Boomers' Billion-Dollar Bonanza: The Unseen Hoarding Behind Millennial Struggles

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To the person above: where I live, there are a lot of older boomer women who have literally never worked a day in their lives. they spend their days going to bible studies and out to eat, swimming at the y and bragging about their grandchildren. I had never read an obituary before for someone who had never worked. They are strange.

So yes, I do think it's wrong that the government provides free healthcare to women who have never worked a day in their lives, while children go without. I don't buy the argument that everything every boomer has is because they earned it, and that they have earned so much more than the rest of us.

and suggesting that since they suffered we should suffer to sounds a bit like those people that try to justify fraternity hazings. Just make the system better. don't think that because you put up with it, we should put up with it too.

How is that different from wealthy Millennial women who don't work because their husbands make a great deal of money. They do exist all across the affluent spectrum of DC.

I must say your post reeks of jealousy. I can read between the lines. Which is funny given that swimming at the Y and going to Bible studies is very middle class, not affluent. And I'm sure there's a regional factor at play, especially if in the South.

And when you say you have never read an obituary before of someone who'd never worked, I find it surprising given it was the *norm* for middle class women not to work until the 70s and even in my 80s-90s childhood, a good percentage, typically around 25% if not a bit more, of married women with children didn't work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To the person above: where I live, there are a lot of older boomer women who have literally never worked a day in their lives. they spend their days going to bible studies and out to eat, swimming at the y and bragging about their grandchildren. I had never read an obituary before for someone who had never worked. They are strange.

So yes, I do think it's wrong that the government provides free healthcare to women who have never worked a day in their lives, while children go without. I don't buy the argument that everything every boomer has is because they earned it, and that they have earned so much more than the rest of us.

and suggesting that since they suffered we should suffer to sounds a bit like those people that try to justify fraternity hazings. Just make the system better. don't think that because you put up with it, we should put up with it too.

Are the older boomer women you know all child free? And they had household help to do all the cooking and cleaning?

The older boomer women I know who stayed at home all worked very hard taking care of their children, cooking, cleaning, doing all the yard work. Plus, they volunteered at their children’s schools and activities. Sure, no one gave them a paycheck for the work they were doing, but they worked pretty darn hard.

They spent those years being very frugal and never indulging in extras because they were making one income work for the whole family. Not all work is paid, but all work is valuable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It just seems wrong that we live in a society where people think twice about taking their child to the doctor or emergency room because they are worried about copays and prescription costs, and meanwhile my hypochondriac older relatives seem to have made 'going to the doctor' into a lifestyle. I pay a lot of taxes and yet there's not maternity leave, no childcare. That's apparently a "you problem" whereas senseless wars and viagra for old men are an 'us problem'. Makes no sense.

Old people have more medical problems than young people. They aren't doing it for fun.

I'd support national maternity leave but lots of employers offer it. I'm sure you're educated and could have looked into that during job search. Childcare subsidies and healthcare exist for those who qualify due to income. You probably make too much, but if you ever fell into poverty, those programs would be there. Most of them were not there when the boomers were younger, not even unpaid FMLA. They often lost their jobs entirely when they had kids and had nowhere near the flexibility and opportunities we have today.

Fortunately, when boomers had families, you could raise one on one middle class income

that's probably true, which is why it's more and more important that kids major in something useful to get good paying jobs. There are lots of good paying jobs out there, but it usually requires a degree that is not in liberal arts.

This is complete nonsense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the person above: where I live, there are a lot of older boomer women who have literally never worked a day in their lives. they spend their days going to bible studies and out to eat, swimming at the y and bragging about their grandchildren. I had never read an obituary before for someone who had never worked. They are strange.

So yes, I do think it's wrong that the government provides free healthcare to women who have never worked a day in their lives, while children go without. I don't buy the argument that everything every boomer has is because they earned it, and that they have earned so much more than the rest of us.

and suggesting that since they suffered we should suffer to sounds a bit like those people that try to justify fraternity hazings. Just make the system better. don't think that because you put up with it, we should put up with it too.

