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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://fortune.com/2023/10/28/great-wealth-transfer-baby-boomers-bank-of-america-millennials-government-policy/amp/

Wow, I just came across this shocking article from Fortune which reveals that the so-called "great wealth transfer" is not the $72 trillion we've been hearing about, but rather a whopping $129 trillion. And guess where most of it went? Yup, straight into the pockets of baby boomers, thanks to government policies over the last 40 years.

We've all heard about the economic challenges millennials face today, especially with the housing market and student debts. But to think that the government has been so instrumental in enriching an entire generation, predominantly boomers, is mind-blowing! This massive wealth transfer is arguably a result of policies from when boomers were in their prime working years. The research shows that two-thirds of the current U.S. household net worth (around $146 trillion) is held by boomers and "traditionalists."

What's even more shocking is that while millennials struggle with high-interest rates on mortgages, most boomers were able to lock in at a low 3% rate. We often hear about boomers giving financial advice to younger generations, but it's evident they had a huge leg up due to these policies.

It's time for a change. Millennials and Gen Z are battling a completely different economic landscape, one that has been significantly shaped by previous generations. While there's hope that a pending wealth transfer might offer some relief, current projections don't seem as promising as what boomers enjoyed.

Thoughts? How do we bridge this generational wealth gap? It's evident now more than ever that we need a system that supports all generations equitably.

This is all BS. Completely confused with the wrong generation.
I am full on Boomer. Mid 60s.

Graduated in a huge recession. Waited in gas lines during gas rationing.
No jobs.
Interest rates were upwards of 18%, started dropping to 8 much later on. We only saw 3% well after this last recession, around 2012, and 2015, brought to you by deregulation policies of Republicans. Stock market was literally STAGNANT after dropping from crash. Our house mortgages were underwater. We had 2 incomes to just buy any house and support a family. Inflation only rose house prices recently and that is because of housing shortage. Building shortage.

Where is all this fiction you bring from? It's all made up.

You graduated in a huge recession...just like the Millennials did. The difference is that in 1970 the average cost of one year of college at a public university was $394, ($3,125 in 2023 dollars) while today it's $26,027.

Interest rates were upwards of 18%...but houses were ridiculously cheap. In 1970 the average home price was $26,000 ($206,000 in 2023 dollars) which would be $392 a month at 18% ($3,109 in 2023 dollars.) Today the average house is $513,400, which at the current mortgage rate of 8.28% costs $3,868 a month, but that belies the true cost because DC has gotten far more expensive than the average. What does $513,000 get you in DC? A 1br condo, a tiny rowhouse in the ghetto, or a SFH with a 90 minute commute.

Let's look at a real life DC example, 4420 Fessenden St, in DCUM's darling neighborhood, AU Park:

https://www.redfin.com/DC/Washington/4420-Fessenden-St-NW-20016/home/9949272#property-history

In 1973 the house sold for $65,000 and the average mortgage rate for that year was 8.08%. In 1973 dollars that house would cost $481 a month, which would be $3,334 today. The house is currently for sale for $2.475 million, or $18,299 per month at 8%.

In 1973 that house would be easily affordable (30% of gross income) to a family making around $18,000 a year. The median family income in 1973 was $12,050, meaning you'd have to earn about 50% more than the national median to afford a single family home in a safe part of DC with a good commute and good schools. To make that same house affordable today you'd have to earn around $750,000 a year. The national median income today is $74,580, so you'd have to earn 905% more than the national median, and 724% more than the median DC family income.

So when we compare what your dollar bought you back then to what it buys you now, let's look at what 50% more than the national median gets you in DC. 30% of $74,580 is $22,374 or $1,865 a month. At today's rates, $1,865 a month equals about $250,000 in buying power. So while boomers in 1973 earning 50% more than the median were buying houses in Upper NW, people today making the same proportional salary can afford a crackhouse in Capitol Heights (https://www.redfin.com/MD/Capitol-Heights/4710-Pard-Rd-20743/home/10606506) or a basement 1br in a decent neighborhood with $600 worth of condo fees. (https://www.redfin.com/DC/Washington/3001-Porter-St-NW-20008/unit-100/home/40136597)


Your college was dirt cheap, your houses were dirt cheap. The only made up fiction is coming from you.

