"cost the U.S. an estimated $8 trillion"

Sounds about right.

The cost of the Iraq War was projected to be around 4 trillion, before it started. As I recall, half of that was future health care costs for Veterans.

Not projected to be $4T by Republicans, though. As I'm sure many of us recall, Republicans said stealing Iraq's oil would pay for the war, which is something the oil companies wouldn't let Republicans do, funny how Capitalism works like that

Boomers end in '64-ish. Thiel and Musk are definitely Gen X. Like Kavanaugh. They're early Gen X.

The way to divide Gen X is, what video game console did they have at home as kids. I was born in 71 so my neighbors had Atari. Whereas JPW might be on the Nintendo portion of the spectrum.

I'm not sure when it was I pulled that ladder up against you.
#13 | Posted by Zed

But you can see the hole where the ladder used to be, right?

"Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households."

And you can look at the graph of productivity vs wages, and see the same effect. Productivity keeps going up, wages have been relatively static for fifty years.

Boomers used to say "a rising tide lifts all boats."

Boomers seem acutely unaware that it hasn't been that way for two or three generations now.

I'm guessing, the poor ones didn't notice much change. And the rich ones are papering over the structural failures in society by simply giving money to their kids, which addresses the problem at an individual level, but still limits wealth gains to 20% of households.

"You're leaving out the folks who have no kids, and will be giving the money to other households."

Sure, that's certainly a thing that happens.

Could still be a zero sum game, though, as that household goes away when the parents go.

What portion of total household income is gifts? How much of it is gifts to the bottom 80% of households? Point I'm making is, I get a check from Santa in my stocking, but I'm not in the bottom 80% of households.

As we all say to Boaz, when he says it's not governments job to do charity, individual wealthy families don't have the power to right a structurally, systemically unsound economy.

"Blame games are for children."

Biden's Fault, or Obama's fault?

Okay but now we're back to reminding Boaz that individual charitable contributions are no substitute for a functioning economy.

"(all between 20-28) are in the 80%"

I'd expect most are, at that young age, and in this "Since 1975" death throes of Capitalism age.

We're discussing generational shifts in the economy, mostly implemented at a time when a certain generation was in power.

It's not wrong to examine what those people were thinking, and why.

They were the ones who largely brought about the oligarchy that was grown up in this country, since 9/11 or so.

You can take that personally, or take it as blame, but its also simply what happened.

"Could still be a zero sum game, though, as that household goes away when the parents go."

"Statistically impossible."

But also statistically negligible.

If you disagree, just tell me what percentage of households in the top 20% got there thanks to gifts from unrelated households in the top 20%.

I'm sure it happens. Kids that get scholarships and such. But it's not a structural remedy to a structural problem.

As in: If charity could deliver us a pre 1975 wealth gradient, we wouldn't be talking about the post 1975 wealth gradient.

"Not statistically negligible at all."

I guess it depends on what's negligible?

Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households.

Charitable giving may be reflected in that fact, but it doesn't change it. Whatever change giving has wrought, it has already been accounted for in the observation.

Am I missing something?

"And there will still only be 20% in the top 20%."

Indeed, but it hasn't always been the case that practically all the gains have gone to the top 20%. That started in 1975.