A boomer retirement bomb is about to blow up America's economy - eviltoast

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.

    • jordanlund@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      31
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Because it was in the family for 2 generations before mom. My grandmother designed it, and my great grandmother financed it.

      It was their desire it stay in the family. Ideally, when mom died, it should have gone to my sister, if we’re maintaining a matrilinear line.

      • mriormro@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        20
        ·
        1 year ago

        Thanks for responding! If the home is owned by your mother, isn’t she allowed to do with it what she wants? Or was there some sort of plan set in place that she’s now reneging on?

        I’m not very familiar with generational wealth or the processes by which it’s established so I apologize if I’m coming off as ignorant or if what I’m asking is too personal (grew up incredibly poor and I thought this stuff was, like, a movie plot more than anything else).

        At any rate, thanks again for your response!

        • jordanlund@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          18
          ·
          1 year ago

          There WAS a plan, but it went out the window when my grandmother died and the house transferred to my grandfather. He was a bundle of bad ideas.

        • stratosfear@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          You asked a fair question and were kind about it and people still think you have to be downvoted… I guess those people are entitled to their vote

    • TORFdot0@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      They have about as much of a claim on the house that their mother did anyway

      • nybble41@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The mother had a claim because the house was literally given to her, which was the right of it’s previous owner.

        This person has no claim.

        If the previous owners wanted it to remain with the family line they should have formalized that by placing the house in a trust.

        • TORFdot0@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yes legally you are correct. The mother legally did inherit the home and has no obligation to share any of that windfall with her adult children. The grandparents didn’t put in any legal requirements that the house not be sold/scammed away from in a reverse mortgage scheme.

          My point wasn’t about the legality of the situation just refuting the implied point from the original replay, that while OP did nothing to be entitled to an inheritance, neither did their mother.

          Pulling up the ladder on your way up is a generally shitty thing to do.

    • fidodo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      We’ve set up a society where your success in life is heavily dictated by generational wealth. It’s not fair, but that’s the game, so not passing on generational wealth while enjoying the generational wealth passed on to you is greedy.

    • Psychodelic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      FYI, based on your follow-up comment, this wasn’t a “genuine question” it was more of a self-serving opportunity to impart your beliefs and opinions onto someone else. It’s a bad look, regardless of the shitty opinion you shared. Just thought you might want to know

    • stoly@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Genuine question: why do you think that the mother is more entitled to the house than OP? Neither of them paid for it.

      your comment exists only to be edgy/angry and project your own internal weirdness.