Along these lines, I think it's gross when there are Boomers are getting benefits and Social Security AND sitting on paid off houses, but they forced their own kids to borrow money for college. I know people who had their kids take out loans to attend in-state colleges because they had not saved a penny for college educations, but then 10 years later those kids are still paying down those loans while their boomer parents are retiring. It does not compute.

It's so weird to me that Boomers have so much wealth but we still have so many people with education debt, including people from MC or even UMC backgrounds (so not poverty). Why didn't some of that money go to pay for college for their kids??? To me that's one of the main things I'm working to pay for.

My boomer parents simply did not understand why college cost so much and why we didn't qualify for more aid. It took them completely by surprise that the expected family contribution per month was more than their mortgage. They just didn't keep up with the times and didn't think it was something you needed to save for until it was too late. Whereas we opened 529 accounts for our kids as soon as they were born.

[Anonymous]

Is this a DCUM bubble thing where they are under the impression that all the boomers are rich? Nationwide, the average retirement savings is pretty poor, something like $200k. Which I guess is fine for a while if you have a paid off house and get SSI but sooner or later the bottom falls out because getting old is expensive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the person above: where I live, there are a lot of older boomer women who have literally never worked a day in their lives. they spend their days going to bible studies and out to eat, swimming at the y and bragging about their grandchildren. I had never read an obituary before for someone who had never worked. They are strange.

So yes, I do think it's wrong that the government provides free healthcare to women who have never worked a day in their lives, while children go without. I don't buy the argument that everything every boomer has is because they earned it, and that they have earned so much more than the rest of us.

and suggesting that since they suffered we should suffer to sounds a bit like those people that try to justify fraternity hazings. Just make the system better. don't think that because you put up with it, we should put up with it too.

How is that different from wealthy Millennial women who don't work because their husbands make a great deal of money. They do exist all across the affluent spectrum of DC.

I must say your post reeks of jealousy. I can read between the lines. Which is funny given that swimming at the Y and going to Bible studies is very middle class, not affluent. And I'm sure there's a regional factor at play, especially if in the South.

And when you say you have never read an obituary before of someone who'd never worked, I find it surprising given it was the *norm* for middle class women not to work until the 70s and even in my 80s-90s childhood, a good percentage, typically around 25% if not a bit more, of married women with children didn't work.

+1
None of the college educated moms I knew growing up worked until they got divorced.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is this a DCUM bubble thing where they are under the impression that all the boomers are rich? Nationwide, the average retirement savings is pretty poor, something like $200k. Which I guess is fine for a while if you have a paid off house and get SSI but sooner or later the bottom falls out because getting old is expensive.

Are you looking at average retirement savings for all people? Of course it's lower -- if you include 30 and 40 years old, they haven't been working as long and it brings the average way down. But they aren't Boomers and they aren't about to retire.

The average retirement savings among people 55-64 years old is around 540k. For people 65 to 74, it's 609k. And that's average. Many people have much more. And it doesn't include wealth tied up in paid off houses that have appreciated considerably in the last 30 years.

Of course there is a spectrum for every generation, but the idea that Boomers are, as a group, struggling financially, is false. It's not a "DCUM bubble" thing. Boomers are pretty well off across the country, in part due to structural factors that benefitted them greatly in terms of building wealth.

And the fact that getting old is expensive is also why a lot of people don't expect to see this wealth transfer to younger generations. Boomers are living longer but also spending a lot more on old age, more money on medical interventions to improve quality of life, more money on homes and travel, more money on hobbies. My grandmother lived in a small assisted living apartment, paid for by her modest savings, social security, and Medicare, for the last 20 years of her life. She had no care the last 10 years. My parents and their siblings live in large homes, have multiple cars, are living much more expansive lives.

Again, not just a DMV thing. Boomers as a group are doing very well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the person above: where I live, there are a lot of older boomer women who have literally never worked a day in their lives. they spend their days going to bible studies and out to eat, swimming at the y and bragging about their grandchildren. I had never read an obituary before for someone who had never worked. They are strange.

