Millennials to become richest generation in history

[s1962a]

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2024/feb/28/mill...

[s1962a]

What birth years are Millennials?
millennial, term used to describe a person born between 1981 and 1996, though different sources can vary by a year or two. It was first used in the book Generations (1991) by William Strauss and Neil Howe, who felt it was an appropriate name for the first generation to reach adulthood in the new millennium

[Randy Winkman]

The first line is worrying for me - "Generational transfer of wealth largely built up in property".

That's if it's not all spent on care home costs anyway. I was out walking in Sussex the other day and saw a really nice looking care home out in the countryside so looked it up when I got home. £1,600 ...... a week! (I appreciate that cheaper ones are available.)

[iphonedyou]

Randy Winkman said:

The first line is worrying for me - "Generational transfer of wealth largely built up in property".

That's if it's not all spent on care home costs anyway. I was out walking in Sussex the other day and saw a really nice looking care home out in the countryside so looked it up when I got home. £1,600 ...... a week! (I appreciate that cheaper ones are available.)

Proportion may well change, but I think there's a tendency to believe there are more people in homes than there actually are. And of course, stays tend to be of limited duration. Some statistics at below link.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peopepopulationandcommunity...

[princeperch]

I was born in 1985 and my parents have built up a fair amount of wealth from property, investments, pensions, inheritance etc.

The sad reality is that it's more likely than not that anything my sister and I get will just go straight to our kids and we won't really get much of a look in.

[85Carrera]

princeperch said:

I was born in 1985 and my parents have built up a fair amount of wealth from property, investments, pensions, inheritance etc.

The sad reality is that it's more likely than not that anything my sister and I get will just go straight to our kids and we won't really get much of a look in.

You have kids with your sister

[Doofus]

Hasn't every generation throughout modern history been richer than those before?

[IJWS15]

I’m in my 60s and have 2 children born in the 80s.

They will benefit from
- the wealth accumulated by their grandparents and parents who suffered through high interest rates, they are not high at the moment!
- the trend to have children later or not at all (one has no children, the other 2 born in his mid 30s)
- better education- both of mine have degrees.
- more women in higher paid jobs, there were few when I married in the 80s and even fewer when my parents married in the 50s.

In reality I expect my grandchildren to be wealthier than my children.

[MesoForm]

Doofus said:

Hasn't every generation throughout modern history been richer than those before?

Was my thinking, the article doesn't really explain why Millenials will be richer than Gen X who came before?

[JagLover]

iphonedyou said:

Randy Winkman said:

The first line is worrying for me - "Generational transfer of wealth largely built up in property".

That's if it's not all spent on care home costs anyway. I was out walking in Sussex the other day and saw a really nice looking care home out in the countryside so looked it up when I got home. £1,600 ...... a week! (I appreciate that cheaper ones are available.)

Proportion may well change, but I think there's a tendency to believe there are more people in homes than there actually are. And of course, stays tend to be of limited duration.

Yes

Majority will never set foot in a care-home and those that do are often weeks from passing away. Average length of stay is 20 months with a great deal of variation.

So there will be an unlucky few who lose most of their inheritance to care home fees, but this is not typical.

[s1962a]

Doofus said:

Hasn't every generation throughout modern history been richer than those before?

If you look at the west maybe, but due to various conflicts, and people being displaced, this may not be true for all.

[TikTak]

Randy Winkman said:

The first line is worrying for me - "Generational transfer of wealth largely built up in property".

That's if it's not all spent on care home costs anyway. I was out walking in Sussex the other day and saw a really nice looking care home out in the countryside so looked it up when I got home. £1,600 ...... a week! (I appreciate that cheaper ones are available.)

And assuming you're getting anything, there are some of us who don't get to inherit houses and wealth unfortunately.

On the care costs, I'd be screwed. One of my neighbours is selling her mum's house (she has dementia) because the "cheapest fairly local care home" that will take her is £5300 per month.

She lost her rag with them already because apparently her mum kept asking for digestive biscuits so they asked her to bring some when she next visits because they don't provide them.

[Doofus]

s1962a said:

Doofus said:

Hasn't every generation throughout modern history been richer than those before?

If you look at the west maybe, but due to various conflicts, and people being displaced, this may not be true for all.

Perhaps, but it's only in the west that we have the conceit to categorise our generations by the use reductive names.

[borcy]

JagLover said:

Yes

Majority will never set foot in a care-home and those that do are often weeks from passing away. Average length of stay is 20 months with a great deal of variation.

So there will be an unlucky few who lose most of their inheritance to care home fees, but this is not typical.

I think i read only 13% go to a nursing home. It does seem a big worry for many that's a bit overinflated.

[OutInTheShed]

s1962a said:

Doofus said:

Hasn't every generation throughout modern history been richer than those before?

If you look at the west maybe, but due to various conflicts, and people being displaced, this may not be true for all.

Depends how you measure 'wealth'.

A lot of people in my generation are pretty wealthy, a lot have nothing.
I think this is becoming more extreme, because my generation could start with nothing and afford a house, on a van driver's salary.
Not so easy now with inheritance or hep from parents.

If you look at the monetary value of final salary pensions, together with the ability to buy multiple properties, I think 'Thatcher's Generation' had it pretty good, particularly if you measure wealth relative to people elsewhere in Europe?

But it's a strangely UK-focused way of looking at things, the rest of Europe has always been different.

[KarlMac]

MesoForm said:

Doofus said:

Hasn't every generation throughout modern history been richer than those before?

Was my thinking, the article doesn't really explain why Millenials will be richer than Gen X who came before?

They won’t. Millenials and Gen X can’t get on the property ladder as it stands, all that’s going to happen is that this property is going to tank in value with a smaller pool of buyers available OR people will end up leveraged up to the eyeballs more than they are now.

It’s no good boomers passing on houses no one can afford to buy.

[okgo]

I can see it, especially for those born in the SE.

We're starting to have our grandparents die now in my family, millionaires by virtue of property/being tight as wartime type behaviours, my parents, mates parents, all mostly millionaires by virtue of property, many of them have decent pensions etc too, these are mostly state school types, so dads had normal jobs, not high flying lawyers or bankers - now we get to my generation (I'm 36) - I may be the exception in that I'm fine and also have bought property and well paid work, but most of my mates haven't gone on to do anything that is going to buy them anything like the lifestyle their parents had, but slowly but surely they're starting to come into this money.

Some of them are even just going IO long term with the thought that parents dying in that big house in Haslemere will be worth £2m quid and it'll pay for their house in due course. Risky, but so so common. I suspect its going to be a strange situation of all of us buying each others late parents houses with money from our own late parents or some such circular movement.

[borcy]

Wouldn't prices start to fall if there's no one to buy these properties?

[bloomen]

I would've thought it depends on how much the old dears will have to burn in old age.

Care homes aside, they may be bailing out kiddies throughout adulthood, cost of living is only going one way, pensions could be wobblier than expected, there might be mucky step family arrangements.

I'm sure plenty will get a good windfall, but a lot more than expected might have floated away by then.

[ScotHill]

princeperch said:

The sad reality is that it's more likely than not that anything my sister and I get will just go straight to our kids and we won't really get much of a look in.

Probably similar here - mid-40s, kids are 6 and 2, one parent on each side is probably going to be around for at least another 15-20 years, so we'll be retired and our kids graduated. It would take a heartless dad to spunk an inheritance while their kids are trying to make their way in a tough world.

Depends how they behave over the next few decades though, wee sts.