News

1762 readers

2 users here now

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

TeainSahara@lemmy.ml

Millennials on course to become ‘richest generation in history’ (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) by JoMiran@lemmy.ml to c/news@lemmy.ml

18 comments fedilink hide all child comments

SPOILER: Article assumes that Boomers will die and leave their wealth to Millenials.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] DeathbringerThoctar@lemmy.world 43 points 10 months ago (1 children)

[–] JoMiran@lemmy.ml 14 points 10 months ago (2 children)

I literally spit my coffee when I saw that headline.

[–] DeathbringerThoctar@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Had I been drinking mine at the time I would have as well. As is I scoffed hard enough to send me into a coughing fit.

[–] anarchrist@lemmy.dbzer0.com -2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I don't get why we're scoffing? Presumably many of the old leeches have millennial heirs who will turn around and continue leeching so the number will continue to go up. Unless, oh idk, the whole system were to suddenly explode for some reason

[–] DeathbringerThoctar@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

I'm scoffing because as a 35 year old millenial myself, it hardly feels like I'm the "richest generation" when I can't afford to heat my home and have to wait for my parents to die and divide their estate amongst me and my siblings before I have a meaningful shot at economic security.

Edit: spelling.

[–] anarchrist@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Right but cumulatively it's the same pot of money. I'm not arguing we're not poor, just that this article is dumb.

[–] DeathbringerThoctar@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago

Oh I agree the article is dumb. That's why I'm scoffing at it.

What I'm saying is that my parents will probably be alive another 15 years. If I get that inheritance then I'll be 50 or more. That's 15 years from what's generally considered retirement age (like I'll get to retire), and 30 or less from my life expectancy. Even if I get be 'rich' for a few decades, I'll still have spent the majority of my life poor.

In totality, I would not be considered a rich person, but a poor one who got some money in the end. That feels like an extremely important distinction to me.

This is of course all leaving out the inherent issues with generational wealth accumulation and the effects it has on economic disparity. As previously agreed, the article is dumb.

[–] ChocoboRocket@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Any chance this wealth is a byproduct of inflation?

Both the value of the dollar, and its purchasing power are heavily eroded over time.

Someone making 10k a year is pretty wealthy when a home is $4,000 in the year 1900

Someone making 80K a year is relatively broke when a home costs 600K in the year 2024 (should cost 32k by comparison)

Let alone everything else that skyrockets in price as wages crawl