this post was submitted on 09 Apr 2025
297 points (97.1% liked)
AMUSING, INTERESTING, OUTRAGEOUS, or PROFOUND
1519 readers
205 users here now
This is a page for anything that's amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound.
♦ ♦ ♦
RULES
❶ Each player gets six cards, except the player on the dealer's right, who gets seven.
❷ Posts, comments, and participants must be amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound.
❸ This page uses Reverse Lemmy-Points™, or 'bad karma'. Please downvote all posts and comments.
❹ Posts, comments, and participants that are not amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound will be removed.
❺ This is a non-smoking page. If you must smoke, please click away and come back later.
❻ Don't be a dick.
Please also abide by the instance rules.
♦ ♦ ♦
Can't get enough? Visit my blog.
♦ ♦ ♦
Please consider donating to Lemmy and Lemmy.World.
$5 a month is all they ask — an absurdly low price for a Lemmyverse of news, education, entertainment, and silly memes.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I mean, all the graph really shows is that the longer you live, the better your chances of amassing assets of some kind.
It implies that baby boomers had some factors amplifying their chances, and it implies that later generations may have disadvantages as well as lacking those advantages, but that's still not a generational issue based on the chart itself.
If anything, it's a condemnation of capitalism, not generational disparities
It shows that every generation has less wealth at the same age than the generation before it, and that boomers are holding on to their lead despite declining numbers in higher age.
It's definitely a generational issue, regardless of causality.
If the Baby Boomers had factors amplifying their chances, as a generation, and later generations did not, how is that not a generational issue?
Why not both
Why not both is because it would have to be about the people to be a generational issue.
It's a systemic issue, and economic issue that's certainly influenced by people, but if you gave the current generation the same economic advantages the boomers had, their scale would would be either the same or similar at the same ages.
It's a semantic thing, I guess.
Generations aren't the same as eras, though. Generations exist within eras, but eras don't travel with the generation in this context.
... that's what a generational issue means.
Clearly they do. The era is over, but the advantages persist in the generation.
They were in control of the era and ended it once they figured out some of the benefits they took for granted might end up going to their children
Then choose whatever terms you prefer, I ain't het up over that.
The point is that the same people or the generation that's at the bottom now would have equally profited from the previous circumstances, and the decline would have led to the same place for their children and grandchildren because the pressures involved were systemic, not a product of the individuals choices without that system.
I'm saying that people are people, and trying to pin the cause of a trend onto the people of a generation without the context of the systemic effects also being in the chart is misleading.
Spoken like a Boomer who got theirs.
Lmao! Yeah, total boomer here.
Totally not stuck on disability after twenty years in a thankless job.
I got mine, I can only hope you get similar in your own time
Yeah not likely unless we forcefully redistribute the wealth of the rich.
Well, yeah, that's part of the point