2 ms·

The article also uses income... Anyway, if anything the distribution based on wealth would even more starkly be hyper-focused at the top, the people in the 10-

• vincnetas 2y ago
  Are we sure? For me it looks like article uses ownership.
• Earw0rm 2y ago
  90th percentile 21-year-old has nothing. With college debt their assets are net negative. 90th percentile 65 year old has perhaps $1M+ in accumulated property wealth and retirement savings. There is some generational inequality at work, but that 65 year old also had ~zero at 21. The 90th percentile 21 year old will likely be doing very well by the time they're 65, hard to say whether better or worse than today's cohort.
  • pydry 2y ago
    Some of those 90th percentile 21 year olds genuinely have nothing while others are in line to receive a bumper payday when their parents die.
    • Earw0rm 2y ago
      Yep, and some have a lot more or less potential ahead of them, as well as "soft power", social capital and so on. But in any case, with longer lifespans, many/most won't see inheritance until their 50s, 60s, even 70s, long past what are arguably the most expensive years (buying a home, raising kids and so on). Maybe in time to pay college fees, depending on when they have kids. Even for the relatively wealthy, it's the luck of the draw - healthcare and senior care costs many hundreds of thousands for some, and virtually nothing for others.