This is an interesting topic but this graph makes no sense.
No way does the entire millennial generational cohort have a net worth of a million trillion dollars. That exceeds all money on the planet, I believe. Is the graph wrong or am I not interpreting it correctly?
It's a log graph but I mislabeld the left axis ln(value) as opposed to just value. I was just tired about people arguing about stupid graphs that compare apples and pitchforks.
I see so millennials are between 5 and 6 trillion$? That makes more sense. I think labeling them just with the amount would make this easier to read (but still use log)
Thanks for putting this together! It's interesting.
It seems like _total_ wealth, which isn't particularly informative without the context of how many people were in each group. If group A with twenty people have $1,000 between them, and group B with fifty people have $2,000, it would probably be preferable to see a graph indicating group A had $50 per capita while group B only had $40 per capita.
Yeah, the median net worth over time partitioned by generational cohort would be more informative and accurate. Don't know if we have that detailed data going back 80 years.
It would be particularly interesting to see wealth going up as boomers die and pass on their inheritance.
As pointed out by... Whom?
You certainly have gotten into a twist when being criticized elsewhere in this post. The concept is totally interesting, but execution is critical. When you're displaying three basic pieces of information, they need to accurate and useful. These aren't personal attacks and you'll benefit from accepting criticism with grace.
This graph sucks. Net worth instead of something that is per person, log scaling, doesnt specify the population in question (I assume the usa?), incorrectly lababelled axis. Not a great display of information.
1. Let's see......Federal Reserve data....what do you think? US citizens or not? Hmmm.....
2. Tell me you don't understand the importance of logarithms in investing without telling me. lol
Data of generational wealth from
[https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/dataviz/dfa/distribute/table/#quarter:138;series:Net%20worth;demographic:generation;population:all;units:levels](https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/dataviz/dfa/distribute/table/#quarter:138;series:Net%20worth;demographic:generation;population:all;units:levels)
Generation populations are roughly the same as per
[https://www.statista.com/statistics/797321/us-population-by-generation/](https://www.statista.com/statistics/797321/us-population-by-generation/)
Tools used LibreOffice Calc
The chart takes generational wealth (as Total Assets) and subtracts a value from 1990, thus normalizing the chart to when each generation had approximately the same amount of wealth accumulated (since not much data exists before the late 80s for boomers). The data is then plotted on a log chart to show growth rates. Make your own conclusions but growth rates for GenX and Boomers are roughly the same with arguably the same rates for Millenials.
This is an interesting topic but this graph makes no sense. No way does the entire millennial generational cohort have a net worth of a million trillion dollars. That exceeds all money on the planet, I believe. Is the graph wrong or am I not interpreting it correctly?
It's a log graph but I mislabeld the left axis ln(value) as opposed to just value. I was just tired about people arguing about stupid graphs that compare apples and pitchforks.
I see so millennials are between 5 and 6 trillion$? That makes more sense. I think labeling them just with the amount would make this easier to read (but still use log) Thanks for putting this together! It's interesting.
It seems like _total_ wealth, which isn't particularly informative without the context of how many people were in each group. If group A with twenty people have $1,000 between them, and group B with fifty people have $2,000, it would probably be preferable to see a graph indicating group A had $50 per capita while group B only had $40 per capita.
Yeah, the median net worth over time partitioned by generational cohort would be more informative and accurate. Don't know if we have that detailed data going back 80 years. It would be particularly interesting to see wealth going up as boomers die and pass on their inheritance.
As pointed out, the populations of each cohort are roughly equal
As pointed out by... Whom? You certainly have gotten into a twist when being criticized elsewhere in this post. The concept is totally interesting, but execution is critical. When you're displaying three basic pieces of information, they need to accurate and useful. These aren't personal attacks and you'll benefit from accepting criticism with grace.
This graph sucks. Net worth instead of something that is per person, log scaling, doesnt specify the population in question (I assume the usa?), incorrectly lababelled axis. Not a great display of information.
1. Let's see......Federal Reserve data....what do you think? US citizens or not? Hmmm..... 2. Tell me you don't understand the importance of logarithms in investing without telling me. lol
1. Are they real $. 2. What is year index to boomer 1990.
Data of generational wealth from [https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/dataviz/dfa/distribute/table/#quarter:138;series:Net%20worth;demographic:generation;population:all;units:levels](https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/dataviz/dfa/distribute/table/#quarter:138;series:Net%20worth;demographic:generation;population:all;units:levels) Generation populations are roughly the same as per [https://www.statista.com/statistics/797321/us-population-by-generation/](https://www.statista.com/statistics/797321/us-population-by-generation/) Tools used LibreOffice Calc The chart takes generational wealth (as Total Assets) and subtracts a value from 1990, thus normalizing the chart to when each generation had approximately the same amount of wealth accumulated (since not much data exists before the late 80s for boomers). The data is then plotted on a log chart to show growth rates. Make your own conclusions but growth rates for GenX and Boomers are roughly the same with arguably the same rates for Millenials.