“Wealth is aging.” in some manner over and over and over again... OECD, academics, ECB etc showing the thing, older cohorts control a seriously disproportionate share of national wealth. Doesn't matter if it's USA, Canada, NZ/AUS, EU etc.. Homeownership is flat for the young, rising for the elderly. Rising mortgage leverage for the young, falling for the elderly. Debt-to-income ratios are very high for younger cohorts, again on the front page it shows up weekly in some flavour of the U.S. and U.K. with student loans + mortgages- in Canada it’s primarily mortgages + consumer debt. Everywhere globally, younger folks are face considerably higher prices (inflated?) relative to income, an environment of tighter lending, and again... much higher student debt in us and uk (I suppose education less so in parts Europe and Canada, yet consumer debt there is rampant).
And young people are not having kids at all.
What's to be done? I really ask: What's to be done about it?
Good reading: https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/06/modigliani-lectur...
There's a document that gets posted every so often here called The Return Rate on Everything. In it, it says that the returns on capital outweigh economic growth, meaning capital gets more concentrated, at all times except during war.
So the answer to your question would seem to be 'war'.
I'd not seen it, thank you kindly for sharing. :)
As the saying goes, it’s easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.
property/estate taxes which will be directed to safety nets for youth: medical insurance, education, childcare, foodstamp and 1br with public transit to business centers. This will propel access to opportunities for youth by XX times, and also crash housing market and cool down stock market.
So tax the wealthy / old higher. Increase social safety nets. Increase wages. Give all employees equity. Stop share buy backs. Force CEO to median / lowest employee comp maximums. Break up monopolies. Make school cheap / free. Build more housing. Stop monocropping.
I can go on and on with ideas but I think the political will / capture prevents this so I guess we’ll just topple over instead.
As far as stocks and bonds go, I thought the HN readership was into that. Can’t penalize somebody who has the advantage of time re equity growth on the basis of age. If you want to be fair, again, tax wealth.
As a data point, the typical social security from somebody who was in a pink collar profession is like $1500-2000/month. Somebody who maxed out social retiring at 70 gets like $5100/month. Assuming they can cover expenses until 70. These numbers are partially taxable.
Not exactly accurate. The costs of being old at the same QoL and for the same lifespan as a 65+ person in 1935 is probably cheaper than it's ever been.
The problem is we're living much longer and our QoL is higher and "healthcare" to achieve that is stupendously expensive.
Show me the demographics of these countries. Are babies being born at rates assumed by their old-age social safety nets? Or even above replacement rate?
Editing as I can’t reply to reply below. Births are drains on the system for 18-28 years. Canadian immigrants must pass a points based system that biases towards needs. such people can pay their taxes from arrival. Refugees aren’t quite the same, but I don’t know the correct labels for the difference.
so not births.
Immigrants as a group in both Canada and Germany are net negative "taxpayers"
https://www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de/en/topics/latest-news/20...
https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/306683/1/GLO-DP-1530...
In Canada, economic immigrants are net positive while refugees and sponsored (family reunion) immigrants are net negative.
https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/102505/1/MPRA_paper_102505.p...
To me, though, these seem like effects rather than causes. In other words, the older age group has enough money to afford these things. I doubt that the oldest age group is somehow vastly better than others at picking stocks to buy; their stock portfolios are larger because they have more money to invest in the same stock market as everyone else, right? And according to the last chart in the paper, on the final page, the home ownership rate of the under 35 group is close to the same in 2022 as it was in 1983, though it dropped lower in 2016.
Thus, I get the impression that the first factor mentioned in the summary, mortgage debt, may be the main driver. In other words, presumably, it's taking much more for the youngest group to pay off their mortgages than it did for the oldest group, because the price of housing has increased significantly. And money going into mortgage payments is money not going into other investments such as stock.
> Summary and Concluding Remarks
> The paper focuses on the slippage in the net worth ratio among households under age 35 relative to all households between 1983 and 2022 and its phenomenal rise among households aged 75 and over. Based on differential leverage between the two groups (the much higher debt- net worth ratio among younger families compared to older ones), we would have expected exactly the opposite – namely, that the net worth of younger households should have risen relative to older ones. Indeed, the average real rate of return on net worth of the youngest age group over years 1983-2022 was 5.67 percent while that of the oldest was 3.29 percent. What factors explain these seemingly perverse results?
