• Azzu@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      13 hours ago

      Wish this would be adjusted for age. Obviously someone who had more time to accumulate wealth will have more wealth. The real question is how much wealth does each generation have at the same age.

      • VeganPizza69 Ⓥ@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 hours ago

        It also matters at the time, as that’s a form of power. Guess who can donate seriously to political campaigns, for example.

        • Azzu@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          True. Question is a bit how much wealth is in things and how much in money - some boomer owning a nice house and a vacation home is very wealthy, but might not necessarily have the liquidity to donate if they live on some relatively small pension.

      • HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        6 hours ago

        I am working off of one bar and have no electricity but this research has been done. I think pew has it, but it might be at ITAR

        • Azzu@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          2 hours ago

          It’s extremely simple. How many people are alive born before 1946? Not many compared to the other generations. Their wealth went to their boomer children.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      14 hours ago

      Well this here GenXer wishes he could have some of that wealth. Unless ‘have a mortgage’ constitutes wealth.

      • Azzu@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        13 hours ago

        It actually does. The amount paid off at least, since the property is the wealth.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          13 hours ago

          Considering how little we’re going to get back when we sell it within the next few months before fleeing to the UK, I would say that I don’t think it’s wealth.

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              12 hours ago

              In the sense that the UK isn’t likely to force my queer daughter into a conversion camp in the near future, no.

                • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  11 hours ago

                  Right, because Labour, (and the Tories and the Lib Dems) are all totally homophobic just like Republicans.

                  What the fuck are you talking about?

                  • Azzu@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    11 hours ago

                    I’m just saying that I think this particular fear you have is roughly equally likely. Maybe the likelihood of it happening in the US is double or triple than the UK, but I think that would put the likelihood only from 0.01% to 0.03%, so basically the same.

                    Forcing queers (~8% of the population) in re-education camps would incite riots. They won’t do it.