 than there is with 26-35 for reasons such as student loans, but 18-35 would seem appropriate for what's perhaps an overgeneralized view of when most career trajectories and preferences plateau/harden. My point is exactly that I don't think it's likely that 18-25 would show an even larger disparity, since my suspicion is that the disparity is driven entirely by those who began their career during the Great Recession. 18-25 year olds, who began their career as the economy was heating up, wouldn't show the same. But I'd love to see the data to know if that's the case.

thrower123 7y ago

From what I have seen, very few people prioritize paying off their student loans. But in any case, I would expect that the net worth of most in the 18-35 age bracket is negative, except maybe for those people in their late 20s that haven't yet bought a home and are still saving up for a down payment. On the front end, you have student loan debt, plus they haven't worked long enough to generate any savings, while on the back end, they might have some 401k savings invested, but they would have mortgages with little equity that would dominate the calculation.

bobbygoodlatte 7y ago

On the contrary, wouldn't having started your career at a market bottom meant 11 years of market growth and expanding career opportunities?