If that was true, you'd expect the younger professionals of today would have comparative amounts of wealth to the boomers when they were young professionals. It's absolutely not the case. Each generation is getting poorer and poorer as they hit the same benchmarks.
This tracks with broad trends of wealth inequality increasing as well.
So no, it's not just "they haven't accumulated yet", because it's not clear they will have the opportunity to do so.
Boomers had a lot more sibling and lot smaller inheritances coming to them. Kids these days will inherit a lot more and share a lot less with siblings.
> you'd expect the younger professionals of today would have comparative amounts of wealth to the boomers when they were young professionals. It's absolutely not the case
Source? The data I’ve seen indicate the median millennial is wealthier than the median boomer was at their age.
The point isn't comparing boomers and younger generations buying diamonds NOW, but when they marry. Boomers typically don't wait till they're 60 to get married.
Um, I'm going to go ahead and point out this, probably not super relevant data point
"While trailing Gen Xers for the beginning of their adult lives, younger American households’ average wealth began to exceed that of Gen Xers at about age 30, reflecting historically high wealth levels following the COVID-19 pandemic." I have a feeling that average wealth adjustment falls very heavily on the home owners, which is only just above half of all the cohort. Had a similar thing happened to boomers in 89, almost 70% would have benefitted.
I think it's also worth pointing out: The share of wealth held by boomers in 89 (why 89? Because they didn't have data before that. It's why the graphs start in a weird spot and why it's not a great study unless you're trying to pull out a "gotcha" stat) represented almost 20% of the total wealth in the country. "Millenials/GenZ" has a hold on only HALF that percentage.
Doctors may hate your one weird statistic, but socio-demographists probably don't...
