Let’s say for argument sake alone as this obviously isn’t true, say we’d reached the point that everyone was paid according to their ability, and every student received about the same education as their parents, wouldn’t the number be right around 50%? Half of kids more adept than parents, half less?
I’m just making the argument here that 50% seems like the ultimate goal. You can’t go up forever.
Yes, unless inflation-adjusted incomes increase each decade, as they did for much of the 20th century: in that scenario a child's peak earning years will tend to happen when incomes are higher than the peak earning years of the parents. Whether incomes should increase forever, and why they did for so long and no longer do, is a separate question.
This is the non-blogspam links that actually talks about the data. The income is inflation adjusted and has fallen to 50% which averaged over a population sounds right in an economy that isn't rapidly expanding. The graph as presented is super confusing because time is represented in the distinct lines rather than an axis on the graph.
Re. your second bullet, these analyses tend to compare wealth at the same age. So that one variable should be eliminated.
Then it all comes down to your first bullet, about GDP.
There are two frames I can adopt.
One is to take GDP for granted as a proxy for quality of life and focus on technology and social organization. Maybe we're too focused on computation and not enough on energy production or something else. Maybe there are inefficiencies in social organization -- e.g., monopolies that kill off alternatives, or rent-seekers whose demands distract people from more productive or creative pursuits, or laws that paralyze activity in a sector (e.g. building codes' role in the housing crisis).
Another is to take a step back and question GDP -- which I mean not in some hippy "we need to measure happiness" sense (though maybe that's what it does come down to), but rather in true confusion about how it could measure real wealth. What it seems to measure is roughly aggregate price (which is some kind of monetary artifact), multiplied by the number of transactions that a person engaged in, in a year. How does that measure the value of what they've been able to accumulate?
I get your real point though, which is not really to insist on GDP per-se, but to say that somehow society needs to produce more real wealth, however that would be appropriately measured.
To me, it's two components: (1) amount of real wealth produced (in your encompassing sense, whether that's GDP-proportional or not) & (2) allocation across ages.
No amount of real wealth growth can solve the "better off future generations" problem if allocation is too badly broken. And no amount of allocation changes can solve it absent sufficient real wealth growth.
To use a current example: We decide that large-scale firms compete better globally (real wealth growth), and therefore support their existence. However, we recognize their scale distorts internal competitive markets (allocation), and so put in place a system that prevents them from acquiring SMBs and instead encourages a healthy, vigorously competitive, and profitable marketplace of independent SMB suppliers underneath them, that provides younger entrants with opportunity.
I guess it might be more interesting to consider places where no one votes meaningfully (e.g. China), and if that somehow works to the advantage of youth (it probably doesn't).
kind of an odd metric. parents' fortunes aren't randomly distributed. e.g. boomers parents dealt with the great depression. I think this is being measured in real dollars although it doesn't say. But... why not just show real incomes distributions? Probably more informative.
The earth is full, so there's less natural wealth available per person. Further, the Ponzi scheme of population growth is slowing down, which means fewer people younger than you are available to support your wealth. This is not a surprise.
The earth is full, so there's less natural wealth available per person. People are living longer. Further, the Ponzi scheme of population growth is slowing down, which means fewer people younger than you are available to support your wealth. This is not a surprise.
The sooner younger generations figure this out the better. Boomers and older are absolutely fleecing us on Social Security (they paid much less tax into) and Medicare (they barely paid into).
This is a huge deal. The silent generation got very wealthy rebuilding after wars. But all generations must do better than the last, otherwise pyramid schemes like 'retirement' are not viable.
The boomers however never quite built the world as much. They needed to do much more. They left us holding tremendous debt and high taxes as they enter 'retirement' but they objectively never saved enough money to make retirement viable.
The boomers are engaging in generational warfare, but that literally doesn't work. As they retire right now and age, they will need productivity from younger generations. Those younger generations will get to decide how much they charge for this service. The boomers cannot stay retired for long at all. No deflation can be expected and they are hoping mass immigration is going to fix the problem?
As the boomers age and need more and more services, the more broke and incapable of maintaining retirement will happen.
There aren't many scenarios where the boomers get to remain retired. None of them are good.
Already happened in Canada. We have a shockingly divisive government at the moment.
What happened was that the previous government increased retirement age by 2 years and like Obama made it such that retirement funds can reduce benefits if they arent financially solvent.
But you can look at other countries where younger generations cant afford to buy homes, certainly not on credit.
Or other countries where there's no more family. The older generation have to resort to silver crime or choose a new part time job.
That's the thing of why generational warfare literally never works out. The younger generation decides on how much engagement there is. The older generation always needs the younger generation. there can never be a forced enslavement of the younger generations.
But another reality, the people who vote are typically those who are old.
Some countries have alreadydecided, for example japan. They wont cut retirement, they've cut everything else. Thus their politicians have basically said their country will not fundamentally function in the near future.
That's going to happen no matter what. Canada for example needs about 5 million to 10 million per year. For the foreseeable future to repair the problem. Obviously that's not even possible.
And yet everyone now has access to products and services not available to the richest people on earth 50 years ago: all of human knowledge, university classes, movies, music, and entertainment accessible from a small device that fits in our pocket.
Take a step back and realize that in order for this statement to be not true, there would have to be the possibility of _endless_ exponential growth, which, on a single planet is technically impossible due to thermodynamic laws, regardless of how much techno-optimism copium you consume daily.
