By looking only at share of wealth, this is missing the fact that total wealth in the US has grown tremendously over the time period in question. In absolute terms, the inflation-adjusted amount of wealth held by the Baby Boomer and Millennial generations at similar ages is about the same.

In 1989 (the first year in the Fed's data), the Baby Boomer generation held $4.33T in wealth, which would be $9.5T in today's dollars, while in 2021, the Millennial generation held $7.47T in wealth [1]. While that's a little bit less, it's important to keep in mind that the median age of the Baby Boomer generation was 34 in 1989, vs 32 for the Millennial generation in 2021. If you linearly extrapolate Millennial wealth growth, the generation would hold $10.5T in wealth at a similar age.

So what the linked chart really reflects is that the total size of the pie has gotten much larger in the past 30 years. Most of the increase has gone to older generations, but I think that's neither surprising nor undesirable -- after all, 30 years ago, the Millennial generation ranged from not being born yet to elementary school. Will the pie continue to grow over the next 30 years so that Millennials can see a similar increase in wealth (and hear complaints from the kids being born right now)? I'd imagine that's largely up to the decisions we make today.

[1] https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/dataviz/dfa/distr...

Not saying you're wrong, just playing devil's advocate that you could say $4.3T was worth a lot more in 1989 than $7.5T in 2021 based on the outsized pace of inflation for necessary goods to continue living well and growing your personal wealth (homes, healthcare, education). It all depends how you define inflation, and arguably the method to weigh inflation currently does not reflect the growth of those previously mentioned items accurately when compared to their importance.

Read their comment again. The person you’re replying to adjusted for inglflation.

I read it, but I was playing devils advocate arguing the inflation number are incorrect relative to the value of the dollar 30 years ago on essential goods.

Is this going to turn into one of those "the CPI is rigged, the actual inflation rate is..." posts?

Well "rigged" is a bit much, but if people spend large amounts of their money on things that are not included in the CPI basket, then the CPI is an incomplete measure.

One of my elderly grandparents has a pension from doing what would today be considered a "gig economy" 1099 job (was W2 w/health insurance and a retirement account back then), and this has payed enough for him to live off of for the last 25 years of his retirement. He get's $1800/month because he worked as a bag boy 30 years ago. It's nuts.

Wow, that chart is quite an eye-opener. I happen to be a boomer...

That is a terrible chart. Of course share of wealth goes up as you get older - you’ve had more time to acquire it. They’ve attempted to adjust for age, but it’s not helpful when the oldest millennial has barely entered the workforce.

The chart also ignore the population share of each generation - Baby boomers made up a massive part of the US population - 70M out of a population of about 210M (1980) or 33% when they hit working age.

Millennials are slightly larger in numbers - 72M, but smaller part of the total of 330M (2020) or 21%.

Crude analysis and you’d have to assume everything else remains the same (it doesnt), but if all wealth was equally distributed by age you’d expect Millenials (of the same age) to have about 33% less share of the total wealth based on population alone.

Which isn’t far off from that chart if you assume Millennials track similar to Gen-X.

> but it’s not helpful when the oldest millennial has barely entered the workforce.

The oldest millennials are turning 40.

Chart doesn’t even go to 30 for millennials.