It's just odd that the Gen X'rs seem singled out here, because the equivalent point in time for Boomers is still a steady rise. Not even a small dip.
Definitely an interesting difference. I'm going to guess it related to factors like longer-established investments, and more importantly not being at the bottom/middle of the totem pole in work, which will be cut first in tough times.
the dip for the boomers is that longish slight downturn shortly after the 55 median age range. Probably like 2009-2013 or so. Recession didn’t hit them as hard because they had more equity in their mortgages and more seniority in their jobs.They also would have been less likely to have taken on any subprime loans/mortgages than the gen-x folks.
there are still a lot of of silent generation folks chilling. Generally born up until 45 is considered silent gen.
There's still a decent amount of silent generation folks. Bernie and Biden are both from that generation.
easier to weather economic hard times when you already have a significant pad of capital, which people build up over time and boomers as a cohort likely had much more of than gen Xers at that time and at that time in their lives
Makes sense. A quick google shows 25m-ish Silent Generation as of 2017.
Yep a lot of gen x’ers at that point had just recently bought houses with, “ambitious” mortgage rates during the post 9/11 boom. Late 30s especially then were young families I’d assume also which is a notoriously expensive time in anyone’s life. Just a confluence of a bunch of factors (and culprits, notice I’m not even mentioning the criminal financial industry practices of the time).
Thanks for this genuine laugh in an otherwise wholly depressing thread.We are probably going to see the same thing in Canada as well, and possibly worse as Boomers account for a large proportion of our population. Hopefully at the close, Boomers will prove themselves less selfish than their lives to date have indicated and they will invest in a sustainable legacy rather than squander it on longevity and vanity.
The most common trend right now are elderly people selling off their wealth in order to find themselves in assisted living situations. That's not free and it's almost solely paid for by the profits of downsizing. The idea that children are going to inherit property comes with the mindset that the elderly are dying in their homes which isn't the case.
I mean, that's relative.
It would be life changing if I received that much now because it would allow me to get out of debt. But when I'm over 55 and approaching the end of my economic usefulness I'll need to save every penny to not end up in poverty before I die.
They are not date aligned, they are age aligned. There is a dip for boomers, top right. It's just smaller. This chart is just weird.
Medical costs usually eat up everything before death. My father passed from cancer a few years ago and we still owe money for mortgage payments, healthcare costs, etc. He worked six days a week for ~40 years and died with a negative balance in his bank account.
Outside of healthcare, those with money in retirement mostly just spend it all.
It’s all going to be spent on retirement homes and end of life care.
I think it makes a huge difference if you were able to start a career before the recession or not. My high school friend group spanned the gap (graduating between 2006 and 2012 mainly) and the ones that graduated before the recession are hugely more likely to have stable careers and own property.I'm curious how the data would look if you subdivided millennials into smaller groups, like born in the 80s vs born in the 90s. I and the millenials I grew up with seem to he doing fine - own homes even if a little later in life than our parents did, sizable student loan debt but privileged enough to be able to make the payments without living paycheck to paycheck. Of course my social group is partly determined by my privilege, but some of it is also just who was in my high school. I wonder if younger millennials are having an even tougher time of it than millennials as a whole?
A lot of it is, but then more of it gets handed down to their children, but it's not enough for them to actually do anything big like buying anything of major personal equity or retirement investments, so the cash gets spent on things like rent, or payments, things to get people out of debt. That money falls into the hands of other private owners and vendors. It won't be enough for people to stop working at what we consider to be retirement age, the jobs for elderly people won't exist due to automation and younger people demanding jobs, and the wealth deficit shrinks by almost a half AGAIN.
Also even if the property wealth were to just straight transfer, it’s going to be coming at a much later point in millennials’ lives, which means it will have less time to compound, which is one of the major points of this article.The most common trend right now are elderly people selling off their wealth in order to find themselves in assisted living situations. That's not free and it's almost solely paid for by the profits of downsizing. The idea that children are going to inherit property comes with the mindset that the elderly are dying in their homes which isn't the case.
In a lot of cases, mine included, the property we grew up in will be sold and half the proceeds will be gone, the remainder of which may, emphasis on may, help us get out of the debt that we've been under for 20-30 years, a situation leaving people receiving their inheritance with no credit and wealth, and while they have no debt, their situation is the same as it ever was, needing to work forever until they die.
The lucky ones get a small windfall from the proceeds or...as ghoulish as it sounds, do profit because their parents died in their homes with no further ambitions on what to do after retirement.
But most people are fucked.
And that's ignoring property that was bought cheap and never renovated, property that needs more work than is worth, property where the land is literally more valuable than the actual home on top of it...
The fact that your parents will die and give you their leftovers does not automatically put you at an advantage.
Shit that's depressing. I'm from the north but I lived in the deep south and Texas for a decade after Katrina. I know loads of people in their 30s in Mississippi, New Orleans, and East Texas who are able to afford a house. Know someone in Wilmington who bought a 3 br for 91,000. Where in the south are you?
Yup. Honestly, using the 300k example from earlier, that is a wonderful down payment for something meaningful for a family of 4 in your late 20's, early 30's. Getting it at 50 is just too late.
My grandmother passed away in September. She was in the nursing home for two months. It cost ~24K. If she had lived another year, her retirement accounts would have been completely drained.
Those thinking wealth will transfer in its entirety are fooling themselves. A lot of it will burn, quickly.
So basically, wealth concentration might actually spike as these people die off over the next 20 years.
This still doesn't make sense to me. If you're 50, you may already have a mortgage on a $300,000 home. You could now pay off that home entirely and have extra to pay off other debts or to put into retirement. In what world is $300,000 at age 50 "too late" to be significant?