In Iowa, maybe. My first house here was 70k for a small TH. At 18 %.
College was cheaper but state colleges are on par with inflation. It's not going to fly getting in debt for an expensive private college now, but it was the same then. Debt is something to consider in any generation. Graduate school was also extremely expensive, no employer of mine was paying that. The housing based recession in 2008, was not at all the same as in 1978. Different reason.
Sorry, none of this adds up. We had the sane if not more difficulties , and no one is hoarding wealth- that is preposterous. We had zero inclination or the means to purchase a large house upon immediate adulthood or marriage. We had to save a lot before even thinking about it, and the subsequent house was small. You are incorrect, entirely.

Forgot to add- our household income was about 32k when we bought out 70k house at 18 : 14k as a teacher for me, 14 for spouse as gov employee. Both college educated, and in grad school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not only were mortgage rates extremely low until recently, some of us boomers were at home buying age when mortgages were at 18%. I remember being ecstatic to refinance at 7%.

Was going to post the same!

I think the article has so many flaws it’s maddening.
How many homeowner Boomers actually have mortgages? Many paid off their homes in the late 90s and eat 2000s.

What about GenX? No one ever talks about us? We’re the ones who will inherit the Boomer $$$ - millennials and GenZ are the boomer’s grandchildren.

That wealth may have gone to Boomers for a few decades, but a lot of it will not be transferred to heirs. It will be consumed by healthcare and nursing homes.

Finally, Boomers may have a lot of equity in their homes, but as a generation they are more likely to have a pension than a 401k and many didn’t save much because they thought SS and Medicare would cover them.

The bolded isn't true in most cases. Some older Boomers have Gen X kids but mostly Gen X's parents are Silent Generation and millennials parents are mostly Boomers. "Echo Boomer" was an early name for the generation before we settled on millennial. I'm a millennial and my parents were 1949 and 1951 birthdates definitely Boomers.

Your parents were Vietnam war age. Was your father drafted ?

No, he wasn't. I'm pretty sure that was luck (he wasn't in college)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://fortune.com/2023/10/28/great-wealth-transfer-baby-boomers-bank-of-america-millennials-government-policy/amp/

Wow, I just came across this shocking article from Fortune which reveals that the so-called "great wealth transfer" is not the $72 trillion we've been hearing about, but rather a whopping $129 trillion. And guess where most of it went? Yup, straight into the pockets of baby boomers, thanks to government policies over the last 40 years.

We've all heard about the economic challenges millennials face today, especially with the housing market and student debts. But to think that the government has been so instrumental in enriching an entire generation, predominantly boomers, is mind-blowing! This massive wealth transfer is arguably a result of policies from when boomers were in their prime working years. The research shows that two-thirds of the current U.S. household net worth (around $146 trillion) is held by boomers and "traditionalists."

What's even more shocking is that while millennials struggle with high-interest rates on mortgages, most boomers were able to lock in at a low 3% rate. We often hear about boomers giving financial advice to younger generations, but it's evident they had a huge leg up due to these policies.

It's time for a change. Millennials and Gen Z are battling a completely different economic landscape, one that has been significantly shaped by previous generations. While there's hope that a pending wealth transfer might offer some relief, current projections don't seem as promising as what boomers enjoyed.

Thoughts? How do we bridge this generational wealth gap? It's evident now more than ever that we need a system that supports all generations equitably.

This is all BS. Completely confused with the wrong generation.
I am full on Boomer. Mid 60s.

Graduated in a huge recession. Waited in gas lines during gas rationing.
No jobs.
Interest rates were upwards of 18%, started dropping to 8 much later on. We only saw 3% well after this last recession, around 2012, and 2015, brought to you by deregulation policies of Republicans. Stock market was literally STAGNANT after dropping from crash. Our house mortgages were underwater. We had 2 incomes to just buy any house and support a family. Inflation only rose house prices recently and that is because of housing shortage. Building shortage.

Where is all this fiction you bring from? It's all made up.

You graduated in a huge recession...just like the Millennials did. The difference is that in 1970 the average cost of one year of college at a public university was $394, ($3,125 in 2023 dollars) while today it's $26,027.

Interest rates were upwards of 18%...but houses were ridiculously cheap. In 1970 the average home price was $26,000 ($206,000 in 2023 dollars) which would be $392 a month at 18% ($3,109 in 2023 dollars.) Today the average house is $513,400, which at the current mortgage rate of 8.28% costs $3,868 a month, but that belies the true cost because DC has gotten far more expensive than the average. What does $513,000 get you in DC? A 1br condo, a tiny rowhouse in the ghetto, or a SFH with a 90 minute commute.

