A commenter on Scot Siskind's substack wrote this:
Looking at some ‘wealth by generation over time’ graphs, I have an intuition that there’s a stable and repeating pattern in the US of the elderly accumulating all the wealth and power while the young are struggling and disenfranchised. And that this creates a legitimate and perpetual intergenerational conflict where the old people really are hurting the young by keeping wealth away from them and passing policies that benefit themselves and their preferences.
I think there is much wisdom here. I remember, back when I was young and struggling, reading something like, "of course the young feel deprived, they suffered a major fall in their standard of living when they moved out of their parents' houses." At the time this puzzled me, because I had never thought of things in quite that way. I saw living in crappy little apartments as part of being young and never considered it to be deprivation. But if what many people in their 20s want is what they had at 17, and that was their own room in a nice house in nice neighborhood with no worries about food or utility bills, then they probably do feel deprived. I am much better off, materially, than I was at 25 or 30 or 35.
I suspect the curves in that graph at the top were different in the pre-WW II era. If what mattered most was how hard you could work, your wealth peaked when you could work hardest, not as your body started its grim decline. But people still went through a cycle of struggle, comparative wealth, and then decline.
One of my favorite historical books is A Midwife's Tale by Laurel Thatcher Ulrich. This chronicle of a Maine woman in the late 1700s traces out the arc of her economic life, which peaked when she had teenage daughters in the house. She was then the mistress of an impressive economic machine, with willing hands to weave, spin, and do other economically productive tasks. She saved money and bought land. Once her daughters married, and her own health declined, this all dropped away one bit at a time until she sold her loom and slid into unproductive and impoverished old age.
We have a different arc, but it is just as powerful. For someone like me, my salary will probably (God willing) peak right before I retire at about 67. If all goes according to plan, my mortgage will be paid off and I will be able to live comfortably on Social Security and my substantial IRA. My wealth will then gradually decline, but if I am lucky it will be enough to keep me fed and warm until I die. The enormous increase in the value of my house will provide a cushion should I need to move into a retirement home. Unless the US economy suffers a major crash, I would probably have to live well into my 90s to be as poor as I was at 25. So far as I can tell, that is a common arc for college-educated people of my generation, and the data seems to show that younger generations are tracking pretty much the same. That is our pattern.
One of the problems with our economic trajectories as currently constructed is that under this system we are poor during our prime child-bearing years. People like me bite the bullet, have kids and struggle, hoping to come out the other end ok. But if you already feel economically stressed and don't have nearly the material circumstances you want, I suppose that having children seems like a huge burden. My wife and I wanted children so much that none of that mattered, but I do see the problem.
But this is all about expectations. At 25 I lived in crappy apartments and ate lots of macaroni and cheese, but I never went hungry or shoeless. By global standards I was never poor. When my wife and I had three small children our lives were frantic – for a while we worked opposite shifts and one some days only saw each other on the way in and out the door – but it was the life I chose, so I never complained, and I now think it was very much worth it.
I am sure that our sytem could be better constructed and more fair. But if the complaint of young Americans now is that they are oppressed and deprived in a way their parents were not, they are wrong. They are just living through a different part of their lives.
5 comments:
According to that graph, the "median real wealth" (I'm assuming some permutation of net worth?) of a 35 year old is around $40,000.
Meanwhile, the average home price in the US costs $359,241. Somehow, I don't think being married and having a collective $80,000 net worth is going to cover that.
They helpfully do perform inflation calculations. But as is almost always the case, people wrongly treat "inflation" and "cost of living" as interchangeable, when they are separate and compounding things.
In 1955, the average home price was around $18,000. Accounting for inflation, that's around $217,693. You'll notice that's substantially less than the $359,241of an average house today. Meaning that house prices are 165% of what they should be after adjusting for inflation.
If you think "not getting married" is the problem, then you must be in favor of polygamy, because you'd need 165% the usual number of spouses to compensate for that shortfall via their added net worth. And then you'd be splitting that same "average home" three ways instead of two (before factoring in children, pets, et cetera).
