I mean, all the graph really shows is that the longer you live, the better your chances of amassing assets of some kind.
It implies that baby boomers had some factors amplifying their chances, and it implies that later generations may have disadvantages as well as lacking those advantages, but that’s still not a generational issue based on the chart itself.
If anything, it’s a condemnation of capitalism, not generational disparities
It shows that every generation has less wealth at the same age than the generation before it, and that boomers are holding on to their lead despite declining numbers in higher age.
It’s definitely a generational issue, regardless of causality.
It implies that baby boomers had some factors amplifying their chances, and it implies that later generations may have disadvantages as well as lacking those advantages, but that’s still not a generational issue based on the chart itself.
If the Baby Boomers had factors amplifying their chances, as a generation, and later generations did not, how is that not a generational issue?
If anything, it’s a condemnation of capitalism, not generational disparities
Why not both is because it would have to be about the people to be a generational issue.
It’s a systemic issue, and economic issue that’s certainly influenced by people, but if you gave the current generation the same economic advantages the boomers had, their scale would would be either the same or similar at the same ages.
It’s a semantic thing, I guess.
Generations aren’t the same as eras, though. Generations exist within eras, but eras don’t travel with the generation in this context.
It’s a systemic issue, and economic issue that’s certainly influenced by people, but if you gave the current generation the same economic advantages the boomers had, their scale would would be either the same or similar at the same ages.
… that’s what a generational issue means.
Generations aren’t the same as eras, though. Generations exist within eras, but eras don’t travel with the generation in this context.
Clearly they do. The era is over, but the advantages persist in the generation.
Then choose whatever terms you prefer, I ain’t het up over that.
The point is that the same people or the generation that’s at the bottom now would have equally profited from the previous circumstances, and the decline would have led to the same place for their children and grandchildren because the pressures involved were systemic, not a product of the individuals choices without that system.
I’m saying that people are people, and trying to pin the cause of a trend onto the people of a generation without the context of the systemic effects also being in the chart is misleading.
I mean, all the graph really shows is that the longer you live, the better your chances of amassing assets of some kind.
It implies that baby boomers had some factors amplifying their chances, and it implies that later generations may have disadvantages as well as lacking those advantages, but that’s still not a generational issue based on the chart itself.
If anything, it’s a condemnation of capitalism, not generational disparities
It shows that every generation has less wealth at the same age than the generation before it, and that boomers are holding on to their lead despite declining numbers in higher age.
It’s definitely a generational issue, regardless of causality.
If the Baby Boomers had factors amplifying their chances, as a generation, and later generations did not, how is that not a generational issue?
Why not both
Why not both is because it would have to be about the people to be a generational issue.
It’s a systemic issue, and economic issue that’s certainly influenced by people, but if you gave the current generation the same economic advantages the boomers had, their scale would would be either the same or similar at the same ages.
It’s a semantic thing, I guess.
Generations aren’t the same as eras, though. Generations exist within eras, but eras don’t travel with the generation in this context.
… that’s what a generational issue means.
Clearly they do. The era is over, but the advantages persist in the generation.
They were in control of the era and ended it once they figured out some of the benefits they took for granted might end up going to their children
Then choose whatever terms you prefer, I ain’t het up over that.
The point is that the same people or the generation that’s at the bottom now would have equally profited from the previous circumstances, and the decline would have led to the same place for their children and grandchildren because the pressures involved were systemic, not a product of the individuals choices without that system.
I’m saying that people are people, and trying to pin the cause of a trend onto the people of a generation without the context of the systemic effects also being in the chart is misleading.
Spoken like a Boomer who got theirs.
Lmao! Yeah, total boomer here.
Totally not stuck on disability after twenty years in a thankless job.
I got mine, I can only hope you get similar in your own time
Yeah not likely unless we forcefully redistribute the wealth of the rich.
Well, yeah, that’s part of the point