I don’t get why we’re scoffing? Presumably many of the old leeches have millennial heirs who will turn around and continue leeching so the number will continue to go up. Unless, oh idk, the whole system were to suddenly explode for some reason
I’m scoffing because as a 35 year old millenial myself, it hardly feels like I’m the “richest generation” when I can’t afford to heat my home and have to wait for my parents to die and divide their estate amongst me and my siblings before I have a meaningful shot at economic security.
Oh I agree the article is dumb. That’s why I’m scoffing at it.
What I’m saying is that my parents will probably be alive another 15 years. If I get that inheritance then I’ll be 50 or more. That’s 15 years from what’s generally considered retirement age (like I’ll get to retire), and 30 or less from my life expectancy. Even if I get be ‘rich’ for a few decades, I’ll still have spent the majority of my life poor.
In totality, I would not be considered a rich person, but a poor one who got some money in the end. That feels like an extremely important distinction to me.
This is of course all leaving out the inherent issues with generational wealth accumulation and the effects it has on economic disparity. As previously agreed, the article is dumb.
I don’t get why we’re scoffing? Presumably many of the old leeches have millennial heirs who will turn around and continue leeching so the number will continue to go up. Unless, oh idk, the whole system were to suddenly explode for some reason
I’m scoffing because as a 35 year old millenial myself, it hardly feels like I’m the “richest generation” when I can’t afford to heat my home and have to wait for my parents to die and divide their estate amongst me and my siblings before I have a meaningful shot at economic security.
Edit: spelling.
Right but cumulatively it’s the same pot of money. I’m not arguing we’re not poor, just that this article is dumb.
Oh I agree the article is dumb. That’s why I’m scoffing at it.
What I’m saying is that my parents will probably be alive another 15 years. If I get that inheritance then I’ll be 50 or more. That’s 15 years from what’s generally considered retirement age (like I’ll get to retire), and 30 or less from my life expectancy. Even if I get be ‘rich’ for a few decades, I’ll still have spent the majority of my life poor.
In totality, I would not be considered a rich person, but a poor one who got some money in the end. That feels like an extremely important distinction to me.
This is of course all leaving out the inherent issues with generational wealth accumulation and the effects it has on economic disparity. As previously agreed, the article is dumb.