That extra $150,000+ dollars for a house isn't the product of inflation. It's rising costs of living from other sources, which do not get factored into these kinds of graphs and comparisons. And it's not just homes that have increased cost of living. It's virtually everything. Food, medicine, clothing, transportation, utilities, you name it. That all adds up. Everything is more expensive than it should be based just on inflation.
And we're still only talking about "medians", which in a world with sky-high wealth inequality is a deeply misleading way to measure things. When the middle and upper sections of a set of numbers are uniformly full of much larger values than the lower section of the same set... medians paint a much rosier overall picture than is realistic and representative.
A median is just the point where if you randomly pick a number from the set, you have equal odds of that number being either higher or lower than the median. It doesn't tell you anything at all about HOW MUCH lower or higher those other numbers will be. It's quite useful when you can assume a fairly even distribution of wealth - and it's utter bullshit when you can't.
I am sure that our system could be better constructed and more fair. But if the complaint of young Americans now is that they are oppressed and deprived in a way their parents were not, they are wrong.
The wrinkle you are missing is the problem of just how insane the wealth inequality has gotten. Just how much more absurdly wealthy the top percentages of Americans have gotten, while the rest have actually lost substantially in terms of national wealth share.
In the 1970s, only around 10% of our collective national income flowed to the top 1% of Americans. Nowadays, it's around 25%.
Before, the bottom 99% of Americans had to divvy up 90% of our collective income - meaning the "average" share for a percentile of the population was 0.9090%. Nowadays, those 99 percentiles have to split only 75% - meaning the "average" share is now 0.7575%.
We are all getting smaller slices of the pie - 83.33% of what we used to, and that's just "on average" (the people at the bottom of the 99% were never getting anywhere close to the "average" share, and it has in fact only gotten worse for them). And even if you wanted to point out that the pie itself has gotten bigger in the same time, you need a 20% larger pie just to break even with that smaller share! While at the exact same time, the top 1% have profited even more.
And that's all just INCOME share! The actual numbers for WEALTH share are even more dismal, because wealth is the product of income over time!
The top 1% of Americans control 30.45% of the wealth.
The top 10% of Americans control 67% of the wealth.
The top 50% of Americans control 97.5% of the wealth.
The bottom 50% of Americans control 2.5% of the wealth.
We have about 350 million Americans.
The poorest 175 million of them control 1/40th of the wealth.
The richest 175 million of them control 39/40th of the wealth.
If you can't understand why SO MANY AMERICANS are screaming and shouting about not being able to make ends meet, maybe your problem is you're hanging out with the absurdly privileged half of society.
Of course young people can't buy a house with cash. That's what mortgages are for. Young, married people are buying just as many homes now as young, married people of my generation did. You can look this up.
You haven't "bought a home" if you have a mortgage, John. You don't own a home if you have a mortgage. The bank owns it.
But that's besides the point. If housing costs are 165% what they should be based on inflation, do you imagine that mortgages costs are somehow NOT also similarly bloated? Would you have been able to afford the mortgage on your first house if had been eating that much more out of your net income?
Houses cost more vastly for young people today. Mortgages, obviously, also cost commensurately more for young people today. And yet... in your mind, young people don't have it harder? How the HELL does that work, John?
~~~
Younger generations are buying just as large a number of homes, despite their generations being substantially smaller in size? Do tell. That seems unlikely. Do they perhaps measure home purchases at a per capita rate, bizarrely?
Also, the median age of a first time home buyer has risen drastically since the 1980s, going from 28 to 38 years of age? (Alongside the average age of repeat buyers increasing by 25 years, and the average age of all buyers in aggregate jumping 26 years...) It seems even more unlikely that "young people" are buying as many homes as previous generations in that context, doesn't it?
And we've discussed in previous posts the fact that "homeownership rate" is a misleading figure - it merely represents the percentage of homes that are occupied by the owner. It does NOT represent the percentage of people who own homes, and it completely disregards shared housing arrangements (multi-generational families, renting out portions of a property to tenants, etc.)
Post a Comment