Last week, a chart from a WSJ article went viral. The chart showed that Americans under 35 suffered a greater than 20% decrease in real (inflation-adjusted) net worth between 2022 and 2025, while those 75 and older benefited from a nearly 40% increase.
These data points fed into the popular memes of the K‑shaped economy and Total Boomer Luxury Communism, the latter of which has merit, at least insofar as entitlements are concerned. But does the data in the chart really support these commonly held beliefs about the economy? Does it really demonstrate, for example, that older people are getting richer at the expense of younger people?
A careful look at the data suggests not.
[...]
...read more at cato.org
pull down to refresh
related posts
fake news.
fuck the boomers
They deserve nothing.
also, figure 2 is stupid. If you have almost nothing, and you're starting out in your career etc, managing to save a little bit more than nothing plus some real return in the housing/stock market, then AS A MATTER OF MECHANICAL MATHEMATICAL COURSE, the relative increase off the base of [almost zero] will be quite large
If figure 2 is meaningless, then figure 1 must be as well.
Eum, sure perhaps... I didn't give it too much attention. Say more?
They’re showing the same thing over different timespans. You think the problem is the thing, rather than the timespan.
Basically, percentage terms are misleading because they make it look like Boomers gained about the same amount that Millennials lost. Your point about the differences in baselines implies that Millennials never had enough stuff in the first place to explain Boomer gains. It’s like the problem with explaining the rise of the West as a result of plundering the rest of the world.
Ah ok, I think I see some of the discrepancy.
The title of figure 1 is incorrect to say "not statistically significant", I believe. (Threw me off)
Bottom line: Boomers didn't explicitly steal from the poor millennial (though technically, via social security taxes and payouts and Medicare in-kind benefits + other luxury boomer communism funded by taxes they definitely did), it's more of a relative multiple on equity/property than an outright expropriation.
And getting 60% wealthier on 1m assets is a way bigger deal than getting 85% wealthier on your 10k 401(k)
iirc, survey of consumer finances is a pretty small sample size, and a repeated cross section, not a panel. Measuring wealth changes on small samples / non-longitudinal data is pretty suss. I don't think we should take these numbers with any confidence, as the large CIs suggest.
Yeah, I suspected it was some bad origin for these numbers, too, but willing to cut the dudes some slack.
Co-sign
@0xbitcoiner
I think most of us disagree with Cato lol
Personally, I don't really have an opinion here, I don't know enough about the topic. It's great reading what people are saying, both pro and con. Just so we're clear: sharing doesn't mean I agree or disagree. I usually just share stuff cause I think it deserves a discussion!
Cato has lost so much credibility in the last 10 years, they say they are 'libertarian' but they are actually full of shit
Don't try to cloud the issue with facts. Fuck the boomers!
wait, aren't you a boomer? or are you gen X
I am a self hating boomer.
A late boomer
makes sense. you guys have a lot to answer for
those are not facts.
But yes, FUCK. THE. BOOMERS!
It is only because us Boomers did fuck, that you exist, you ungrateful Icelandic welfare parasite.
So yes, it is all our fault.
Cut all welfare payments to under 50s and Make America Great Again.
Now you go forth and procreate, if you can, which seems unlikely, and see where it gets you.
BTW, China won the trade war because neoliberalism is fundamentally flawed.