Ok, point taken. But what about those of us born in the 80s with parents that made good money, in the 2-3 million and can only to afford a house if they leave us some of their money? There’s also a sense in which the markets are so messed up right now thanks to the boomers that the only chance some of us have at some normalcy with our normal jobs that we can’t afford a house on is to inherit some of our parents money, just to lay a foundation for what we need to support our families in this insane economy. It also seems to me that this group that I fall in is by definition, “downwardly mobile” as you’ve said. Maybe this will help balance things out, not sure.
This situation has arisen because we have, as a country, built too little housing in the places people want to live. The solution is to increase housing supply.
The inequality problem is not middle class Boomers with their lifetime accumulation of assets which will eventually pass to their children if not consumed by end of life care. Rather it is the acceleration of the super rich away from the merely rich not to mention the middle class.
That touches on a thought I had, too — how much of the accumulated money retired Boomers *currently* have will even be around if many of them use it up in end of life care? It's a big assumption they'll even have much left, with the lifespans we currently have (not to mention how few have their adult children are around to help care for them, as families have increasingly become mobile and geographically fractured).
There is one group trying to scrape by on SS and credit cards. Another group has nominal wealth tied up in houses the market for which is frozen. A third group has diversified assets which are subject to the dynamic you identify. And finally, there is a group with enough assets to ride out anything short of collapse.
I don’t think people are too upset about the truly wealthy passing on funds to their layabout kids who will squander it anyway, or middle class people who give their kids a head start. We have a problem, however, when a normal middle class life isn’t available to anyone who doesn’t get substantial family help. That’s become the situation in many desirable locales in North America. Telling young people to move to some remote location, a slum or work in the trades doesn’t cut it.
I don’t think redistribution to government is the answer. That will already happen due to various forms of taxation. The solution is to provide reasonably affordable education and family housing, law and order and well paying jobs. The boomers had this growing up, but didn’t bother to leave it in place for future generations.
Goes nicely with Trumps”I think the labor market will be very good.” Loads of disenfranchised afraid to report even gross violations or injury and afraid of the internal Nazi. Got intelligence? Welcome to how women survived Reagan but now without the backing of federal law or the right to protest without knowing it is the federal government that may fire on you or arrest you instead of a state government going against federal law? This is all unconstitutional . We are headed for the 1920s and the 1930s where the federal government fired upon veterans demanding they live up to a contract. The conservative extremists have been there all along. Nasty training under the bleach blonde hair and lipstick and trust funds. Have and have not. It seems a social support for education, health and the common defense is not compatible with authoritarian rule.
Great roundup. The economic significance of the faltering AI trade really can't be over-stated. I would love to see a deeper dive on this, either in commonplace, here, or on the podcast.
On the inheritocracy, what struck me most from these pieces is that any of it should come as news at all. If r>g, then this is just the default pattern that we should expect. The first 3/4s of the 20th c. were more likely an exception to the rule.
Ask younger people, and they'll mostly scoff at the hand-wringing over crumbling meritocratic ideals. My peers and I have been living in a class-divided, generational-wealth world our whole lives. We need a post-meritocratic story to meet this moment — one that takes moral luck and persistent inequality as it's starting point, and then attempts to minimize the harms that result.
Rawlsian liberalism seems to me to be the correct political part of that story, but it's never been paired with a compelling narrative plot. I wonder how well that Rawlsian story could fit within the comparatively more compelling narrative articulated by American Compass?
Darn, I was hoping for a rundown on the big week for Don and Oren’s tariffs. Along with switching sides from our longtime western democratic allies to the autocratic butcher in Moscow, it was quite a week. At least RFK is all over the measles outbreak and bird flu like cheese on a pizza. Imagine Don at 81… Good luck America.
The Reaganauts discovered what a powerful political drug tax cuts could be and the Republican Party has been addicted since. The day your party advocates tax increases on the wealthy will be the day I think something substantive has changed else this seems more like rhetoric to make your party seem more reasonable while in practice it is not (correspondingly would like to see Dems acknowledge Social Security and Healthcare need trimmed).
How would you define them then? I think he’s being too kind and ridiculously accommodating to acts that we all know are unconstitutional (if the democrats hired George Soros to do anything remotely similar I can only imagine the outrage). Aside from the fact people will die that rely on some of the aid, it’s not even in our self interest.
"...there is an entirely different, clan-based system of morality and justice in which this makes perfect sense. But it is not our western liberal system."
Small correction: it has not been the American system, till now. But it is absolutely the norm in Europe, and every other Old World class-bound society. We are just becoming more like them and developing rigid social classes.
A significant portion of Boomer wealth is in retirement plans such as 401(k)s and the like. The SECURE Act will force the distribution of all traditional plans (before-tax) within ten years of death when the beneficiary is not a spouse. The government will receive a windfall in taxes, particularly when the kids are high-income and live in high-tax states.
Government windfalls do not translate into better outcomes for the less wealthy though . Neither does looking at wealth gaps help anyone when there are so many people with no wealth at all. There is no single answer, but ensuring that all workers had a retirement plan would mean far fewer people with nothing but the clothes on their backs. There would also be far fewer people with no inheritance.