So yes, I do think it's wrong that the government provides free healthcare to women who have never worked a day in their lives, while children go without. I don't buy the argument that everything every boomer has is because they earned it, and that they have earned so much more than the rest of us.

and suggesting that since they suffered we should suffer to sounds a bit like those people that try to justify fraternity hazings. Just make the system better. don't think that because you put up with it, we should put up with it too.

Along these lines, I think it's gross when there are Boomers are getting benefits and Social Security AND sitting on paid off houses, but they forced their own kids to borrow money for college. I know people who had their kids take out loans to attend in-state colleges because they had not saved a penny for college educations, but then 10 years later those kids are still paying down those loans while their boomer parents are retiring. It does not compute.

It's so weird to me that Boomers have so much wealth but we still have so many people with education debt, including people from MC or even UMC backgrounds (so not poverty). Why didn't some of that money go to pay for college for their kids??? To me that's one of the main things I'm working to pay for.

My boomer parents simply did not understand why college cost so much and why we didn't qualify for more aid. It took them completely by surprise that the expected family contribution per month was more than their mortgage. They just didn't keep up with the times and didn't think it was something you needed to save for until it was too late. Whereas we opened 529 accounts for our kids as soon as they were born.

Same. My parents had no idea and I wound up self funding my education, including with loans, and it took me forever to pay them off.

But annoyingly, my parents (who are genuinely rich now -- they are comfortably millionaires) STILL don't understand the cost of education. We opened a 529 for our kid right after she was born and my parents have never contributed to it. I mean, I guess they aren't required to, but I think it's weird. They claimed they couldn't pay for my college because they didn't realize it would cost so much, but now they are rich and still aren't really interested in investing in education. Their choice, I guess.

But it's stuff like this that gets Boomers a rep for being selfish and short-sighted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this a DCUM bubble thing where they are under the impression that all the boomers are rich? Nationwide, the average retirement savings is pretty poor, something like $200k. Which I guess is fine for a while if you have a paid off house and get SSI but sooner or later the bottom falls out because getting old is expensive.

Are you looking at average retirement savings for all people? Of course it's lower -- if you include 30 and 40 years old, they haven't been working as long and it brings the average way down. But they aren't Boomers and they aren't about to retire.

The average retirement savings among people 55-64 years old is around 540k. For people 65 to 74, it's 609k. And that's average. Many people have much more. And it doesn't include wealth tied up in paid off houses that have appreciated considerably in the last 30 years.

Of course there is a spectrum for every generation, but the idea that Boomers are, as a group, struggling financially, is false. It's not a "DCUM bubble" thing. Boomers are pretty well off across the country, in part due to structural factors that benefitted them greatly in terms of building wealth.

And the fact that getting old is expensive is also why a lot of people don't expect to see this wealth transfer to younger generations. Boomers are living longer but also spending a lot more on old age, more money on medical interventions to improve quality of life, more money on homes and travel, more money on hobbies. My grandmother lived in a small assisted living apartment, paid for by her modest savings, social security, and Medicare, for the last 20 years of her life. She had no care the last 10 years. My parents and their siblings live in large homes, have multiple cars, are living much more expansive lives.

Again, not just a DMV thing. Boomers as a group are doing very well.

Nope.

https://thehill.com/business/personal-finance/3991136-nearly-half-of-baby-boomers-have-no-retirement-savings/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the person above: where I live, there are a lot of older boomer women who have literally never worked a day in their lives. they spend their days going to bible studies and out to eat, swimming at the y and bragging about their grandchildren. I had never read an obituary before for someone who had never worked. They are strange.

So yes, I do think it's wrong that the government provides free healthcare to women who have never worked a day in their lives, while children go without. I don't buy the argument that everything every boomer has is because they earned it, and that they have earned so much more than the rest of us.

and suggesting that since they suffered we should suffer to sounds a bit like those people that try to justify fraternity hazings. Just make the system better. don't think that because you put up with it, we should put up with it too.

