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.