The great baby-boomer retirement wave is upon us. According to Census Bureau data, 44% of boomers are at retirement age and millions more are soon to join them. By 2030, the largest generation to enter retirement will all be older than 65.
The general assumption is that boomers will have a comfortable retirement. Coasting on their accumulated wealth from three decades as America’s dominant economic force, boomers will sail off into their golden years to sip on margaritas on cruises and luxuriate in their well-appointed homes. After all, Federal Reserve data shows that while the 56 million Americans over 65 make up just 17% of the population, they hold more than half of America’s wealth — $96.4 trillion.
But there’s a flaw in the narrative of a sunny boomer retirement: A lot of older Americans are not set up for their later years. Yes, many members of the generation are loaded, but many more are not. Like every age cohort, there’s significant wealth inequality among retirees — and it’s gotten worse in the past decade. Despite holding more than half of the nation’s wealth, many boomers don’t have enough money to cover the costs of long-term care, and 43% of 55- to 64-year-olds had no retirement savings at all in 2022. That year, 30% of people over 65 were economically insecure, meaning they made less than $27,180 for a single person. And since younger boomers are less financially prepared for retirement than their older boomer siblings, the problem is bound to get worse.
As boomers continue to age out of the workforce, it’s going to put strain on the healthcare system, government programs, and the economy. That means more young people are going to be financially responsible for their parents, more government spending will be allocated to older folks, and economic growth could slow.
Wouldn’t it just be because it’s divided among all their great grand children and spouses? If everyone had 4 children, the wealth would be divided 4^3=64 times. So, $1 million becomes $15k (assuming none is spent by the first 2 generations).
It was talking about wealth levels where passing it down to your children wouldn’t kill it. (Edit 1 million is a lot of money, but at the same time it’s not a lot of money. In many places its not enough to live a comfortable life off with a family indefinitely)
Like you have 40 mil and 3 children and give to those 3.
13.3 mil is with a very safe 3.5% withdrawal is 465.5k a year for each child to spend. At 3.5% that wealth will probably become much larger and be able to grow indefinitely as it’s below the 4% safe rule.
By the time you die it could be 30-50 mil or more and you then give it to your kids. You maintained the generational wealth and passed it on
But instead these children are spending it poorly and they each die with 4 million.
That’s still over a million each for each child of the child, even with 3 kids each, and each of those kids could probably turn it back into generational wealth but then they also spend it poorly.