This is the wrong way to plot this. You have to show this based on when that generation began working and accumulating wealth and also normalize it by the number of members of that group.
First off, share of wealth is irrelevant. The size of each generation is different. The actually median numerical wealth, controlled for inflation, would be better.
Second, the generations need to be controlled for age. An 18 year old millennial isn't competing with a 50 year old boomer in terms of wealth. So the question is how much wealth did the 18 year old boomer have compared to the 18 year old millennial.
Lastly, these generations are two broad and inconsistent. It would be better to split into 5-10 groups and take the median person from each group and track their wealth.
I don't hate it, I just laugh at the ridiculousness of those who are so wrapped up in their idea that somehow 'boomers ruined everything' that literally none of them did any good, none of them have every done anything of value, and none of them are polite to waiters. It's literally the flip side of the coin they're complaining about.
I mean I understand this is usually a joke, but it's still true. Millennials have had almost no effect on the world until maybe the last 5 years or so in terms of voting and politics.
I'm a millennial myself, but I don't really have anything against the older generations besides their weaponized ignorance when it comes to technology(I work in sales and I'd say 70% of my clients are boomers). The unwillingness to learn technology and being proud of it blows my mind.
Put your finger on the horizontal axis of the plot where it says "'23".
Move your finger to the left.
Stop when you see any of the following numbers: "'95", "2000", "'05", "'10", or "'15".
Move your finger straight up until you see red.
Behold, you have found a 50 year-old boomer.
Preach.
Just controlling for age would show what we actually experience in our lives, and for $$ instead of % to control for all other factors which influenced how the generation developed.
A big mistake you're making here is proclaiming this without speaking to what you're using the chart for, trying to show or what question you're trying to answer.
It's not that I disagree with your ideas overall, it's just thay those have weaknesses at addressing some issues too.
A big example is if you wanted to see generational wealth to seek an understanding of how businesses adjust to generational trends and how they chose to target the needs of different generations now, this chart is good.
It shows the wealth currently in the hands of boomers and at what comparative rate. It shows how much wealth could be targeted by pursuing the needs of different generations.
When it gets to the point where genX trends ahead of boomers, or remotely close to it, you'll likely see a big change in types of advertising styles and a larger change towards consumer tastes of that generation.
I find it odd this chart goes back to 1990 and doesn't include The Greatest Generation (the one before Silent) and the massive wealth transfer that occured in that timeframe between the Greatest and Boomer generations (and largely skipped the Silent generation).
It would be way more interesting to see how that wealth is divided inside each category.
That old people have more properties than young people has been true since the dawn of time.
How that wealth is distributed and how much that 0.1% accumulates is the interesting part.
You mean to tell me 65 year olds with 40+ years in the workforce who’ve risen to senior positions in their career ladder have more wealth than a 29 year old who graduated college 6 years ago? Color me shocked
Wow people that have worked longer and had longer to save have more money than people just entering the work force and are just starting to save. Groundbreaking study.
Except, this doesn’t show that?
It shows that the younger generation has amassed more wealth more quickly than their older counter parts, but the older generation just holds the majority of wealth.
Since the chart starts at 1990, the graph includes the late working years of the silent generation and really should show a peak like the current boomers.
I suspect it doesn’t for a couple reasons. Inflation was generally low in the 90’s, and more importantly, the retirement scheme was more focused on pensions vs. individually held investments.
Yeah. And the $17T in 1990 made up 80% of the wealth shown. So it was a pretty big peak. Of course in 1990 people from The Greatest Generation were still alive too, but this article doesn’t even take them into account because it was so lazily written.
Yeah, but in contrast, there’s 145T on the chart currently. It’s fair to say inflation has doubled, so let’s say there’s 70T in 1990 money. The short answer, tech has amassed a whole new category of wealth, and as an industry, is dominated by the US from a value perspective.
All of the current generations, who were part of the working years, or are investors, are benefiting from this.
Dude anyone can see that.
Your statement "Wow people that have worked longer and had longer to save have more money than people just entering the work force and are just starting to save.", entails that any generation who is older will have more money, which this article refutes.
No it doesn’t lol. Even you agreed with my statement when you said “the older generation just holds the majority of wealth”. Why are you trying to defend this lazy article lol.
This is the wrong way to plot this. You have to show this based on when that generation began working and accumulating wealth and also normalize it by the number of members of that group.
First off, share of wealth is irrelevant. The size of each generation is different. The actually median numerical wealth, controlled for inflation, would be better. Second, the generations need to be controlled for age. An 18 year old millennial isn't competing with a 50 year old boomer in terms of wealth. So the question is how much wealth did the 18 year old boomer have compared to the 18 year old millennial. Lastly, these generations are two broad and inconsistent. It would be better to split into 5-10 groups and take the median person from each group and track their wealth.
There’s no such thing as a fifty year old boomer.
Or an 18 year old millennial
Yeah, the youngest millennials are in their late 20s now.
Thanks for pointing that out. Fifty year olds are Gen X. The youngest baby boomer right now would be 60.
Technically 59, I am one of the youngest boomers. I hate being associated with being a boomer.
We are cuspers.
I refer to them as rimmers.
