I must be missing something in this article. It seems to say that older generations have more net worth than younger generations. Its graph depicting net worth by age scales almost linearly. Isn't this how it's supposed to work?
If I encounter someone who has spent a year digging a hole, another person who has spent two years digging a hole, and another person who has spent ten years digging a hole, I suspect that each respective hole's depth would be roughly proportional to the length of time spent digging it. The same concept applies to years making income. Clearly this isn't ubiquitous, since it's only possible to gain wealth if you make enough money to save wealth, but one could argue using this data that it's actually the norm.
People should start spending their retirement at some point. The article points out that in the 80s, the 45-65 group had the most money, more than the 65+ group. But apparently older people are now hanging onto their still-appreciating homes, and only when they die will they pass on their homes to their (also now aging) children.
If I encounter someone who has spent a year digging a hole, another person who has spent two years digging a hole, and another person who has spent ten years digging a hole, I suspect that each respective hole's depth would be roughly proportional to the length of time spent digging it. The same concept applies to years making income. Clearly this isn't ubiquitous, since it's only possible to gain wealth if you make enough money to save wealth, but one could argue using this data that it's actually the norm.
What am I missing?