So yes, it's more difficult. It was never supposed to be easier. You live in a world where wealth is tied to energy per capita, and your parents used a lot more energy than you in the 60s and the 70s.
P.S. Also maybe realize that wealth shouldn't be the end all be all goal for people in general. There are multitude of things you can do without wealth and the most essential aren't necessarily energy-intensive.
Ever-increasing wealth is probably not the best goal if you're already fairly wealthy, but below a certain threshold I think it should be near the top of your list.
If you can't afford a safe place to live, healthy food, and medical care, then getting above the threshold where you can will make a huge difference.
26 comments
[ 0.24 ms ] story [ 70.6 ms ] threadI’m just making the argument here that 50% seems like the ultimate goal. You can’t go up forever.
You should see regression to mean away from the median.
And in growing economy you should see kids surpass their parents because their lifespans cover more prosperous times than their parents.
https://opportunityinsights.org/paper/the-fading-american-dr...
This is the non-blogspam links that actually talks about the data. The income is inflation adjusted and has fallen to 50% which averaged over a population sounds right in an economy that isn't rapidly expanding. The graph as presented is super confusing because time is represented in the distinct lines rather than an axis on the graph.
- Country GDP per capita would need to grow (relative to inflation)
- Income would need to be evenly distributed throughout age ranges (i.e. avoiding an increasing share over time skewing older)
Those are conditions we could create... but they'd take a lot of big, unpopular changes.
Then it all comes down to your first bullet, about GDP.
There are two frames I can adopt.
One is to take GDP for granted as a proxy for quality of life and focus on technology and social organization. Maybe we're too focused on computation and not enough on energy production or something else. Maybe there are inefficiencies in social organization -- e.g., monopolies that kill off alternatives, or rent-seekers whose demands distract people from more productive or creative pursuits, or laws that paralyze activity in a sector (e.g. building codes' role in the housing crisis).
Another is to take a step back and question GDP -- which I mean not in some hippy "we need to measure happiness" sense (though maybe that's what it does come down to), but rather in true confusion about how it could measure real wealth. What it seems to measure is roughly aggregate price (which is some kind of monetary artifact), multiplied by the number of transactions that a person engaged in, in a year. How does that measure the value of what they've been able to accumulate?
I get your real point though, which is not really to insist on GDP per-se, but to say that somehow society needs to produce more real wealth, however that would be appropriately measured.
No amount of real wealth growth can solve the "better off future generations" problem if allocation is too badly broken. And no amount of allocation changes can solve it absent sufficient real wealth growth.
To use a current example: We decide that large-scale firms compete better globally (real wealth growth), and therefore support their existence. However, we recognize their scale distorts internal competitive markets (allocation), and so put in place a system that prevents them from acquiring SMBs and instead encourages a healthy, vigorously competitive, and profitable marketplace of independent SMB suppliers underneath them, that provides younger entrants with opportunity.
PS: In the US, if younger people were as organized as AARP and participated in elections at similar rates, allocation would be more favorable to them... https://www.statista.com/statistics/1096299/voter-turnout-pr...
Why limit that just to the US? Voter participation, unless mandatory like in Australia, is always skewed to the old.
I guess it might be more interesting to consider places where no one votes meaningfully (e.g. China), and if that somehow works to the advantage of youth (it probably doesn't).
The sooner younger generations figure this out the better. Boomers and older are absolutely fleecing us on Social Security (they paid much less tax into) and Medicare (they barely paid into).
The boomers however never quite built the world as much. They needed to do much more. They left us holding tremendous debt and high taxes as they enter 'retirement' but they objectively never saved enough money to make retirement viable.
The boomers are engaging in generational warfare, but that literally doesn't work. As they retire right now and age, they will need productivity from younger generations. Those younger generations will get to decide how much they charge for this service. The boomers cannot stay retired for long at all. No deflation can be expected and they are hoping mass immigration is going to fix the problem?
As the boomers age and need more and more services, the more broke and incapable of maintaining retirement will happen.
There aren't many scenarios where the boomers get to remain retired. None of them are good.
The first politician to pit retirees vs everyone else is going to cause the biggest voting block crack in history.
Especially as the country becomes more diverse. It's coming and I don't think boomers are ready for it.
What happened was that the previous government increased retirement age by 2 years and like Obama made it such that retirement funds can reduce benefits if they arent financially solvent.
But you can look at other countries where younger generations cant afford to buy homes, certainly not on credit.
Or other countries where there's no more family. The older generation have to resort to silver crime or choose a new part time job.
That's the thing of why generational warfare literally never works out. The younger generation decides on how much engagement there is. The older generation always needs the younger generation. there can never be a forced enslavement of the younger generations.
But another reality, the people who vote are typically those who are old.
Some countries have alreadydecided, for example japan. They wont cut retirement, they've cut everything else. Thus their politicians have basically said their country will not fundamentally function in the near future.
Unless they open the immigration spigot
That's going to happen no matter what. Canada for example needs about 5 million to 10 million per year. For the foreseeable future to repair the problem. Obviously that's not even possible.
Immigration is also not free.
Boomers also have phones, they also have far more wealth. Your point is moot.
So yes, it's more difficult. It was never supposed to be easier. You live in a world where wealth is tied to energy per capita, and your parents used a lot more energy than you in the 60s and the 70s.
P.S. Also maybe realize that wealth shouldn't be the end all be all goal for people in general. There are multitude of things you can do without wealth and the most essential aren't necessarily energy-intensive.
If you can't afford a safe place to live, healthy food, and medical care, then getting above the threshold where you can will make a huge difference.