How is that different from wealthy Millennial women who don't work because their husbands make a great deal of money. They do exist all across the affluent spectrum of DC.

I must say your post reeks of jealousy. I can read between the lines. Which is funny given that swimming at the Y and going to Bible studies is very middle class, not affluent. And I'm sure there's a regional factor at play, especially if in the South.

And when you say you have never read an obituary before of someone who'd never worked, I find it surprising given it was the *norm* for middle class women not to work until the 70s and even in my 80s-90s childhood, a good percentage, typically around 25% if not a bit more, of married women with children didn't work.

+1
None of the college educated moms I knew growing up worked until they got divorced.

If you look into the history of social security, when it was enacted there were a lot of destitute elderly women who basically relied on their families for support. Men used to die much earlier and women couldn't work (my grandma was fired from being an accountant in the 1950s when she got pregnant and never again could get hired once they knew she was married and had kids).

But now??? I'm angry that women who don't work are eligible for half their husband's social security. I understand that they'll get his SS when he dies, but why should they get anything that they didn't put into. Working 40 quarters isn't much. If you didn't need money to survive on when you were working age, why should you need more when you're older?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the person above: where I live, there are a lot of older boomer women who have literally never worked a day in their lives. they spend their days going to bible studies and out to eat, swimming at the y and bragging about their grandchildren. I had never read an obituary before for someone who had never worked. They are strange.

So yes, I do think it's wrong that the government provides free healthcare to women who have never worked a day in their lives, while children go without. I don't buy the argument that everything every boomer has is because they earned it, and that they have earned so much more than the rest of us.

and suggesting that since they suffered we should suffer to sounds a bit like those people that try to justify fraternity hazings. Just make the system better. don't think that because you put up with it, we should put up with it too.

How is that different from wealthy Millennial women who don't work because their husbands make a great deal of money. They do exist all across the affluent spectrum of DC.

I must say your post reeks of jealousy. I can read between the lines. Which is funny given that swimming at the Y and going to Bible studies is very middle class, not affluent. And I'm sure there's a regional factor at play, especially if in the South.

And when you say you have never read an obituary before of someone who'd never worked, I find it surprising given it was the *norm* for middle class women not to work until the 70s and even in my 80s-90s childhood, a good percentage, typically around 25% if not a bit more, of married women with children didn't work.

+1
None of the college educated moms I knew growing up worked until they got divorced.

If you look into the history of social security, when it was enacted there were a lot of destitute elderly women who basically relied on their families for support. Men used to die much earlier and women couldn't work (my grandma was fired from being an accountant in the 1950s when she got pregnant and never again could get hired once they knew she was married and had kids).

But now??? I'm angry that women who don't work are eligible for half their husband's social security. I understand that they'll get his SS when he dies, but why should they get anything that they didn't put into. Working 40 quarters isn't much. If you didn't need money to survive on when you were working age, why should you need more when you're older?

I basically haven’t worked since kids were born and after they hit college I ran a private charitable foundation with family money (thanks to good investing). Guess what? When I die several millions go straight to the government in death taxes; way more than I’ll ever take out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the person above: where I live, there are a lot of older boomer women who have literally never worked a day in their lives. they spend their days going to bible studies and out to eat, swimming at the y and bragging about their grandchildren. I had never read an obituary before for someone who had never worked. They are strange.

So yes, I do think it's wrong that the government provides free healthcare to women who have never worked a day in their lives, while children go without. I don't buy the argument that everything every boomer has is because they earned it, and that they have earned so much more than the rest of us.

and suggesting that since they suffered we should suffer to sounds a bit like those people that try to justify fraternity hazings. Just make the system better. don't think that because you put up with it, we should put up with it too.

How is that different from wealthy Millennial women who don't work because their husbands make a great deal of money. They do exist all across the affluent spectrum of DC.

I must say your post reeks of jealousy. I can read between the lines. Which is funny given that swimming at the Y and going to Bible studies is very middle class, not affluent. And I'm sure there's a regional factor at play, especially if in the South.