Let's look at a real life DC example, 4420 Fessenden St, in DCUM's darling neighborhood, AU Park:

https://www.redfin.com/DC/Washington/4420-Fessenden-St-NW-20016/home/9949272#property-history

In 1973 the house sold for $65,000 and the average mortgage rate for that year was 8.08%. In 1973 dollars that house would cost $481 a month, which would be $3,334 today. The house is currently for sale for $2.475 million, or $18,299 per month at 8%.

In 1973 that house would be easily affordable (30% of gross income) to a family making around $18,000 a year. The median family income in 1973 was $12,050, meaning you'd have to earn about 50% more than the national median to afford a single family home in a safe part of DC with a good commute and good schools. To make that same house affordable today you'd have to earn around $750,000 a year. The national median income today is $74,580, so you'd have to earn 905% more than the national median, and 724% more than the median DC family income.

So when we compare what your dollar bought you back then to what it buys you now, let's look at what 50% more than the national median gets you in DC. 30% of $74,580 is $22,374 or $1,865 a month. At today's rates, $1,865 a month equals about $250,000 in buying power. So while boomers in 1973 earning 50% more than the median were buying houses in Upper NW, people today making the same proportional salary can afford a crackhouse in Capitol Heights (https://www.redfin.com/MD/Capitol-Heights/4710-Pard-Rd-20743/home/10606506) or a basement 1br in a decent neighborhood with $600 worth of condo fees. (https://www.redfin.com/DC/Washington/3001-Porter-St-NW-20008/unit-100/home/40136597)


Your college was dirt cheap, your houses were dirt cheap. The only made up fiction is coming from you.

I'm a Boomer and I was 14 in 1973, dear. Not in college or buying houses. Your info in skewed and out of context. Also amazingly wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://fortune.com/2023/10/28/great-wealth-transfer-baby-boomers-bank-of-america-millennials-government-policy/amp/

Wow, I just came across this shocking article from Fortune which reveals that the so-called "great wealth transfer" is not the $72 trillion we've been hearing about, but rather a whopping $129 trillion. And guess where most of it went? Yup, straight into the pockets of baby boomers, thanks to government policies over the last 40 years.

We've all heard about the economic challenges millennials face today, especially with the housing market and student debts. But to think that the government has been so instrumental in enriching an entire generation, predominantly boomers, is mind-blowing! This massive wealth transfer is arguably a result of policies from when boomers were in their prime working years. The research shows that two-thirds of the current U.S. household net worth (around $146 trillion) is held by boomers and "traditionalists."

What's even more shocking is that while millennials struggle with high-interest rates on mortgages, most boomers were able to lock in at a low 3% rate. We often hear about boomers giving financial advice to younger generations, but it's evident they had a huge leg up due to these policies.

It's time for a change. Millennials and Gen Z are battling a completely different economic landscape, one that has been significantly shaped by previous generations. While there's hope that a pending wealth transfer might offer some relief, current projections don't seem as promising as what boomers enjoyed.

Thoughts? How do we bridge this generational wealth gap? It's evident now more than ever that we need a system that supports all generations equitably.

This is all BS. Completely confused with the wrong generation.
I am full on Boomer. Mid 60s.

Graduated in a huge recession. Waited in gas lines during gas rationing.
No jobs.
Interest rates were upwards of 18%, started dropping to 8 much later on. We only saw 3% well after this last recession, around 2012, and 2015, brought to you by deregulation policies of Republicans. Stock market was literally STAGNANT after dropping from crash. Our house mortgages were underwater. We had 2 incomes to just buy any house and support a family. Inflation only rose house prices recently and that is because of housing shortage. Building shortage.

Where is all this fiction you bring from? It's all made up.

You graduated in a huge recession...just like the Millennials did. The difference is that in 1970 the average cost of one year of college at a public university was $394, ($3,125 in 2023 dollars) while today it's $26,027.

Interest rates were upwards of 18%...but houses were ridiculously cheap. In 1970 the average home price was $26,000 ($206,000 in 2023 dollars) which would be $392 a month at 18% ($3,109 in 2023 dollars.) Today the average house is $513,400, which at the current mortgage rate of 8.28% costs $3,868 a month, but that belies the true cost because DC has gotten far more expensive than the average. What does $513,000 get you in DC? A 1br condo, a tiny rowhouse in the ghetto, or a SFH with a 90 minute commute.

