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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Good try, but this is probably too complex for some of these boomer PPs to understand, lol.

You can always tell the sarcastic millenial is chiming in when you get a random lol. Way to advance the debate, yet again! You'll still never buy a house.

Go for the ad hominem rather than engage in the substance. Pretty lazy, bro. Lol

I am a lazy gen Xer, and due to the good luck I had in graduating college during the dot com boom I own a house worth $2 mil in MoCo without ever earning more than $200k. All of this misplaced millennial anger at the boomers makes us lazy gen Xers laugh.

You’re not lazy you just had some luck with your timing. I don’t understand these whiny adults thinking it’s not fair how things have changed for the worse. Then in another thread they’re like yeah I make $2 million a year and have saved $5 million. Hoping to double it by the time I’m 40.

And the whines about how boomers won’t leave to let younger people take over. Obama and Clinton and Bush Jr, all boomer, were in their 40s or 50s when they took office. Obama hired a lot of young staff just staring out. They left office and guys older than them took over. Whose fault is that?

[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.

They always pick neighborhoods that have gentrified for their price comparisons. It’s not just “inflation” — there has been a change in the character of the neighborhoods. In the 1970’s, Cleveland Park was considered to be a blue collar neighborhood, and DuPont Circle was unsafe. In the ‘80’s and ‘90’s, Logan Circle was downright dangerous. Of course, now they seem to be sliding back, so you may get your chance to buy cheaply there, after all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Again, literally no one in the Boomer generation paid 40k for a house. Your information, perceptions, and beliefs are absolutely and entirely fiction. There is no wealth imbalance, Boomers went through the exact same financial and housing situation that millennials are dealing with. For the F - ing last time, you are blaming the wrong generation. Social media has elevated this nonsense to some kind of religion, but it's all false.

[Anonymous]

Well boomers own half the wealth of the country despite being only about 20% of the population. I am not sure if this is unfair or not, but some aspects are clearly a zero/sum situation. The more boomers have the less others have.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well boomers own half the wealth of the country despite being only about 20% of the population. I am not sure if this is unfair or not, but some aspects are clearly a zero/sum situation. The more boomers have the less others have.

When you have 40 years to build up net worth the odds are pretty good your share will be higher than someone who has only had 10 years. My parents, now deceased, certainly had more in their 70’s than I had in my 30s. Boomer wealth will trickle down to the next two generations unless their children hate them which many seem to on this site.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Again, literally no one in the Boomer generation paid 40k for a house. Your information, perceptions, and beliefs are absolutely and entirely fiction. There is no wealth imbalance, Boomers went through the exact same financial and housing situation that millennials are dealing with. For the F - ing last time, you are blaming the wrong generation. Social media has elevated this nonsense to some kind of religion, but it's all false.

Multiple studies demonstrate the boomer wealth imbalance. At this point to deny it is to lie to yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well boomers own half the wealth of the country despite being only about 20% of the population. I am not sure if this is unfair or not, but some aspects are clearly a zero/sum situation. The more boomers have the less others have.

When you have 40 years to build up net worth the odds are pretty good your share will be higher than someone who has only had 10 years. My parents, now deceased, certainly had more in their 70’s than I had in my 30s. Boomer wealth will trickle down to the next two generations unless their children hate them which many seem to on this site.

No, except for the rich, boomers will spend their remaining money on themselves. And they’ll check out while leaving the entire country deeply in debt because of their policies.

[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...

I can’t, and couldn’t back then either. Our first house was a 2 BR townhouse in what was then a dodgy neighborhood in south Arlington not on metro. The market dropped after we bought it and we lost money when we sold it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not everyone wants to “get rich.” Some people just want to earn a living doing honest work.

People who work nursing home type jobs earn salaries that include benefits. As more boomers age and need care, more such workers will be needed so supply and demand will have an effect on salaries. If the boomers were to die off early, those jobs wouldn’t exist, so fewer people would earn those salaries.

And there’s a wide range of jobs and salaries involved at nursing homes. Medical professionals, physical and occupational therapists, food preparation, cleaning- all are necessary and openings will increase in number as people age.

I think some people just want the boomers to pass on their money to their adult kids, and don’t want anyone else to earn some money from their parents. They’re mad because they won’t get it all for themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Were you all under the age of 18 the past two elections when you voted, what, boomers into the White House??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well boomers own half the wealth of the country despite being only about 20% of the population. I am not sure if this is unfair or not, but some aspects are clearly a zero/sum situation. The more boomers have the less others have.

When you have 40 years to build up net worth the odds are pretty good your share will be higher than someone who has only had 10 years. My parents, now deceased, certainly had more in their 70’s than I had in my 30s. Boomer wealth will trickle down to the next two generations unless their children hate them which many seem to on this site.

No, except for the rich, boomers will spend their remaining money on themselves. And they’ll check out while leaving the entire country deeply in debt because of their policies.

But people will benefit rom the money they spend. It might not be their children who get it, but it will be spread around society when they spend it. More people can benefit from their money than only their own immediate family.

Boomers spending their money can actually help spread money around more widely to those who don’t come from “generational wealth.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Love how people just ignore the posts like this that are calling them out on your BS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Were you all under the age of 18 the past two elections when you voted, what, boomers into the White House??

Technically, President Biden is not a boomer because he was born in 1942. Trump just makes it as a boomer, as he was born in 1946.

Boomers were the children of returning WWII service people, so born in the years following the end of the war.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not everyone wants to “get rich.” Some people just want to earn a living doing honest work.

People who work nursing home type jobs earn salaries that include benefits. As more boomers age and need care, more such workers will be needed so supply and demand will have an effect on salaries. If the boomers were to die off early, those jobs wouldn’t exist, so fewer people would earn those salaries.

And there’s a wide range of jobs and salaries involved at nursing homes. Medical professionals, physical and occupational therapists, food preparation, cleaning- all are necessary and openings will increase in number as people age.

I think some people just want the boomers to pass on their money to their adult kids, and don’t want anyone else to earn some money from their parents. They’re mad because they won’t get it all for themselves.

I am not expecting anything from my boomer parents. They are so bad with money it isn't funny--it will all go to end of lifecare.

I think what boomers don't understand is all the generations are angry about their decisions about the country--we have no pensions, no single-payer health care, underfunded schools, a climate mess. They had such a chance to do good in the world and instead we had Wall Street greed in the 80s and strange sex-obsessed politician hunts in the 90s and then they all got brainwashed by Fox News and YouTube. I want a better world for my children. My parents want to burn it all down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Were you all under the age of 18 the past two elections when you voted, what, boomers into the White House??

Trump and Biden are not boomers. Obama, Clinton and Bush are Boomers. Bush is like the first year that people are called boomers. Obama is at the end of boomers and Clinton is in the middle.

Why everyone voted much older is a mystery to me but they are called the silent generation.