iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

U.S. Wealth Gap Between Young, Old Is Widest Ever

HOPE YEN   11/07/11 01:26 PM ET  AP

WASHINGTON — The wealth gap between younger and older Americans has stretched to the widest on record, worsened by a prolonged economic downturn that has wiped out job opportunities for young adults and saddled them with housing and college debt.

The typical U.S. household headed by a person age 65 or older has a net worth 47 times greater than a household headed by someone under 35, according to an analysis of census data released Monday.

While people typically accumulate assets as they age, this gap is now more than double what it was in 2005 and nearly five times the 10-to-1 disparity a quarter-century ago, after adjusting for inflation.

The analysis by the Pew Research Center reflects the impact of the economic downturn, which has hit young adults particularly hard. More are pursuing college or advanced degrees, taking on debt as they wait for the job market to recover. Others are struggling to pay mortgage costs on homes now worth less than when they were bought in the housing boom.

The report, coming out before the Nov. 23 deadline for a special congressional committee to propose $1.2 trillion in budget cuts over 10 years, casts a spotlight on a government safety net that has buoyed older Americans on Social Security and Medicare amid wider cuts to education and other programs. Complaints about wealth inequality, high unemployment and student debt also have been front and center at Occupy Wall Street protests around the country.

"It makes us wonder whether the extraordinary amount of resources we spend on retirees and their health care should be at least partially reallocated to those who are hurting worse than them," said Harry Holzer, a labor economist and public policy professor at Georgetown University who called the magnitude of the gap "striking."

The median net worth of households headed by someone 65 or older was $170,494. That is 42 percent more than in 1984, when the Census Bureau first began measuring such data broken down by age. The median net worth for the younger-age households was $3,662, down by 68 percent from a quarter-century ago, according to the Pew analysis.

Net worth includes the value of a person's home, possessions and savings accumulated over the years, including stocks, bank accounts, real estate, cars, boats or other property, minus any debt such as mortgages, college loans and credit card bills. Older Americans tend to have higher net worth because they are more likely to have paid off their mortgages and built up more savings over time.

Because the Pew report examines households at the midpoint of the economic scale, it does not delve deeply into changes occurring at the top and bottom of the distribution. A new census measure released Monday shows the poverty rate to be higher than previously known – about 15.9 percent for Americans 65 or older, compared to the official 9 percent rate reported in September. Working-age adults ages 18-64 also saw increases in poverty – from 13.7 percent to 15.2 percent.

Nancy LeaMond, an executive vice president of AARP, noted that older Americans spend a disproportionate share of their income on out-of-pocket medical care, compared to other groups. "Millions of older Americans today continue to struggle to make ends meet," she said. "Many older Americans do own their homes, but plummeting housing values – along with dwindling savings, stagnant pensions and prolonged periods of unemployment – have taken their toll."

The 47-to-1 gap in net worth between old and young is believed by demographers to be the highest ever, even predating government records.

In all, 37 percent of younger-age households have a net worth of zero or less, nearly double the share in 1984. But among households headed by a person 65 or older, the percentage in that category has been largely unchanged at 8 percent.

While the gap in net worth has been widening gradually due to delayed marriage and increases in single parenting among young adults, the housing bust and recession have made it significantly worse.

For young adults, the main asset is their home. Their housing net worth dropped 31 percent from 1984, the result of increased debt and falling home values. In contrast, Americans 65 or older were more likely to have bought homes long before the housing boom and thus saw a 57 percent gain in housing net worth even after the bust.

Older Americans are staying in jobs longer, while young adults now face the highest unemployment since World War II. As a result, the median income of older-age households since 1967 has grown at four times the rate of those headed by the under-35 age group.

Social Security benefits account for 55 percent of the annual income for older-age households, unchanged since 1984. The retirement benefits, which are indexed for inflation, have been a consistent source of income even as safety-net benefits for other groups such as low-income students have failed to keep up with rising costs. The congressional supercommittee that is proposing cuts has been reviewing whether to trim college aid programs, such as by restricting eligibility or charging students interest on loans while they are still in school.

Paul Taylor, director of Pew Social & Demographic Trends and co-author of the analysis, said the report shows that today's young adults are starting out in life in a very tough economic position. "If this pattern continues, it will call into question one of the most basic tenets of the American Dream – the idea that each generation does better than the one that came before," he said.

Other findings:

_Households headed by someone under age 35 had their median net worth reduced by 27 percent in 2009 as a result of unsecured liabilities, mostly a combination of credit card debt and student loans. No other age group had anywhere near that level of unsecured liability acting as a drag on net worth; the next closest was the 35-44 age group, at 10 percent.

_Wealth inequality is increasing within all age groups. Among the younger-age households, those living in debt have grown the fastest while the share of households with net worth of at least $250,000 edged up slightly to 2 percent. Among the older-age households, the share of households worth at least $250,000 rose to 20 percent from 8 percent in 1984; those living in debt were largely unchanged at 8 percent.