Let's look at a real life DC example, 4420 Fessenden St, in DCUM's darling neighborhood, AU Park:

https://www.redfin.com/DC/Washington/4420-Fessenden-St-NW-20016/home/9949272#property-history

In 1973 the house sold for $65,000 and the average mortgage rate for that year was 8.08%. In 1973 dollars that house would cost $481 a month, which would be $3,334 today. The house is currently for sale for $2.475 million, or $18,299 per month at 8%.

In 1973 that house would be easily affordable (30% of gross income) to a family making around $18,000 a year. The median family income in 1973 was $12,050, meaning you'd have to earn about 50% more than the national median to afford a single family home in a safe part of DC with a good commute and good schools. To make that same house affordable today you'd have to earn around $750,000 a year. The national median income today is $74,580, so you'd have to earn 905% more than the national median, and 724% more than the median DC family income.

So when we compare what your dollar bought you back then to what it buys you now, let's look at what 50% more than the national median gets you in DC. 30% of $74,580 is $22,374 or $1,865 a month. At today's rates, $1,865 a month equals about $250,000 in buying power. So while boomers in 1973 earning 50% more than the median were buying houses in Upper NW, people today making the same proportional salary can afford a crackhouse in Capitol Heights (https://www.redfin.com/MD/Capitol-Heights/4710-Pard-Rd-20743/home/10606506) or a basement 1br in a decent neighborhood with $600 worth of condo fees. (https://www.redfin.com/DC/Washington/3001-Porter-St-NW-20008/unit-100/home/40136597)


Your college was dirt cheap, your houses were dirt cheap. The only made up fiction is coming from you.

I'm a Boomer and I was 14 in 1973, dear. Not in college or buying houses. Your info in skewed and out of context. Also amazingly wrong.

Ok boom

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://fortune.com/2023/10/28/great-wealth-transfer-baby-boomers-bank-of-america-millennials-government-policy/amp/

Wow, I just came across this shocking article from Fortune which reveals that the so-called "great wealth transfer" is not the $72 trillion we've been hearing about, but rather a whopping $129 trillion. And guess where most of it went? Yup, straight into the pockets of baby boomers, thanks to government policies over the last 40 years.

We've all heard about the economic challenges millennials face today, especially with the housing market and student debts. But to think that the government has been so instrumental in enriching an entire generation, predominantly boomers, is mind-blowing! This massive wealth transfer is arguably a result of policies from when boomers were in their prime working years. The research shows that two-thirds of the current U.S. household net worth (around $146 trillion) is held by boomers and "traditionalists."

What's even more shocking is that while millennials struggle with high-interest rates on mortgages, most boomers were able to lock in at a low 3% rate. We often hear about boomers giving financial advice to younger generations, but it's evident they had a huge leg up due to these policies.

It's time for a change. Millennials and Gen Z are battling a completely different economic landscape, one that has been significantly shaped by previous generations. While there's hope that a pending wealth transfer might offer some relief, current projections don't seem as promising as what boomers enjoyed.

Thoughts? How do we bridge this generational wealth gap? It's evident now more than ever that we need a system that supports all generations equitably.

This is all BS. Completely confused with the wrong generation.
I am full on Boomer. Mid 60s.

Graduated in a huge recession. Waited in gas lines during gas rationing.
No jobs.
Interest rates were upwards of 18%, started dropping to 8 much later on. We only saw 3% well after this last recession, around 2012, and 2015, brought to you by deregulation policies of Republicans. Stock market was literally STAGNANT after dropping from crash. Our house mortgages were underwater. We had 2 incomes to just buy any house and support a family. Inflation only rose house prices recently and that is because of housing shortage. Building shortage.

Where is all this fiction you bring from? It's all made up.

You graduated in a huge recession...just like the Millennials did. The difference is that in 1970 the average cost of one year of college at a public university was $394, ($3,125 in 2023 dollars) while today it's $26,027.

Interest rates were upwards of 18%...but houses were ridiculously cheap. In 1970 the average home price was $26,000 ($206,000 in 2023 dollars) which would be $392 a month at 18% ($3,109 in 2023 dollars.) Today the average house is $513,400, which at the current mortgage rate of 8.28% costs $3,868 a month, but that belies the true cost because DC has gotten far more expensive than the average. What does $513,000 get you in DC? A 1br condo, a tiny rowhouse in the ghetto, or a SFH with a 90 minute commute.

Let's look at a real life DC example, 4420 Fessenden St, in DCUM's darling neighborhood, AU Park:

https://www.redfin.com/DC/Washington/4420-Fessenden-St-NW-20016/home/9949272#property-history

In 1973 the house sold for $65,000 and the average mortgage rate for that year was 8.08%. In 1973 dollars that house would cost $481 a month, which would be $3,334 today. The house is currently for sale for $2.475 million, or $18,299 per month at 8%.

In 1973 that house would be easily affordable (30% of gross income) to a family making around $18,000 a year. The median family income in 1973 was $12,050, meaning you'd have to earn about 50% more than the national median to afford a single family home in a safe part of DC with a good commute and good schools. To make that same house affordable today you'd have to earn around $750,000 a year. The national median income today is $74,580, so you'd have to earn 905% more than the national median, and 724% more than the median DC family income.

So when we compare what your dollar bought you back then to what it buys you now, let's look at what 50% more than the national median gets you in DC. 30% of $74,580 is $22,374 or $1,865 a month. At today's rates, $1,865 a month equals about $250,000 in buying power. So while boomers in 1973 earning 50% more than the median were buying houses in Upper NW, people today making the same proportional salary can afford a crackhouse in Capitol Heights (https://www.redfin.com/MD/Capitol-Heights/4710-Pard-Rd-20743/home/10606506) or a basement 1br in a decent neighborhood with $600 worth of condo fees. (https://www.redfin.com/DC/Washington/3001-Porter-St-NW-20008/unit-100/home/40136597)


Your college was dirt cheap, your houses were dirt cheap. The only made up fiction is coming from you.

I am a boomer and in 1973 I was 11. My silent generation parents had just bought their first house a few years earlier. I was definitely not in the housing market at 11, but when I did buy a house in the late 1980's it was what DCUM would consider a sh*t shack and has since been torn down. Our houses were cheap because they were tiny and basic.

Cool, show me a "tiny, basic" house in NW or an inner ring suburb you can buy on your 1980s salary adjusted for inflation. I'll wait...

You can definitely get a basic simple house in close in PG county for under 400.

The problem is that you want to live in NW or a fancy inner ring suburb. The reality is the population of the DMV is much bigger now than it was in 1990. Besides, even back then DC was known as an expensive city. There's a lot more people chasing after the same supply of housing. That's not the fault of people who bought in the 1980s or earlier.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://fortune.com/2023/10/28/great-wealth-transfer-baby-boomers-bank-of-america-millennials-government-policy/amp/

Wow, I just came across this shocking article from Fortune which reveals that the so-called "great wealth transfer" is not the $72 trillion we've been hearing about, but rather a whopping $129 trillion. And guess where most of it went? Yup, straight into the pockets of baby boomers, thanks to government policies over the last 40 years.

We've all heard about the economic challenges millennials face today, especially with the housing market and student debts. But to think that the government has been so instrumental in enriching an entire generation, predominantly boomers, is mind-blowing! This massive wealth transfer is arguably a result of policies from when boomers were in their prime working years. The research shows that two-thirds of the current U.S. household net worth (around $146 trillion) is held by boomers and "traditionalists."

What's even more shocking is that while millennials struggle with high-interest rates on mortgages, most boomers were able to lock in at a low 3% rate. We often hear about boomers giving financial advice to younger generations, but it's evident they had a huge leg up due to these policies.

It's time for a change. Millennials and Gen Z are battling a completely different economic landscape, one that has been significantly shaped by previous generations. While there's hope that a pending wealth transfer might offer some relief, current projections don't seem as promising as what boomers enjoyed.

Thoughts? How do we bridge this generational wealth gap? It's evident now more than ever that we need a system that supports all generations equitably.

This is all BS. Completely confused with the wrong generation.
I am full on Boomer. Mid 60s.

Graduated in a huge recession. Waited in gas lines during gas rationing.
No jobs.
Interest rates were upwards of 18%, started dropping to 8 much later on. We only saw 3% well after this last recession, around 2012, and 2015, brought to you by deregulation policies of Republicans. Stock market was literally STAGNANT after dropping from crash. Our house mortgages were underwater. We had 2 incomes to just buy any house and support a family. Inflation only rose house prices recently and that is because of housing shortage. Building shortage.

Where is all this fiction you bring from? It's all made up.

