Wish this would be adjusted for age. Obviously someone who had more time to accumulate wealth will have more wealth. The real question is how much wealth does each generation have at the same age.
It’s extremely simple. How many people are alive born before 1946? Not many compared to the other generations. Their wealth went to their boomer children.
True. Question is a bit how much wealth is in things and how much in money - some boomer owning a nice house and a vacation home is very wealthy, but might not necessarily have the liquidity to donate if they live on some relatively small pension.
Considering how little we’re going to get back when we sell it within the next few months before fleeing to the UK, I would say that I don’t think it’s wealth.
This is why I’ve been saying that we can’t expect the population to simply age out of conservatism. If that worked, it would have happened generations ago. Perhaps as far back as “cooking food over fire is making kids these days weak”.
“Boomers are turning this country to shit!”
GenX:
Wish this would be adjusted for age. Obviously someone who had more time to accumulate wealth will have more wealth. The real question is how much wealth does each generation have at the same age.
Then why Silent has so little?
It’s extremely simple. How many people are alive born before 1946? Not many compared to the other generations. Their wealth went to their boomer children.
I am working off of one bar and have no electricity but this research has been done. I think pew has it, but it might be at ITAR
It also matters at the time, as that’s a form of power. Guess who can donate seriously to political campaigns, for example.
True. Question is a bit how much wealth is in things and how much in money - some boomer owning a nice house and a vacation home is very wealthy, but might not necessarily have the liquidity to donate if they live on some relatively small pension.
Well this here GenXer wishes he could have some of that wealth. Unless ‘have a mortgage’ constitutes wealth.
Mortgage? No. Equity in a house? Yes.
Equity in a house is not all that helpful when the house is in an undesirable town in an undesirable state.
My point is just that a mortgage is debt while equity is an asset, so I don’t think you should consider a mortgage wealth.
Oh, I see. Yes, I agree.
It actually does. The amount paid off at least, since the property is the wealth.
Considering how little we’re going to get back when we sell it within the next few months before fleeing to the UK, I would say that I don’t think it’s wealth.
Isn’t the UK politics pretty similar to US?
In the sense that the UK isn’t likely to force my queer daughter into a conversion camp in the near future, no.
I would say it’s roughly equally likely
Right, because Labour, (and the Tories and the Lib Dems) are all totally homophobic just like Republicans.
What the fuck are you talking about?
This is why I’ve been saying that we can’t expect the population to simply age out of conservatism. If that worked, it would have happened generations ago. Perhaps as far back as “cooking food over fire is making kids these days weak”.