fp.

Can’t read article. 30 years more time in the market, through some good times? That and inflation run up for house value. Don’t think boomers at 35 were doing that well.

quantified•5mo ago

They were simply fine, like everyone else should be.

Run up in house values was a bad thing. Houses as investments (better than inflation) makes no sense unless you know the game is rigged.

jleyank•5mo ago

Unless you bought in before the market exploded, such as tech nodes appearing, etc. there’s various areas that have developed in the last 30 years from little. And you can leverage the equity in one’s house and successful investors gained more scratch. There’s been some big market sloshes and hitting things somewhat in sync makes money. So does hitting a successful startup.

toomuchtodo•5mo ago

Luck and time.

quantified•5mo ago

Archive: [https://archive.ph/2025.08.25-165417/https://www.bloomberg.c...]

al_borland•5mo ago

Of course they do. People need to stop comparing their beginning and middle to other people’s end.

From the graph, and some of the article, it seems 35 and under aren’t doing worse, they are better off than they used to be. It’s just that the boomers are doing even better, because they were the first generation to have 401ks to invest in.

It’s no secret that investments are going to grow more the older and later they get. The last 5 years of your 401k investment is going to be much more impressive than your first 5 years. That’s simple compound interest, which the current under 35s will see in a few decades, when the new under 35 generation is complaining about how good that group had it.

I’m in my mid-40s and am now starting to see the benefits of compounding over the last 20 years of working and investing into my 401k. These things take time.