You graduated in a huge recession...just like the Millennials did. The difference is that in 1970 the average cost of one year of college at a public university was $394, ($3,125 in 2023 dollars) while today it's $26,027.

Interest rates were upwards of 18%...but houses were ridiculously cheap. In 1970 the average home price was $26,000 ($206,000 in 2023 dollars) which would be $392 a month at 18% ($3,109 in 2023 dollars.) Today the average house is $513,400, which at the current mortgage rate of 8.28% costs $3,868 a month, but that belies the true cost because DC has gotten far more expensive than the average. What does $513,000 get you in DC? A 1br condo, a tiny rowhouse in the ghetto, or a SFH with a 90 minute commute.

Let's look at a real life DC example, 4420 Fessenden St, in DCUM's darling neighborhood, AU Park:

https://www.redfin.com/DC/Washington/4420-Fessenden-St-NW-20016/home/9949272#property-history

In 1973 the house sold for $65,000 and the average mortgage rate for that year was 8.08%. In 1973 dollars that house would cost $481 a month, which would be $3,334 today. The house is currently for sale for $2.475 million, or $18,299 per month at 8%.

In 1973 that house would be easily affordable (30% of gross income) to a family making around $18,000 a year. The median family income in 1973 was $12,050, meaning you'd have to earn about 50% more than the national median to afford a single family home in a safe part of DC with a good commute and good schools. To make that same house affordable today you'd have to earn around $750,000 a year. The national median income today is $74,580, so you'd have to earn 905% more than the national median, and 724% more than the median DC family income.

So when we compare what your dollar bought you back then to what it buys you now, let's look at what 50% more than the national median gets you in DC. 30% of $74,580 is $22,374 or $1,865 a month. At today's rates, $1,865 a month equals about $250,000 in buying power. So while boomers in 1973 earning 50% more than the median were buying houses in Upper NW, people today making the same proportional salary can afford a crackhouse in Capitol Heights (https://www.redfin.com/MD/Capitol-Heights/4710-Pard-Rd-20743/home/10606506) or a basement 1br in a decent neighborhood with $600 worth of condo fees. (https://www.redfin.com/DC/Washington/3001-Porter-St-NW-20008/unit-100/home/40136597)


Your college was dirt cheap, your houses were dirt cheap. The only made up fiction is coming from you.

I am a boomer and in 1973 I was 11. My silent generation parents had just bought their first house a few years earlier. I was definitely not in the housing market at 11, but when I did buy a house in the late 1980's it was what DCUM would consider a sh*t shack and has since been torn down. Our houses were cheap because they were tiny and basic.

Cool, show me a "tiny, basic" house in NW or an inner ring suburb you can buy on your 1980s salary adjusted for inflation. I'll wait...

You can definitely get a basic simple house in close in PG county for under 400.

The problem is that you want to live in NW or a fancy inner ring suburb. The reality is the population of the DMV is much bigger now than it was in 1990. Besides, even back then DC was known as an expensive city. There's a lot more people chasing after the same supply of housing. That's not the fault of people who bought in the 1980s or earlier.

This. I am a Boomer and still couldn't afford what the PP wants. And this is the whole thing- millennials think that, at the beginning of their career and with young families, they want what people achieved at the end of their career, or at least mid level. Boomers rented, bought starter homes, and there wasn't anything close to the amount of expected lifestyle amenities. We needed 2 incomes, started much slower.
So, thanks, we've earned what we are living in right now, it too 30 years.

[Anonymous]

Boomers don’t want to die. They’ll spend their last millions eking out a couple extra miserable months in for-profit nursing homes.

No wealth transfer for you, sorry young’uns! Your parents’ ill-gotten gains went straight into the hands of Capitol Seniors Retirement Group, Inc.!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Boomers don’t want to die. They’ll spend their last millions eking out a couple extra miserable months in for-profit nursing homes.

No wealth transfer for you, sorry young’uns! Your parents’ ill-gotten gains went straight into the hands of Capitol Seniors Retirement Group, Inc.!

You know, there are a lot of lower income people who work taking care of elderly people. I don’t have a problem with them getting some of that “wealth transfer.”

[Anonymous]

OMG, I wish Jeff would just ban this OP. Stop blaming other people for your financial troubles. Maybe just stop spending so much money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Boomers don’t want to die. They’ll spend their last millions eking out a couple extra miserable months in for-profit nursing homes.

No wealth transfer for you, sorry young’uns! Your parents’ ill-gotten gains went straight into the hands of Capitol Seniors Retirement Group, Inc.!

