3 ms·

> But a lot of things are cheaper too. Basically anything that doesn't require human labor to assemble. TVs. Computers. Tons of stuff. this is bullshit, it's t

> But a lot of things are cheaper too. Basically anything that doesn't require human labor to assemble. TVs. Computers. Tons of stuff. this is bullshit, it's the "why don't they eat cake" argument. the world is not going backwards, of course TVs have gotten cheaper, for millenials and boomers alike. I don't think there is any sense of evenness in the fact that 21% of the US population holds 51% of the wealth, and a younger 21%, which naturally works harder controls 5%. What matters is not being merely able to buy 1 TV, but who can buy most of the TVs. What you 're saying is "Yeah they should be fine with breadcrumbs", and that they should tolerate this inequality until death meets the boomers. That's basically generational serfdom

sershe 5y ago
The reason the generation holds this wealth is because it spent its life working and accumulating it. Is it really surprising that someone who worked for 40 years, including the prime productive years of their career, has received more money in aggregate, than someone who has worked for 10, just starting their career? Even without compounding returns (i.e. economy growing), and given a fixed spending/saving rates over time, you would expect the former to have vastly more saved money.