3 ms·
If you read the second paragraph the authors explain what they mean by "becoming". >People in advanced economies stand to inherit around $6trn this year—about
by gruez 2y ago
If you read the second paragraph the authors explain what they mean by "becoming".
>People in advanced economies stand to inherit around $6trn this year—about 10% of GDP, up from around 5% on average in a selection of rich countries during the middle of the 20th century. As a share of output, annual inheritance flows have doubled in France since the 1960s, and nearly trebled in Germany since the 1970s. Whether a young person can afford to buy a house and live in relative comfort is determined by inherited wealth nearly as much as it is by their own success at work. This shift has alarming economic and social consequences, because it imperils not just the meritocratic ideal, but capitalism itself.
- wordpad25 2y agoaverage and median inheritance is tiny, few thousand dollars
- gruez 2y agoThe article specifially acknowldges this. >If you consider this as a whole, the growing importance of inheritance starts to become clear. In Britain one in six of those born in the 1960s is projected to receive an inheritance that exceeds ten years of average annual earnings for that generation. For those born in the 1980s, the ratio rises to one in three. The inequality of what people inherit, meanwhile, is startling. A fifth of 35- to 45-year-olds are expected to inherit less than £10,000 ($13,000), whereas a quarter are expected to inherit more than £280,000. Moreover, how does this fact disprove the article's thesis? Is the implication that because less than 50% of people are getting giant inheritances, everything's fine?