And when you say you have never read an obituary before of someone who'd never worked, I find it surprising given it was the *norm* for middle class women not to work until the 70s and even in my 80s-90s childhood, a good percentage, typically around 25% if not a bit more, of married women with children didn't work.

+1
None of the college educated moms I knew growing up worked until they got divorced.

If you look into the history of social security, when it was enacted there were a lot of destitute elderly women who basically relied on their families for support. Men used to die much earlier and women couldn't work (my grandma was fired from being an accountant in the 1950s when she got pregnant and never again could get hired once they knew she was married and had kids).

But now??? I'm angry that women who don't work are eligible for half their husband's social security. I understand that they'll get his SS when he dies, but why should they get anything that they didn't put into. Working 40 quarters isn't much. If you didn't need money to survive on when you were working age, why should you need more when you're older?

I think you don't understand what the social contract was in the near past. I grew up in a small town, and no woman I knew who had no children or grown children worked. I can think of two of these women who taught for a year because the school system found it self suddenly was caught short and hired them to fill in the gap. But that is it.

Basically, women took care of the home and men worked outside the home. In our particular small, town, this applied across all classes--no hired help from the less well off, for example. It was just not a thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the person above: where I live, there are a lot of older boomer women who have literally never worked a day in their lives. they spend their days going to bible studies and out to eat, swimming at the y and bragging about their grandchildren. I had never read an obituary before for someone who had never worked. They are strange.

So yes, I do think it's wrong that the government provides free healthcare to women who have never worked a day in their lives, while children go without. I don't buy the argument that everything every boomer has is because they earned it, and that they have earned so much more than the rest of us.

and suggesting that since they suffered we should suffer to sounds a bit like those people that try to justify fraternity hazings. Just make the system better. don't think that because you put up with it, we should put up with it too.

How is that different from wealthy Millennial women who don't work because their husbands make a great deal of money. They do exist all across the affluent spectrum of DC.

I must say your post reeks of jealousy. I can read between the lines. Which is funny given that swimming at the Y and going to Bible studies is very middle class, not affluent. And I'm sure there's a regional factor at play, especially if in the South.

And when you say you have never read an obituary before of someone who'd never worked, I find it surprising given it was the *norm* for middle class women not to work until the 70s and even in my 80s-90s childhood, a good percentage, typically around 25% if not a bit more, of married women with children didn't work.

+1
None of the college educated moms I knew growing up worked until they got divorced.

If you look into the history of social security, when it was enacted there were a lot of destitute elderly women who basically relied on their families for support. Men used to die much earlier and women couldn't work (my grandma was fired from being an accountant in the 1950s when she got pregnant and never again could get hired once they knew she was married and had kids).

But now??? I'm angry that women who don't work are eligible for half their husband's social security. I understand that they'll get his SS when he dies, but why should they get anything that they didn't put into. Working 40 quarters isn't much. If you didn't need money to survive on when you were working age, why should you need more when you're older?

I basically haven’t worked since kids were born and after they hit college I ran a private charitable foundation with family money (thanks to good investing). Guess what? When I die several millions go straight to the government in death taxes; way more than I’ll ever take out.

Set up your will so that all of your assets go to charity so no taxes owed. Our kids and grandkids will benefit from trusts already set up so what’s left we will spend and then donate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the person above: where I live, there are a lot of older boomer women who have literally never worked a day in their lives. they spend their days going to bible studies and out to eat, swimming at the y and bragging about their grandchildren. I had never read an obituary before for someone who had never worked. They are strange.

So yes, I do think it's wrong that the government provides free healthcare to women who have never worked a day in their lives, while children go without. I don't buy the argument that everything every boomer has is because they earned it, and that they have earned so much more than the rest of us.

and suggesting that since they suffered we should suffer to sounds a bit like those people that try to justify fraternity hazings. Just make the system better. don't think that because you put up with it, we should put up with it too.

How is that different from wealthy Millennial women who don't work because their husbands make a great deal of money. They do exist all across the affluent spectrum of DC.

