4 ms·

The article even mentions how boomers still have 50% of the wealth despite comprising just 33% of the population. I guess we really are slackers compared to the

• rmah 6y ago
  That's all? I'd have thought more. And it makes perfect sense since "boomers" they have worked for 50+ years to expand their wealth. Think about it for a little bit -- older generations should have more wealth than younger generations if things are working correctly.
  • davidw 6y ago
    The relevant comparison is "at the same age", and boomers still come out pretty far ahead. They had more when, say, they were in their 40ies.
• hikerclimb 6y ago
  That’s because they cheat the system and most of them have no ethics.
• d1zzy 6y ago
  I don't think having more wealth per capita is unreasonable, unexpected or unfair. In life you acquire things over time (capital, skills, experience, relationships), you get more of this the more time passes so it's to be expected that older generations just have more of everything (maybe except health and energy, can't really buy biology, not yet). The numbers that we _should_ be looking at is not how much they have vs how many they are (ie the wealth per capita) but wealth per capita at different stages in their life vs same stages in other generation's lives. Compare how much wealth per capita boomers had in their mid twienties, mid thirdies, etc compared to younger generation. I feel those comparisons are much more fair and telling (and yes, AFAIK, there is a discrepancy that makes it seem unfair).