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

  • DeathbringerThoctar@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        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.