>> with each successive generation since the 1940s, wealth has concentrated further in older generations.

He never said living standards were better in the 40s.

> People today are MUCH better off on just about every dimension than in the 1940s!

Sure, but that wasn't the premise. Young people (< age 55) today have a far smaller share of current total wealth than young people did of total wealth in 1940.

And until 1940, each generation accumulated a greater share of value than the generation before. Post-1940, each subsequent generation has a smaller and smaller slice of the pie.

Why should wealth be the measure?

Isn't the thing that we should optimize for is human living conditions improve and happiness increases?