> boomers Often used as a hateful word to justify some awful statement. It is mostly a synonym for retirees - something that hopefully we all have a chance to

> boomers Often used as a hateful word to justify some awful statement. It is mostly a synonym for retirees - something that hopefully we all have a chance to be. And for a fair comparison we need to compare our own future as retirees against the current cohort of retirees. I get it: "Baby Boomers owned 52% of the country’s net wealth despite comprising only 20% of the population" sounds terrible as an aggregate statistic. But individuals are not the group. It is hard to find a good statistic that is representative of a normal individual e.g. a median figure can be useful; yet a lot of American data is reported as averages per household (highly misleading). > people who have more wealth (talking about the majority of predominately the boomers, not the uber wealthy But the uber wealthy are what cause the problem with using aggregate statistics... The richest 1% of the global population owns approximately 82% of the world's wealth That's the issue, not the boomers. Retirees get fingered because they are an easy target, not because of any statistical facts. Don't you sometimes wonder if the things you say about boomers, will likely be said about you in a couple of decades by those younger than you? Perhaps consider those behind you, not just those in front. Disclosure: I'm not a boomer (and the label is somewhat nonsense in New Zealand anyways). Aside: I know millennials struggling to get a house, and I also know millennials that have got onto the housing ladder. There's no simple answer... Edit: "New figures show nearly 14% of all houses in Japan are empty" -- so maybe demographics will fix house prices in other countries (excepting high demand cities)?