> The first is increasing net home equity for the elderly. The increase in the ratio of mean net home equity to the overall level over 1983- 2022 explains a substantial 38.3 percent of the relative gain in net worth of the 75 and over age group but very little for that of the youngest group. The second is surging mortgage debt among the youngest households. This explains 297 percent (.160/.054), of the actual decline in the group’s mean net worth ratio – that, is almost three times the actual decline. Its relative decline also accounts for a significant 35.2 percent of the increase in the oldest group’s mean net worth ratio. However, it should be stressed that these results are not additive across the various factors considered in the analysis
> Third, the homeownership rate might well be close to a “smoking gun” for the oldest age group. It shoots up by 11.5 percentage points for this group, and the group’s relative wealth holdings expand by a sizeable 50.4 percent. Likewise, relative to the overall average homeownership rate, that of the oldest enlarges by 8.9 percentage points from 6.0 to 14.9 percent. The fourth is the fantastic growth in stock holdings among the oldest age group, which could constitute another smoking gun. The value of the group’s stock portfolio relative to the overall average skyrockets from 0.56 to 3.47, which accords with the sharp increase in its relative net worth, and accounts for a staggering 269 percent of its gain in net worth relative to the overall average.
> Fifth, among the youngest age group, despite dire press reports, educational loans fail to appear as a significant factor. As a fraction of overall mean student debt, it actually fell from 2.45 in 2007 (the first date of available data) to 1.66 in 2022, so that the trend is contrary to that of the group’s relative net worth. Moreover, subtracting the change in the group’s mean educational debt over 2007- 2022 from its 2007 net worth ratio lowers the group’s mean net worth ratio by a rather trivial 0.006. 24 References Bricker, Jesse, Jacob Krimmel, Alice Henri
What do you mean exactly by buying new homes?
Obviously the average length of home ownership for the oldest group would be much longer than for the youngest age group. How new were their homes when they were first purchased, and has that number changed over time? I have no idea. But if the value of older homes is increasing, it means that someone is purchasing those older homes.
> or investing in new equities
If I'm reading the tables right, it looks like the oldest group received their largest jump in net worth during 2019-2022 and actually did worse than all other groups in 2016-2019.
> If I'm reading the tables right, it looks like the oldest group received their largest jump in net worth during 2019-2022 and actually did worse than all other groups in 2016-2019.
I didn't dig into it too much, but the SP500 did better during the former period.
A home doesn't inherently appreciate over time, like a fine wine. Aside from remodeling, the only thing that increases the value of a home over time is increased demand for homes relative to supply, which was my original point: "the price of housing has increased significantly."
> the only thing that increases the value of a home over time is increased demand for homes relative to supply, which was my original point: "the price of housing has increased significantly."
At the risk of sounding obvious, yes, the value of housing is directly derived from how the market prices it.
When housing prices go up, the net worth of the people who own housing goes up. Most of the time, the prices have been going up. So the people who have the most time in the market are the most to benefit. When boomers were having children, the median home was around $100k. The average boomer who bought a home on a 30yr mortgage, had kids, and is now retiring, has $400k equity.
That's not particularly interesting though. The rate at which prices go up is crucial, especially in comparison with wages. If the price of housing increases faster than wages, then home buyers will end up with less disposable and investable income than before.
We're not talking about why older people are wealthier than younger people. We're talking about why the gap has increased.
Again, this is why the inflation rates of housing vs. wages is crucial.
And it's important to note that a highly significant factor on the demand side is the availability of mortgage loans at low rates because the government prints money to fund them.
And a highly significant factor on the supply side is many highly desirable localities intentionally restricting the supply of housing.
This is not true at all. People over 60 bought ~46% of homes.
https://www.nar.realtor/research-and-statistics/research-rep...
Net worth is a weird number for many people to interpret because it is pretty intangible -- most can't cash it out.
This threshold has about doubled since 2010, which should not be too surprising as house prices more than doubled and the S&P500 increased six fold in the last 15 years.
edit: seems like I'm wrong
More stats (including other decile cutoffs, mean and median with within the deciles) can be found here: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/categories/33001
But then what of it? I had more money at age 20 than I did at 15, more at 25 than 20, more at 30 than 25, and so on and so forth.
When I'm 70 I'll have more in real terms than I do now. Each year, barring some sort of disaster, most people work and bring in enough to survive whilst the surplus stacks up.
The main difference in my mind driving the rate of change in the proportions is just that the median person is more aware of things like the stock market, real estate, etc, now.
Basically, people are acting more efficiently. I'm more savvy than my parents were; they are/were proper working class "spend it as soon as it comes in, it might be gone" whereas I'm more like "never touch the capital, diversify".
(There are some issues, like how in the UK pensioners are given _extremely_ generous benefits, but I don't think that's relevant to the global picture).
ahmeneeroe-v2•17h ago
throwway120385•17h ago
ahmeneeroe-v2•17h ago
Unfortunately the Ponzi scheme only works if the population keeps growing, but young people can't make families work in part because they subsidize the old.