There are multiple avenues to accomplish this. The savings component of the Federal Employee Retirement System could be opened to everyone who pays Social Security taxes. Banks, brokers, and insurance companies would strongly oppose this. Voters would also oppose it since all candidates must pledge to not « touch Social Security » if the are to be elected. I read those pledges as promising not to « fix Social Security. »
Another alternative that evades these problems is to require savings plans to be a part of employment. The government could provide the standard contract as they do with SEP plans, downloadable from IRS.gov. This is not a huge burden on employers and would eliminate most of the objections of the financial industry and the « don’t fix Social Security » crowd.
It would be better to have some savings for more people than to fixate on how much more some people have, particularly since SECURE already heavily taxes a vast portion of it.
There are some really deep and thorough questions that need to be asked and answered before any knee-jerk theories about "wealth distribution" become reality. Here are some questions (answers will no doubt be too subjective): The STANDARDS of the quality of life in theory vary almost as much individually as any of the 8 billion people on the planet. So...where do we start? Which country, culture, race, etc. wins the "lowest common denominator" prize? It always seems to be "someone who has "a lot" telling people who have "some" to give what they have to people "who have none." Sorry. That has never worked and never will. "Human nature" never gives up its edge. All the clichés about money are true. And everyone thinks they never have enough. And if you are over 75 and live another 20 years that may well be so. Also...who is to decide "who gets what?" Certainly doing this politically doesn't work as every society on earth has numerous politicians skimming off the fat before anything gets anywhere where it is intended (should?). Sorry, but this is a waste of time. Philosophies do not really create concrete plans as they are stacked in favor of those who "think they are smarter than everyone else." Capitalism is ruthless but it works. Better than what, you might ask? Well, better than anything else. The BIG, ENORMOUS LIE about any socialistic so-called solution is that "anyone can play." Socialism shrinks the playing field even smaller. There was a lady who worked in the office with me who was always concerned how well everyone else was doing. Not to wish us well, but to be sure that no one got more than she did. She wasn't much fun. Of course money, per se', is a fiction, but we can't carry bags of gold around. There are ways to make the world more "fair" (which is another fiction tied to whomever is making the rules for the day) but that would require such horrible ideas as deferred gratification, sharing, accepting a more simple life-style. But these only work if they are self-imposed, not politically mandated. So it goes....
Ok, point taken. But what about those of us born in the 80s with parents that made good money, in the 2-3 million and can only to afford a house if they leave us some of their money? There’s also a sense in which the markets are so messed up right now thanks to the boomers that the only chance some of us have at some normalcy with our normal jobs that we can’t afford a house on is to inherit some of our parents money, just to lay a foundation for what we need to support our families in this insane economy. It also seems to me that this group that I fall in is by definition, “downwardly mobile” as you’ve said. Maybe this will help balance things out, not sure.
This situation has arisen because we have, as a country, built too little housing in the places people want to live. The solution is to increase housing supply.
The inequality problem is not middle class Boomers with their lifetime accumulation of assets which will eventually pass to their children if not consumed by end of life care. Rather it is the acceleration of the super rich away from the merely rich not to mention the middle class.
That touches on a thought I had, too — how much of the accumulated money retired Boomers *currently* have will even be around if many of them use it up in end of life care? It's a big assumption they'll even have much left, with the lifespans we currently have (not to mention how few have their adult children are around to help care for them, as families have increasingly become mobile and geographically fractured).
There is one group trying to scrape by on SS and credit cards. Another group has nominal wealth tied up in houses the market for which is frozen. A third group has diversified assets which are subject to the dynamic you identify. And finally, there is a group with enough assets to ride out anything short of collapse.
I don’t think people are too upset about the truly wealthy passing on funds to their layabout kids who will squander it anyway, or middle class people who give their kids a head start. We have a problem, however, when a normal middle class life isn’t available to anyone who doesn’t get substantial family help. That’s become the situation in many desirable locales in North America. Telling young people to move to some remote location, a slum or work in the trades doesn’t cut it.
I don’t think redistribution to government is the answer. That will already happen due to various forms of taxation. The solution is to provide reasonably affordable education and family housing, law and order and well paying jobs. The boomers had this growing up, but didn’t bother to leave it in place for future generations.
See here: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/nov/09/inheritance-work-middle-class-home-ownership-cost-of-housing-wages
Goes nicely with Trumps”I think the labor market will be very good.” Loads of disenfranchised afraid to report even gross violations or injury and afraid of the internal Nazi. Got intelligence? Welcome to how women survived Reagan but now without the backing of federal law or the right to protest without knowing it is the federal government that may fire on you or arrest you instead of a state government going against federal law? This is all unconstitutional . We are headed for the 1920s and the 1930s where the federal government fired upon veterans demanding they live up to a contract. The conservative extremists have been there all along. Nasty training under the bleach blonde hair and lipstick and trust funds. Have and have not. It seems a social support for education, health and the common defense is not compatible with authoritarian rule.
