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 yea

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.