You know, there are a lot of lower income people who work taking care of elderly people. I don’t have a problem with them getting some of that “wealth transfer.”

But they by definition will not get the wealth transfer. They re low-income. They will be paid the bare minimum to do the hard work of caring for people in the last years of their life, and then investors in corporate nursing home chains will reap the rewards. The nursing home aides will continue to be unable to buy a home because they don't make enough money to compete with the all-cash buyers snapping up homes to flip or sit on as an investment.

No one is getting rich working at a nursing home. I wish they would! It's really hard, valuable work that is totally devalued in our society, like almost all forms of care work.

[Anonymous]

Maybe part of the issue is that you live in one of the wealthiest and high cost of living parts of the country. Consider moving.

My 30+ year old friends in the midwest are buying 3-4000 sq ft houses for $250-$300K on under $100K incomes and taking two lavish vacations a year.

[Anonymous]

I'm so sick of boomers defending what is clearly an insanely unbalanced wealth situation in this country. And the more callous and "shrug, oh well, at least i got mine!" comments they leave on threads like these, the more millennials and Gen Z will feel determined to "right the ship" and pass laws and elect people into power who are going to do something about it. We are SICK of selfish older people who seem to have no concern for the lives of their offspring or young people. And people are just going to get madder and madder as it becomes clear that most boomers really dont give an F- they inherited the most successful economy in the history of the world and burnt it all down and ruined it. Young people are absolutely FED UP and i promise you- you're going to start seeing changes, especially as young people realize that it wasn't some kind of fluke that boomers are unhappy and sympathetic about- no, they really dont care, as long as they get to stay parked in their comfortable $1 million home they paid 40k for. Sit and watch.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This boomer once had a 17.25% mortgage and never had one in the 3% area. My husband also got drafted and had to fight and get wounded in Vietnam. He didn’t want to go but he didn’t have an option and he did his duty. We have set up very well funded 529 plans for all of our grandchildren. We gift our kids a lot of money every year at Christmas and they will inherit a great amount of money. I inherited very little from my parents and my husband deferred his inheritance and it went to our children. Yes, our children and grandchildren are very lucky and unlike OPs crowd they are very grateful.

So incredibly tone deaf and sanctimonious!!!! Of course your kids and grandkids are grateful. They are not in the position that many of their peers are in - they are benefitting from the boomers wealth. What about all their peers who don't have boomer wealth in their families? You are completely missing the point, either intentionally or you don't have the ability to think on a more nuanced level....

No, I’m not missing the point. I’m just tired of boomers being trashed by people who are clueless about interest rates and inflation when boomers were your age. Interest rates in the teens, inflation in the teens all during our 30’s. If you don’t think we were scared you are so wrong. Unemployment was high and if you lost your job and you had a 10% interest rate plus 10% inflation eating into your savings you were screwed. You have been spoiled by 2% inflation and 3% mortgages. That’s free money. Yes, inflation and interest rates are up…….welcome to the world boomers lived in for a decade.

Yes, boomer you lived in that world but your real estate prices were dirt cheap and so was college tuition.

My boomer father didn’t go to college because he was drafted to go to Vietnam at age 18 like all of his brothers, male cousins, and classmates. They did have cheaper starter homes but with 18% mortgage interest rates, deindustrialization moving jobs overseas, and multiple rescissions most of them couldn’t buy more than a very small starter home.

Sorry everything is so much harder for the young people today.

DP- I don't really have a dog in this fight (for the record, I'm Gen-X, had student loans but DH didn't, we bought our small starter home 10 years ago). But it's been pretty well documented that there is a housing shortage right now, compared to post-WWII and the decades thereafter where lots of building was happening. There were plenty of "starter" homes to go around. I live in one of those 1940s neighborhoods and what one of those old starter homes cost now is kind of nuts. If any go on the market that is, everyone is sitting tight.

I think we can acknowledge that each generation had its challenges without making it a competition. And right now, I feel for millennials like my sister trying to buy a house.

Thank you. Coming from a millennial, I really appreciate how most Xers seem to have some level of compassion for what millennials are going through. It's amazing how completely tone-deaf and selfish and narcissistically defensive many boomers get when you call out the difference between the economic situations both generations inherited. It's a huge reason for the vitriol coming from young people towards boomers SPECIFICALLY. Their callousness and self centeredness can just be breathtaking