Great roundup. The economic significance of the faltering AI trade really can't be over-stated. I would love to see a deeper dive on this, either in commonplace, here, or on the podcast.
On the inheritocracy, what struck me most from these pieces is that any of it should come as news at all. If r>g, then this is just the default pattern that we should expect. The first 3/4s of the 20th c. were more likely an exception to the rule.
Ask younger people, and they'll mostly scoff at the hand-wringing over crumbling meritocratic ideals. My peers and I have been living in a class-divided, generational-wealth world our whole lives. We need a post-meritocratic story to meet this moment — one that takes moral luck and persistent inequality as it's starting point, and then attempts to minimize the harms that result.
Rawlsian liberalism seems to me to be the correct political part of that story, but it's never been paired with a compelling narrative plot. I wonder how well that Rawlsian story could fit within the comparatively more compelling narrative articulated by American Compass?
Darn, I was hoping for a rundown on the big week for Don and Oren’s tariffs. Along with switching sides from our longtime western democratic allies to the autocratic butcher in Moscow, it was quite a week. At least RFK is all over the measles outbreak and bird flu like cheese on a pizza. Imagine Don at 81… Good luck America.
The Reaganauts discovered what a powerful political drug tax cuts could be and the Republican Party has been addicted since. The day your party advocates tax increases on the wealthy will be the day I think something substantive has changed else this seems more like rhetoric to make your party seem more reasonable while in practice it is not (correspondingly would like to see Dems acknowledge Social Security and Healthcare need trimmed).
“Island of Misfit Boys”…what a ridiculously insulting comment.
I thought you were better than that.
How would you define them then? I think he’s being too kind and ridiculously accommodating to acts that we all know are unconstitutional (if the democrats hired George Soros to do anything remotely similar I can only imagine the outrage). Aside from the fact people will die that rely on some of the aid, it’s not even in our self interest.
"...there is an entirely different, clan-based system of morality and justice in which this makes perfect sense. But it is not our western liberal system."
Small correction: it has not been the American system, till now. But it is absolutely the norm in Europe, and every other Old World class-bound society. We are just becoming more like them and developing rigid social classes.
A significant portion of Boomer wealth is in retirement plans such as 401(k)s and the like. The SECURE Act will force the distribution of all traditional plans (before-tax) within ten years of death when the beneficiary is not a spouse. The government will receive a windfall in taxes, particularly when the kids are high-income and live in high-tax states.
Government windfalls do not translate into better outcomes for the less wealthy though . Neither does looking at wealth gaps help anyone when there are so many people with no wealth at all. There is no single answer, but ensuring that all workers had a retirement plan would mean far fewer people with nothing but the clothes on their backs. There would also be far fewer people with no inheritance.
There are multiple avenues to accomplish this. The savings component of the Federal Employee Retirement System could be opened to everyone who pays Social Security taxes. Banks, brokers, and insurance companies would strongly oppose this. Voters would also oppose it since all candidates must pledge to not « touch Social Security » if the are to be elected. I read those pledges as promising not to « fix Social Security. »
Another alternative that evades these problems is to require savings plans to be a part of employment. The government could provide the standard contract as they do with SEP plans, downloadable from IRS.gov. This is not a huge burden on employers and would eliminate most of the objections of the financial industry and the « don’t fix Social Security » crowd.
It would be better to have some savings for more people than to fixate on how much more some people have, particularly since SECURE already heavily taxes a vast portion of it.
There are some really deep and thorough questions that need to be asked and answered before any knee-jerk theories about "wealth distribution" become reality. Here are some questions (answers will no doubt be too subjective): The STANDARDS of the quality of life in theory vary almost as much individually as any of the 8 billion people on the planet. So...where do we start? Which country, culture, race, etc. wins the "lowest common denominator" prize? It always seems to be "someone who has "a lot" telling people who have "some" to give what they have to people "who have none." Sorry. That has never worked and never will. "Human nature" never gives up its edge. All the clichés about money are true. And everyone thinks they never have enough. And if you are over 75 and live another 20 years that may well be so. Also...who is to decide "who gets what?" Certainly doing this politically doesn't work as every society on earth has numerous politicians skimming off the fat before anything gets anywhere where it is intended (should?). Sorry, but this is a waste of time. Philosophies do not really create concrete plans as they are stacked in favor of those who "think they are smarter than everyone else." Capitalism is ruthless but it works. Better than what, you might ask? Well, better than anything else. The BIG, ENORMOUS LIE about any socialistic so-called solution is that "anyone can play." Socialism shrinks the playing field even smaller. There was a lady who worked in the office with me who was always concerned how well everyone else was doing. Not to wish us well, but to be sure that no one got more than she did. She wasn't much fun. Of course money, per se', is a fiction, but we can't carry bags of gold around. There are ways to make the world more "fair" (which is another fiction tied to whomever is making the rules for the day) but that would require such horrible ideas as deferred gratification, sharing, accepting a more simple life-style. But these only work if they are self-imposed, not politically mandated. So it goes....