HankStallone•17h ago
But I still figure the Boomers will bankrupt it just in time for the checks to stop around my 62th birthday, or maybe that's when they'll start bumping the age up to stay ahead.
throw__away7391•17h ago
jonny_eh•17h ago
pdntspa•17h ago
ahmeneeroe-v2•17h ago
kube-system•17h ago
ahmeneeroe-v2•17h ago
kube-system•17h ago
The demographic issues are a consequence of political choices, e.g. the way we prevent working age people from coming to this country to pay into the system. (and now, kick some of them out).. but also, the ways that choose not to enable families to comfortably have children.
ahmeneeroe-v2•16h ago
kube-system•16h ago
I don't know what "proof" you have but remember that the economic impacts of demographic shifts are pretty broad, so I would suggest you validate that your source is taking that into account, and isn't intentionally biased for political reasons. The overwhelmingly predominant economic opinion is that immigration is very valuable in growing a country's wealth.
maerF0x0•17h ago
They can pay everyone $2000 a month, if a loaf of bread is $2000 if you catch my drift.
mathiaspoint•17h ago
It's got to go. It's a shame people were lied to but the reality is we can't keep things the way they are.
sarchertech•17h ago
Analemma_•17h ago
darth_avocado•17h ago
kube-system•17h ago
ahmeneeroe-v2•17h ago
kube-system•17h ago
ahmeneeroe-v2•17h ago
kube-system•17h ago
Boomers might have a bunch of wealth on paper when you count the value of their deferred-maintenance post-war home, and their 401k that is invested in a tech bubble -- but if their home burns down and the markets crash, even 'rich' boomers need a rent check on the first of the month.
Not to mention, that means testing also places burdens on the poorest among us that can be insurmountable for some.
A social safety net that doesn't catch these people is worthless, as it fails the entire point of having one instead of relying on private retirements.
ahmeneeroe-v2•17h ago
Everything has a cost. The cost of social security outweighs the benefit.
kube-system•16h ago
ahmeneeroe-v2•16h ago
Also SS is 12.4% (employer + employee) and medicare is another 2.9% (employer + employee).
kube-system•16h ago
There's a lot of research out there that answers that question. There are many reasons for declining birth rates, and those include cultural changes, changes an expectations of the standard of living, changes in family planning priorities.
If you really want to know the true answer to this, you don't need to ask a tax advisor or a politician, you need to ask a sociologist.
ilamont•17h ago
See https://www.aarp.org/social-security/americans-depend-on-soc...
ahmeneeroe-v2•17h ago
sarchertech•17h ago
ahmeneeroe-v2•16h ago
kube-system•16h ago
ahmeneeroe-v2•16h ago
Yes do all of those things. Demographics are destiny. We need young people to have kids.
kube-system•15h ago
Social Security would be completely solvent if we didn't make poor people pay to support other poor people, and instead tax rich people for it. It's built on a regressive tax, and the wealthy don't pay jack shit.
ahmeneeroe-v2•15h ago
So we actually agree. Let's not make poor youngs (nearly all of them) pay for olds (rich or poor).
I think we should eliminate this sub-optimal situation immediately based on the harm to the payors.
kube-system•15h ago
The problem is, this implies that whatever system you're advocating for must force people to prove that they're poor. These requirements don't come out of the sky and get magically enacted by some fairy, they're gonna be an active by bureaucratic process. That's a non-starter because then the system isn't universal anymore. It only serves people that are able to reach that bar. The poorest and most destitute among us, lack the ability to produce documentation. Many are disabled, uneducated, destitute, have dementia, or any number of other problems that affect the people who need help the most.
It should be easy for anyone who's paid into Social Security to get their benefits back out of Social Security. They shouldn't need to prove anything else.
The easiest situation is to just force people who make more than $176,100 to pay their fair share.
msgodel•16h ago
jandrewrogers•17h ago
The caveat is that your pension payout reflects lifetime earnings, not your income when you are elderly.
Analemma_•17h ago
But right now it's exactly the opposite: the dependency ratio is cratering, people can live on SS for decades, and the Boomers are hugely rich while their grandchildren can't afford a house. We desperately need to completely invert Social Security and instead have massive wealth transfers from the old to the young. But that's politically quite impossible, so this perverse situation remains.
ahmeneeroe-v2•17h ago
RhysU•17h ago
Free public schooling through 12th grade is one such transfer.
SirFatty•17h ago
mindslight•16h ago
RickJWagner•8h ago