5 ms·

The top 10% are worth a ton, there’s not getting around that. But not slicing by age really does muddy things. The US median net worth for 65-74 is over a quart

The top 10% are worth a ton, there’s not getting around that. But not slicing by age really does muddy things. The US median net worth for 65-74 is over a quarter million dollars. The median net worth for under 35 is $14k. That’s about a 20x difference! Anything that doesn’t split by age is nearly impossible to interpret. For reference the top 10% net worth splits at about $1.2M, so both of your points are important.

ffggvv 5y ago
yeah that largely accounts for the racial wealth gap as well (though not completely). As median age by race varies by over a decade.
airza 5y ago
Sure, but the reason for that isn’t that they simply haven’t lived long enough to accure wealth. Younger generational cohorts have less than their parents did at the same age.
- daddylongstroke 5y ago
  I think this can also be split by class and background to provide further clarity. For example, every single one of my classmates (we were all lower income people) and myself are head and shoulders above where our parents were at our age or at about the save level with us facing significantly less work and stress to get here. I have a feeling middle-income and upper-income people have seen something different than us.
  - 6gvONxR4sf7o 5y ago
    At that point, there’s a reversion to the mean too. If your parents got lucky, you probably won’t be as lucky. If your parents got unlucky, you probably won’t be as unlucky. And luck aside, you’re still going to be (on average) closer to average than your parents.
snarf21 5y ago
No, you would also need to slice by top net worth percentage inside of each age group. You need to compare the percentage of people in each percentile because average/median are going to obscure the disparity. I'd bet that half the people under 35 have a negative net worth.
midasuni 5y ago
Can the median 30 year old grow their net worth by $500 a month plus inflation over the next 3 decades? People with stocks have undergone a massive boom in the last 20 years, that boom is not sustainable.
- pbak 5y ago
  > People with stocks have undergone a massive boom in the last 20 years, that boom is not sustainable. Bubble goes pop!
burnafter182 5y ago
So you've seen the wealth gap graphic, where they slice it up into deciles? Further into percentages? It's wrong, it doesn't account for debt. There should be a huge mass of people that are net negative. I think we're really presented with all the wrong information. First we need to break down into a heat map of CoL which can act as an approximation of demand for the given region. Then we need to look at individual median (perhaps modal) cash flow, where your deciles land, and whether that's translating into profit when you calculate in inflationary pressures. Then you've got to look at average degrees of freedom given demographics like no-diploma, GED/equivalent, HS-diploma, and degree strata that indicate an upward move in purely economic terms. I think what you'd find is the vast majority of people are just on the treadmill, and will for the foreseeable future there remain. I expect the median net worth (what's the method?) of a 35 year old is very much in the negative space. And I'd hope over a lifetime that the 65-74 cohort is breakeven - which is about what you've indicated - Zillow indicates the average value of a house is $264k. To some extent this is how our system is designed to work, but the system itself is predicated on a slew of fallacious logic and wholly removed from any semblance of morality while dually being totally unaccountable for the destruction and extraction of value that it is founded on. I should also add that power as a function of wealth had ought to be looked at. What is the effective cost of having a voice in policy? I suspect it's in the highest echelons of net worth that you can even begin thinking about leveraging the system, and locally at that. At which point, corporate personhood might had ought to be considered, how does that deform our distribution?
- hellisothers 5y ago
  Debt is at best a red herring, an individual with a $30k mortgage on a $60k home is not in the same situation as an individual with $30k in the bank and $30k of credit card debt yet they both have $30k in debt.
  - ska 5y ago
    > Debt is at best a red herring, That's really not what red herring means. The problem with debt is that is complicated, not that it doesn't matter.

ffggvv 5y ago

yeah that largely accounts for the racial wealth gap as well (though not completely). As median age by race varies by over a decade.

airza 5y ago

Sure, but the reason for that isn’t that they simply haven’t lived long enough to accure wealth. Younger generational cohorts have less than their parents did at the same age.

daddylongstroke 5y ago
I think this can also be split by class and background to provide further clarity. For example, every single one of my classmates (we were all lower income people) and myself are head and shoulders above where our parents were at our age or at about the save level with us facing significantly less work and stress to get here. I have a feeling middle-income and upper-income people have seen something different than us.
- 6gvONxR4sf7o 5y ago
  At that point, there’s a reversion to the mean too. If your parents got lucky, you probably won’t be as lucky. If your parents got unlucky, you probably won’t be as unlucky. And luck aside, you’re still going to be (on average) closer to average than your parents.

snarf21 5y ago

No, you would also need to slice by top net worth percentage inside of each age group. You need to compare the percentage of people in each percentile because average/median are going to obscure the disparity. I'd bet that half the people under 35 have a negative net worth.

midasuni 5y ago

Can the median 30 year old grow their net worth by $500 a month plus inflation over the next 3 decades? People with stocks have undergone a massive boom in the last 20 years, that boom is not sustainable.

pbak 5y ago
> People with stocks have undergone a massive boom in the last 20 years, that boom is not sustainable. Bubble goes pop!

burnafter182 5y ago

So you've seen the wealth gap graphic, where they slice it up into deciles? Further into percentages? It's wrong, it doesn't account for debt. There should be a huge mass of people that are net negative. I think we're really presented with all the wrong information. First we need to break down into a heat map of CoL which can act as an approximation of demand for the given region. Then we need to look at individual median (perhaps modal) cash flow, where your deciles land, and whether that's translating into profit when you calculate in inflationary pressures. Then you've got to look at average degrees of freedom given demographics like no-diploma, GED/equivalent, HS-diploma, and degree strata that indicate an upward move in purely economic terms. I think what you'd find is the vast majority of people are just on the treadmill, and will for the foreseeable future there remain. I expect the median net worth (what's the method?) of a 35 year old is very much in the negative space. And I'd hope over a lifetime that the 65-74 cohort is breakeven - which is about what you've indicated - Zillow indicates the average value of a house is $264k. To some extent this is how our system is designed to work, but the system itself is predicated on a slew of fallacious logic and wholly removed from any semblance of morality while dually being totally unaccountable for the destruction and extraction of value that it is founded on. I should also add that power as a function of wealth had ought to be looked at. What is the effective cost of having a voice in policy? I suspect it's in the highest echelons of net worth that you can even begin thinking about leveraging the system, and locally at that. At which point, corporate personhood might had ought to be considered, how does that deform our distribution?

hellisothers 5y ago
Debt is at best a red herring, an individual with a $30k mortgage on a $60k home is not in the same situation as an individual with $30k in the bank and $30k of credit card debt yet they both have $30k in debt.
- ska 5y ago
  > Debt is at best a red herring, That's really not what red herring means. The problem with debt is that is complicated, not that it doesn't matter.