I must say your post reeks of jealousy. I can read between the lines. Which is funny given that swimming at the Y and going to Bible studies is very middle class, not affluent. And I'm sure there's a regional factor at play, especially if in the South.

And when you say you have never read an obituary before of someone who'd never worked, I find it surprising given it was the *norm* for middle class women not to work until the 70s and even in my 80s-90s childhood, a good percentage, typically around 25% if not a bit more, of married women with children didn't work.

+1
None of the college educated moms I knew growing up worked until they got divorced.

If you look into the history of social security, when it was enacted there were a lot of destitute elderly women who basically relied on their families for support. Men used to die much earlier and women couldn't work (my grandma was fired from being an accountant in the 1950s when she got pregnant and never again could get hired once they knew she was married and had kids).

But now??? I'm angry that women who don't work are eligible for half their husband's social security. I understand that they'll get his SS when he dies, but why should they get anything that they didn't put into. Working 40 quarters isn't much. If you didn't need money to survive on when you were working age, why should you need more when you're older?

I think you don't understand what the social contract was in the near past. I grew up in a small town, and no woman I knew who had no children or grown children worked. I can think of two of these women who taught for a year because the school system found it self suddenly was caught short and hired them to fill in the gap. But that is it.

Basically, women took care of the home and men worked outside the home. In our particular small, town, this applied across all classes--no hired help from the less well off, for example. It was just not a thing.

OK but it's not a thing now. SAHMs are making the choice to stay home. It's very valid, but I don't think everyone else should fund their SS. If you don't need money to work, you don't need money to retire on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the person above: where I live, there are a lot of older boomer women who have literally never worked a day in their lives. they spend their days going to bible studies and out to eat, swimming at the y and bragging about their grandchildren. I had never read an obituary before for someone who had never worked. They are strange.

So yes, I do think it's wrong that the government provides free healthcare to women who have never worked a day in their lives, while children go without. I don't buy the argument that everything every boomer has is because they earned it, and that they have earned so much more than the rest of us.

and suggesting that since they suffered we should suffer to sounds a bit like those people that try to justify fraternity hazings. Just make the system better. don't think that because you put up with it, we should put up with it too.

How is that different from wealthy Millennial women who don't work because their husbands make a great deal of money. They do exist all across the affluent spectrum of DC.

I must say your post reeks of jealousy. I can read between the lines. Which is funny given that swimming at the Y and going to Bible studies is very middle class, not affluent. And I'm sure there's a regional factor at play, especially if in the South.

And when you say you have never read an obituary before of someone who'd never worked, I find it surprising given it was the *norm* for middle class women not to work until the 70s and even in my 80s-90s childhood, a good percentage, typically around 25% if not a bit more, of married women with children didn't work.

+1
None of the college educated moms I knew growing up worked until they got divorced.

If you look into the history of social security, when it was enacted there were a lot of destitute elderly women who basically relied on their families for support. Men used to die much earlier and women couldn't work (my grandma was fired from being an accountant in the 1950s when she got pregnant and never again could get hired once they knew she was married and had kids).

But now??? I'm angry that women who don't work are eligible for half their husband's social security. I understand that they'll get his SS when he dies, but why should they get anything that they didn't put into. Working 40 quarters isn't much. If you didn't need money to survive on when you were working age, why should you need more when you're older?

I think you don't understand what the social contract was in the near past. I grew up in a small town, and no woman I knew who had no children or grown children worked. I can think of two of these women who taught for a year because the school system found it self suddenly was caught short and hired them to fill in the gap. But that is it.

Basically, women took care of the home and men worked outside the home. In our particular small, town, this applied across all classes--no hired help from the less well off, for example. It was just not a thing.

OK but it's not a thing now. SAHMs are making the choice to stay home. It's very valid, but I don't think everyone else should fund their SS. If you don't need money to work, you don't need money to retire on.

So if you raise your own kids, clean your own house, and prepare your own food instead of outsourcing it to other women, you don’t get SS? Work is still work. It only counts if you do it at someone else’s house?