Mildly interesting

Mik

19% of how much and 31% of how much, adjusted for inflation, plus how many more 70 year olds are there with our aging boomer population? The percentages tell us very little.

jon-nyc

LuFins Dad

@jon-nyc said in Mildly interesting:

That’s a pointless and useless statistic.

in 1989, the 70+ crowd was the Greatest Generation, which was decimated by two wars, and higher mortality from any number of causes. Today, the 70+ crowd are the boomers, much more plentiful in numbers, so it’s only natural for a higher percentage of the wealth is in their hands.
in 1989, the average mortgage interest rate was/is 10.25%, so all of these people bitching about interest rates as a cause for the affordability crisis can bite me.
As @Mik points out, a percentage of how much?
I think I’m typing this post on one of the biggest reasons for the wealth gap. When I was in my 20s, I wasn’t having to buy a $1K phone every 4 years, a new computer every 4-5 years, and spending thousands of dollars on internet and data plans every year. These days it’s expected…

Mik

The figure that really annihilates this is that in 1989 a hell of a lot more wealth was held in pension funds where today most all of it is in individuals’ retirement savings.

jon-nyc

It’s just a statistic. Nothing ‘annihilates’ it unless you’re projecting some message or moral onto it yourself.

Mik

The original tweet was meant to do exactly that. Whether you meant it that way I cannot say, but the intention was clearly to support the inequality claim. I’m not projecting anything other than it’s a bullshit statistic for the purpose.

Axtremus

Google says:

In the USA, the percentage of the population aged 70 and older was approximately 9.1% in 1989 and is projected to be around 11.33% in 2025. The share of the older population has increased over this period due to increased life expectancy and the aging of the baby boomer generation.

Percentage of Population in 1989
Based on population data, the approximate percentages for age groups 70 and older in 1989 were:

• 70-74 years: 3.5%
• 75-79 years: 2.8%
• 80-84 years: 2.2%
• 85+ years: approximately 0.6% to 0.9% (extrapolated from data) [4]

The total percentage of the population aged 70 and older in 1989 was approximately $3.5% + 2.8% + 2.2% + 0.6% = 9.1%.

Percentage of Population in 2025
For 2025, projected data provides a more precise breakdown:

• 70-74 years: 4.5%
• 75-79 years: 3%
• 80-84 years: 1.91%
• 85+ years: 1.92% [7]

The total percentage of the population aged 70 and older in 2025 is approximately $4.5% + 3% + 1.91% + 1.92% = 11.33%.

AI responses may include mistakes.

[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2025/11/06/how-americans-are-thinking-about-aging/
[2] https://www.statista.com/statistics/457822/share-of-old-age-population-in-the-total-us-population/
[3] https://www.facebook.com/OfficialPeterMallouk/photos/a-record-32-of-household-wealth-is-now-held-by-americans-that-are-70-years-of-ag/1378770223686396/
[4] https://www.populationpyramid.net/united-states-of-america/1989/
[5] https://www.ssa.gov/oact/NOTES/AS112/as112.html
[6] https://www.cato.org/blog/native-born-americans-are-not-losing-jobs-foreigners
[7] https://www.neilsberg.com/insights/united-states-population-by-age/

Axtremus

Wealth accumulates for the 70+ crowd faster than the population growth for the 70+ crowd.
While this does not necessarily suggest "inequity," it does indicate "increased concentration" of wealth for the 70+ crowd.

Wealth in pension funds vs. wealth in 401(k)? That comes down to control. The wealth in pension funds meant to benefit the 70+crowd is not controlled by the 70+ crowd. The wealth in 401(k) accounts of the 70+ crowd is controlled by the 70+ crowd. Is one "better" than the other? That's a whole other discussion.

jon-nyc

Generative AI, 3 years in.

The New Coffee Room

Mildly interesting