3 ms·

> the wealth is unequal, sure Do you really understand just how unequal it is? Most Americans vastly underestimate it [0]. And that's from 2013; inequality ha

> the wealth is unequal, sure Do you really understand just how unequal it is? Most Americans vastly underestimate it [0]. And that's from 2013; inequality has rapidly worsened since. Do you understand the effects of that inequality? > look at how much better the human quality of life is compared to even 50 years ago. I don't think this is true. There is quality of life in owning a house, a family house. There is quality of life in having job security. There is quality of life in feeling safe letting your kids go outside in an urban environment. There is quality of life in not having record proportions of your populace behind bars. There is quality of life in being able to weather illness without filing for medical bankruptcy. There is quality of life in being able to support a family with an average wage. Etc. 0 - https://web.archive.org/web/20191016221950/http://www.people.hbs.edu/mnorton/norton%20ariely%20in%20press.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20191016221950/http://www.people...

Epa095 2y ago
Yeah, but did they have microwave ovens and Netflix? /s
abnercoimbre 2y ago
I admire your restraint while responding. Saying "at least you're not a feudal lord's slave!" is the most uninspiring argument by the intellectually lazy status quo apologists. (I'm sure the parent isn't in this category, so I'm speaking in general.)
gonzobonzo 2y ago
> Do you really understand just how unequal it is? But the above blog post and study you linked to are misleading as well. For instance, wealth gets vastly skewed by age. The average net worth for people 65-75 is almost 10 times the average net worth of someone under 35[1]. For anyone who knows anything about investing, this isn't very surprising. Steady investment will cause people's savings to grow drastically from when they start to when they retire. A vulgar look at the numbers can have people saying "person A has 10 times the wealth of person B!", without considering that person B will also reach the level of person A when they get to the same age. That's not to say that age alone would simply explain all of the inequality in society, but it's a major factor and an example of why you need to actually dive into the data rather than running with the baseline numbers. When it gets ignored it's likely people are pushing a polemic and aren't genuinely interested in what's happening. [1] https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/finance/average-net-worth-by-age https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/finance/average-net-worth...
- mandmandam 2y ago
  > The average net worth for people 65-75 is almost 10 times the average net worth of someone under 35[1]. Is that because they're older? Or is it because when 70 yo's were young they could go through college on part time work, buy a house with an average wage, and then have that house skyrocket in value because housing was turned into an investment vehicle? Dig into those statistics, and look at how much of the €400k net worth is tied up in their homes, homes which they owned outright at 25-27 years old. That's unimaginable today. People that age are living with their parents. Look at those statistics and compare the median to the average - the distribution is extremely skewed - you could even call it 'unequal'. 'Record levels of inequality' even. Age isn't as much of a factor as the 'nerdwallet' blog seems to think; and to the degree to which it is, is a natural consequence of having had more time to work and invest during a boom period, then having a certain generation and class of people 'pull up the ladder' after them.
  - gonzobonzo 2y ago
    > Is that because they're older? Honest question, but do you know much about investing? The investment curve isn't linear. Someone making steady contributions should have around 10 times the amount of wealth at age 67 than they do at age 30 [1]. Millennials have more wealth than previous generations _at_ _the_ _same_ _age_[2]. Generation Z is earning even more than millennials _at_ _the_ _same_ _age_[3]. If you have evidence for why we should dismiss age cohorts, feel free to share it. All of the data I've seen shows that it's extremely important, and people who intentionally ignore it are pushing a narrative that doesn't match reality. [1] https://www.fidelity.com/viewpoints/retirement/how-much-do-i-need-to-retire https://www.fidelity.com/viewpoints/retirement/how-much-do-i... [2] https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2024/04/16/generation-z-is-unprecedentedly-rich https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2024/04/16/g... [3] https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2024/04/16/generation-z-is-unprecedentedly-rich https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2024/04/16/g...
    - mandmandam 2y ago
      > Someone making steady contributions should have around 10 times the amount of wealth at age 67 than they do at age 30. What part of that justifies or explains away record inequality? > Millennials have more wealth than previous generations _at_ _the_ _same_ _age_[2]. Generation Z is earning even more than millennials _at_ _the_ _same_ _age_[3]. Hm - might that be because they live with their parents and can't afford kids? Or because they're sharing an apartment with 5 other people, and having a lot less fun in their life (aka, quality of life). And are we ignoring the difference between average and median when cherry-picking statistics? > If you have evidence for why we should dismiss age cohorts, feel free to share it. My argument isn't that we should ignore age. I never said that. No one said that. It's that even accounting for age, however you want to do that, there's an extremely problematic level of inequality. America has 10 million hungry children. Half a million people claim medical bankruptcy every year. There's no excuse for that - and now a cabal of billionaires is gutting Medicaid to help pay for a $4tn tax break mostly for the top 1%. As of 2023, the top 1% of U.S. households held 30% of the nation's wealth, while the bottom 50% possessed just 2.6%. This is all deeply psychotic. It's perverse and abnormal in the extreme; and no, it's not explained away by age demographics. It's very intentional bipartisan policy, inflicted against the will of a large majority of Americans.
scarface_74 2y ago
One issue with owning a home is that it makes it harder to move where the jobs are. The US puts too much emphasis on homeownership for wealth creation.

