Hacker News Reader

Comment by LanceH | Hacker News Reader

26.9% of wealth distributed amongst 26.8% of households -- firm grip indeed.

Right: the story seems to be "Gen X catches up"

That’s not even good given where genX should be in terms of wealth accumulation vs, say, 20 year olds.

It always depends on with whom you're comparing. Millennials hold less than 5% of wealth despite comprising almost 30% of households, and until very recently, Gen X were mostly grouped with Millennials, in contrast with Boomers and older.

The "news" is that Gen X is joining the other groups, pulling away from Millennials.

The article even mentions how boomers still have 50% of the wealth despite comprising just 33% of the population. I guess we really are slackers compared to them.

I don't think having more wealth per capita is unreasonable, unexpected or unfair. In life you acquire things over time (capital, skills, experience, relationships), you get more of this the more time passes so it's to be expected that older generations just have more of everything (maybe except health and energy, can't really buy biology, not yet).

The numbers that we _should_ be looking at is not how much they have vs how many they are (ie the wealth per capita) but wealth per capita at different stages in their life vs same stages in other generation's lives. Compare how much wealth per capita boomers had in their mid twienties, mid thirdies, etc compared to younger generation. I feel those comparisons are much more fair and telling (and yes, AFAIK, there is a discrepancy that makes it seem unfair).

That's all? I'd have thought more. And it makes perfect sense since "boomers" they have worked for 50+ years to expand their wealth. Think about it for a little bit -- older generations should have more wealth than younger generations if things are working correctly.

The relevant comparison is "at the same age", and boomers still come out pretty far ahead. They had more when, say, they were in their 40ies.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com