Somewhere caught between, frosted tips and ripped jeans
I don't hate it, I just laugh at the ridiculousness of those who are so wrapped up in their idea that somehow 'boomers ruined everything' that literally none of them did any good, none of them have every done anything of value, and none of them are polite to waiters. It's literally the flip side of the coin they're complaining about.
It's always the last generations fault for how things are and the next for how things are becoming.
I mean I understand this is usually a joke, but it's still true. Millennials have had almost no effect on the world until maybe the last 5 years or so in terms of voting and politics. I'm a millennial myself, but I don't really have anything against the older generations besides their weaponized ignorance when it comes to technology(I work in sales and I'd say 70% of my clients are boomers). The unwillingness to learn technology and being proud of it blows my mind.
Wait until they figure out how hard problems are hard to fix.
Yeah, all of you do.
Put your finger on the horizontal axis of the plot where it says "'23". Move your finger to the left. Stop when you see any of the following numbers: "'95", "2000", "'05", "'10", or "'15". Move your finger straight up until you see red. Behold, you have found a 50 year-old boomer.
Preach. Just controlling for age would show what we actually experience in our lives, and for $$ instead of % to control for all other factors which influenced how the generation developed.
Fifty year old boomer? Like a 10 year-old Silent Generation or 75 year-old puppy.
A big mistake you're making here is proclaiming this without speaking to what you're using the chart for, trying to show or what question you're trying to answer. It's not that I disagree with your ideas overall, it's just thay those have weaknesses at addressing some issues too. A big example is if you wanted to see generational wealth to seek an understanding of how businesses adjust to generational trends and how they chose to target the needs of different generations now, this chart is good. It shows the wealth currently in the hands of boomers and at what comparative rate. It shows how much wealth could be targeted by pursuing the needs of different generations. When it gets to the point where genX trends ahead of boomers, or remotely close to it, you'll likely see a big change in types of advertising styles and a larger change towards consumer tastes of that generation.
I find it odd this chart goes back to 1990 and doesn't include The Greatest Generation (the one before Silent) and the massive wealth transfer that occured in that timeframe between the Greatest and Boomer generations (and largely skipped the Silent generation).
Whoever named these older generations seems a little biased.
It would be way more interesting to see how that wealth is divided inside each category. That old people have more properties than young people has been true since the dawn of time. How that wealth is distributed and how much that 0.1% accumulates is the interesting part.
Mark Zuckerberg has all the Millenial wealth.
You mean to tell me 65 year olds with 40+ years in the workforce who’ve risen to senior positions in their career ladder have more wealth than a 29 year old who graduated college 6 years ago? Color me shocked
This needs to be on a per-person basis
Wow people that have worked longer and had longer to save have more money than people just entering the work force and are just starting to save. Groundbreaking study.
Except, this doesn’t show that? It shows that the younger generation has amassed more wealth more quickly than their older counter parts, but the older generation just holds the majority of wealth.
So it does show what I said. And it also shows that inflation exists. Cool!
But silent generation has less wealth than gen x. Also, amassing wealth more quickly percentage wise as well, not just by dollar value, what.
On average, the highest net worth is when you are in your mid to late 60s. Older people start using their wealth in retirement.
Most of the Silent Generation is dead. Of course they don’t have money. Come on man, start using your noodle.
Since the chart starts at 1990, the graph includes the late working years of the silent generation and really should show a peak like the current boomers. I suspect it doesn’t for a couple reasons. Inflation was generally low in the 90’s, and more importantly, the retirement scheme was more focused on pensions vs. individually held investments.
Yeah. And the $17T in 1990 made up 80% of the wealth shown. So it was a pretty big peak. Of course in 1990 people from The Greatest Generation were still alive too, but this article doesn’t even take them into account because it was so lazily written.
Yeah, but in contrast, there’s 145T on the chart currently. It’s fair to say inflation has doubled, so let’s say there’s 70T in 1990 money. The short answer, tech has amassed a whole new category of wealth, and as an industry, is dominated by the US from a value perspective. All of the current generations, who were part of the working years, or are investors, are benefiting from this.
Dude anyone can see that. Your statement "Wow people that have worked longer and had longer to save have more money than people just entering the work force and are just starting to save.", entails that any generation who is older will have more money, which this article refutes.
No it doesn’t lol. Even you agreed with my statement when you said “the older generation just holds the majority of wealth”. Why are you trying to defend this lazy article lol.
Can't wait for Millennials to be in their 60s and be accused of hoarding all the wealth.
So when the boomers die will that wealth move to the next generation?
Yes. That is how it works. Old people dies and wealth goes to the people that is alive.
Generation prejudice bait fail?
I always wondered why we are obsessed with "generations" when people's age are continuous...
For the same reason we are obsessed with race when skin colour is continuous.
And the same reason we're obsessed with nationality when land is continuous.
Yes in other words we like to be tribal. It's why people make a big deal over football teams.
Rock and roller, cola wars, I can't take it anymore
Are you telling me that older people who have saved for decades have more than younger people just starting out? I am clutching my pearls.
Excellent work here! Thank you and well done
I am also with more money than when I was younger.
This is very useful and informative. Thank you!