Epa095 2y ago

Yeah, but did they have microwave ovens and Netflix? /s

abnercoimbre 2y ago

I admire your restraint while responding. Saying "at least you're not a feudal lord's slave!" is the most uninspiring argument by the intellectually lazy status quo apologists. (I'm sure the parent isn't in this category, so I'm speaking in general.)

gonzobonzo 2y ago

> Do you really understand just how unequal it is? But the above blog post and study you linked to are misleading as well. For instance, wealth gets vastly skewed by age. The average net worth for people 65-75 is almost 10 times the average net worth of someone under 35[1]. For anyone who knows anything about investing, this isn't very surprising. Steady investment will cause people's savings to grow drastically from when they start to when they retire. A vulgar look at the numbers can have people saying "person A has 10 times the wealth of person B!", without considering that person B will also reach the level of person A when they get to the same age. That's not to say that age alone would simply explain all of the inequality in society, but it's a major factor and an example of why you need to actually dive into the data rather than running with the baseline numbers. When it gets ignored it's likely people are pushing a polemic and aren't genuinely interested in what's happening. [1] https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/finance/average-net-worth-by-age https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/finance/average-net-worth...

mandmandam 2y ago
> The average net worth for people 65-75 is almost 10 times the average net worth of someone under 35[1]. Is that because they're older? Or is it because when 70 yo's were young they could go through college on part time work, buy a house with an average wage, and then have that house skyrocket in value because housing was turned into an investment vehicle? Dig into those statistics, and look at how much of the €400k net worth is tied up in their homes, homes which they owned outright at 25-27 years old. That's unimaginable today. People that age are living with their parents. Look at those statistics and compare the median to the average - the distribution is extremely skewed - you could even call it 'unequal'. 'Record levels of inequality' even. Age isn't as much of a factor as the 'nerdwallet' blog seems to think; and to the degree to which it is, is a natural consequence of having had more time to work and invest during a boom period, then having a certain generation and class of people 'pull up the ladder' after them.
- gonzobonzo 2y ago
  > Is that because they're older? Honest question, but do you know much about investing? The investment curve isn't linear. Someone making steady contributions should have around 10 times the amount of wealth at age 67 than they do at age 30 [1]. Millennials have more wealth than previous generations _at_ _the_ _same_ _age_[2]. Generation Z is earning even more than millennials _at_ _the_ _same_ _age_[3]. If you have evidence for why we should dismiss age cohorts, feel free to share it. All of the data I've seen shows that it's extremely important, and people who intentionally ignore it are pushing a narrative that doesn't match reality. [1] https://www.fidelity.com/viewpoints/retirement/how-much-do-i-need-to-retire https://www.fidelity.com/viewpoints/retirement/how-much-do-i... [2] https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2024/04/16/generation-z-is-unprecedentedly-rich https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2024/04/16/g... [3] https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2024/04/16/generation-z-is-unprecedentedly-rich https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2024/04/16/g...
  - mandmandam 2y ago
    > Someone making steady contributions should have around 10 times the amount of wealth at age 67 than they do at age 30. What part of that justifies or explains away record inequality? > Millennials have more wealth than previous generations _at_ _the_ _same_ _age_[2]. Generation Z is earning even more than millennials _at_ _the_ _same_ _age_[3]. Hm - might that be because they live with their parents and can't afford kids? Or because they're sharing an apartment with 5 other people, and having a lot less fun in their life (aka, quality of life). And are we ignoring the difference between average and median when cherry-picking statistics? > If you have evidence for why we should dismiss age cohorts, feel free to share it. My argument isn't that we should ignore age. I never said that. No one said that. It's that even accounting for age, however you want to do that, there's an extremely problematic level of inequality. America has 10 million hungry children. Half a million people claim medical bankruptcy every year. There's no excuse for that - and now a cabal of billionaires is gutting Medicaid to help pay for a $4tn tax break mostly for the top 1%. As of 2023, the top 1% of U.S. households held 30% of the nation's wealth, while the bottom 50% possessed just 2.6%. This is all deeply psychotic. It's perverse and abnormal in the extreme; and no, it's not explained away by age demographics. It's very intentional bipartisan policy, inflicted against the will of a large majority of Americans.

scarface_74 2y ago

One issue with owning a home is that it makes it harder to move where the jobs are. The US puts too much emphasis on homeownership for wealth creation.