undefined | Better HN

0 pointslmt553y ago0 comments

I think the reality is more subtle.

A large number of poorer elder people will be in dire financial straits, forced to work beyond their ability to do so and unable to pay for health care.

However there are also a smaller number of extremely rich baby boomers and a very large number of comfortable middle-class ones. The former will obviously pass on large amounts of wealth. The latter have been forced to save large amounts for their old age, because they have known since middle age that the state would not provide for them very well.

In some cases they have decent final salary based pensions and other very good retirement benefits, no longer available to younger generations. In other cases, they have invested significant sums over the last decades and also made large investment gains.

This group has tended to save for the 'worst case' scenario - a long retirement of leisure spending, followed by drawn out old age with significant care needs. Most of them will not need all this capital - they'll either die younger than expected, or have better health into their 80s and 90s than they feared. The excess will be handed on to their children - and will be a significant source of intra-generational inequality in the future.

Remember also that middle-class baby boomers remain an electoral 500-lb gorilla. Governments have been very reluctant to claw back their benefits and care provisions as fast as has happened to other groups. In some cases they will be provided for better than expected when they planned for retirement.

0 comments

Arubis3y ago

> This group has tended to save for the 'worst case' scenario - a long retirement of leisure spending, followed by drawn out old age with significant care needs. Most of them will not need all this capital [...]

Sure sounds like this group would have had happier, more rewarding life experiences, and at a macro level made a more appropriate investment of effort, had they been able to trust a social safety net.

lotsofpulp3y ago

I think you might be referring to top 10% of households.

https://dqydj.com/net-worth-by-age-calculator-united-states/

75th percentile gets to only $800k by age 70, and that is including the equity in their home. Maybe the beneficiaries of the 70% to 90% households will end up with real estate worth a few hundred thousand, but I do not see much wealth being passed down beyond that.

Labor is only going to get more expensive as greater proportions of the population age out of the workforce and become labor buyers rather than suppliers. Unless many start dying younger than anticipated without using a lot of medical and nursing home care, I would not expect much if I was their descendant.

lmt55OP3y ago

A 'few hundred thousand' is a lot of money to inherit, and for lots of middle-aged people and young families it will go straight back into the housing market, typically in areas that are already quite hot.

Note that the upper quartile having $800k includes $500k which isn't in their primary residence. Older people tend to own cheaper houses than you might think, since they are more likely to live in more rural areas.

If you're 70 and have a house you might be able to live quite a few years on half a million. In practice, you have a decent chance of dying before you spend all your capital.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse