Most boomers aren’t “choosing” to retire later, they are forced to by pension reduction and the increase of the Social Security retirement age. I’ll be 65 in a few months and would retire now, but instead, I’m waiting for my 100% Social Security which I won’t have available to me until 15 months past my 65th birthday.
I’d be curious as to how much of the wealth boomers control is actually inherited wealth, and to what extent any will be left over for the youth of today? If my brothers and I don’t squander the wealth we inherited from our father it will eventually go to only two children between the four of us and only one or two grandchild beyond them. Compared to his parents my father much more easily accumulated wealth. I suspect his “asset bubble” will pass on to the next generation soon enough since many boomers are less healthy than their parents were.
The bigger question is whether or not subsequent generations will be able to create wealth at all or be required to make do with less. I suspect the answer is make do with less because of macroeconomic trends independent of demographic trends. These macroeconomic trends were overlooked in this article.
Most of the trends described in this article could simply be a reflection of the fact that market constraints to our monetary system were abandoned in 1971 and that the high production capacity in the economy supported by the same cheap oil that was used to create the petrodollar has been suffering a steady loss of capacity as the EROEI of oil has diminished.
Energy is no longer cheap, so everything has to change. We can’t just have ever-decreasing interest rates and ever-increasing monetary easing forever. Increasing debt is not a realistic substitute for real increases in production. Fake economic growth statistics are unsustainable just like the fake careers noted in this article. We most likely will need simply to make do with less and reform our monetary system to work within a zero or no-growth economic model.