These days inheritance almost all the time goes from very old people (70-80 years old) to old people (50-60 years old). It almost never goes to young people

Hypothesis: Old people blow it on cruises and young people have families and start businesses.

If true, it would explain the massive post-covid revenue bumps at Carnival Cruise Lines and Royal Caribbean. These guys are making double their pre-covid revenue, and 2019 was a really great year. They're heading to almost 3x their revenue before that: https://valustox.com/RCL

Trump boosting the economy again?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/cruises/2024/11/11/vil...

This is more true than people realize; it seems every week in bogleheads there’s a question that’s basically “how can we use the inheritance we just got to help our grandkids get a leg up without huge tax implications?”

Inheritance is diminishing, boomers are living longer and elder care is hugely expensive, chances are that’s where the inheritance will go.

a) Inheritance is a problem because instead of property going back onto the market it is instead like you say kept inside families and typically used as investment properties.

b) Immigration isn't keeping salaries low. Companies are. Because they have eliminated unionisation and so workers have no means to demand for higher wages. And with so much remote talent companies always have a backup plan in case there is a supply shortage.

c) As you say they compete for the same resources. Now why can't there be more homes ? Because older people fight increasing density, refuse to support taxes on investment properties and are increasingly refusing to downsize once their children move out. Remember for many their legacy depends on high property prices.

> c) ...

It's crazy to me how many old people who self-identify as conservatives / capitalists have no qualms about using their political pull to get government muscle to kill competition in real estate using the building permitting process. Free markets mean free markets. Charlie Munger was right: it's all about incentives.

Traditionalist when it comes to pensions. They paid their share, so young workers should pay them high pensions for decades after retirement.

Capitalists when it comes to ownership. They've made the investments, so young workers should work hard and accept lower wages to pay them shareholder profits. Company taxes should be low.

Socialists when it comes to healthcare. They are old and fragile, so young workers should pay high taxes on their labour to help the old people needing socialized service.

Feudalists when it comes to estates. They are the rightful owners of the land they inherited, so young workers should go into debt for life to buy it off them so that they can cash out lottery money for selling their real estate. Or even better, cash rent money while keeping the property.

Corporatists... I can go on and on.

> young workers should pay high taxes on their labour to help the old people needing socialized service

Which will be largely paid for and staffed by immigrants.

> workers have no means to demand for higher wages

And yet, many workers do make higher wages. Why do you think that is?

How did you just argue both that companies need backup plans to keep wages low in a supply shortage and also that immigration, which solves supply shortages, does not keep wages low; and not see that those claims are contradictory?