Sheldon Danziger, a University of Michigan public policy professor who specializes in poverty, noted skyrocketing college tuition costs, which come as many strapped state governments cut support for public universities. Federal spending on Pell Grants to low-income students has risen somewhat, but covers a diminishing share of the actual cost of attending college.

"The elderly have a comprehensive safety net that most adults, especially young adults, lack," Danziger said.

___

Online:

Census Bureau: www.census.gov

Pew: http://pewsocialtrends.org

FOLLOW HUFFPOST BUSINESS

Filed by Alana Horowitz  |  Report Corrections
 
 
  • Comments
  • 8,969
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (133 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Fred Bronson
America Unite, Export and Deport
04:43 PM on 11/15/2011
Yes the good old days, wages were good, prices were low, and Americans were living the DREAM, then came greed companies found illegal Hispanics they found they could replace us with people who they could not understand or be under stood, but wait it back fired the illegals learned if they got their foot in the door, got a lot of their people jobs they could hold the companies hostage which they are doing. Then they found hay I'll bring up my wife have her pop out a few anchors and I can get free medical, and food stamps, along with not paying taxes, or SS. I can live the American dream and !!!! The gringos".............
Frederick Bronson. Durham, NC
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
08:10 PM on 11/09/2011
Do readers realize that the only place in Huff Post that the generation gap, or aging, or ageism, is being discussed is in the business section. And even so, this piece written by Hope Yen is actually about so many other things, and only a tiny bit about the division of wealth between the old and the young. It is a false division, more than likely intended to create division instead of explain it.

We all know there are seniors who are living in poverty, just as we know there are under 35-uyr-olds who have too much money to spend. Manipulating statistics to arrive at the conclusion one wants to isn't clever. It is devious, it is cunning, and it may even work, but how can people have respect for such a person who writes this nonsense, or fot the Huff Post editors who condone it.

Why is there still a section called 'Women' in the Living category of this paper? Why isn't it called Gender? Or how about 'Couples and Singledom'?

And why isnt there a category called 'Aging' or the 'Generation Gap'? Why are the differences between the young and the old all made to come down to money? I would like to talk about aging itself, and not simply all the money problems.
07:27 AM on 11/09/2011
This is a non sense article.
Young folks have never been worth as much as the older generation.They are at a building stage in life and a 65 year old is in a finished mode.
So dad can help his kids out.
This has always been the case.
07:08 AM on 11/09/2011
Lots of years separates a 65 and a 35 year old.
Why wouldnt an older person have accumulated more?
Older folks have stuff paid off.
Is this cause for alarm? No,
65 year old isnt rich if worth only 175K,thats for sure.
01:33 AM on 11/09/2011
So...part of this is just a propaganda piece to attack Social Security and Medicare. Those programs, paid into during people's working lives should be reallocated?...NO!

The whole system is skewed against today's young people, except the ones running to Wall Street to get filthy rich at the expense of others. College graduates didn't use to face back breaking loan debt upon graduation. People bought houses that were a high percentage of their income, but over time their wages rose and that percentage decreased. Corporate America, the Wall Street Thieves and their paid off Politicians have changed everything to suit the investor class at the expense of the majority.
10:01 PM on 11/08/2011
The largest increase in household expenses over the last 20 years was taxes, at all levels of government. So make sure you lay blame in the right place. It is time for a revolution.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
moutonnoir
iconoclastic demagoguery
10:03 PM on 11/08/2011
not for the rich it wasnt.. and that is the issue...
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
stuart100s
I started with nothing, & still have most of it.
08:06 PM on 11/10/2011
Yes .... it was, for the rich as well. The rich are paying the largest portion of taxes - ever.
08:30 PM on 11/08/2011
I was too one of the 1%. But a real estate crash, divorce and loss of interest in the money game have me happily a part of the 99% with the young. Go 99%!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
09:09 PM on 11/08/2011
And that was household income? over $250,000?

So that would be combined income of you and your spouse, I gather. But you did have a career, and are still working I assume. I think to be happy as a divorrced woman, or man, one would have to have a career.

What do you mean, "part of the 99% with the young"?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Anne Rutherford
07:49 PM on 11/08/2011
This completely fails to account for significant structural changes in our economy. In 1984, it was still possible to find a job in manufacturing that might help support your family. Those jobs are now replaced by part-time positions in a service economy at much lower wages. A year's unpaid internship is now becoming the norm (hard to do unless someone else supports you) and even then, you may not obtain a position. Lots has changed - the cost of health insurance and health care, transportration, and food - all in an economy where wages are stagnant. The older workers are staying longer since their 401(k)s tanked to try to recoup, thus hanging onto jobs that might be filled by younger workers. Student loan debt and tuition costs are rising as rapidly as health insurance costs, leaving new graduates owing repayment in excess of $600/month within six months of graduation and depressed job market. Everyone is getting hit by this.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
09:20 PM on 11/08/2011
Some are getting harder hit than others, that's for sure.

When you talk of 1984 I think you mean just as feminism was taking hold and increasing numbers of women were entering the work force - different regions would take hold at different times. Before that, men were still able to be the providers for the family.

The two-income well-to-do household in today's world, however, isn't going to suffer the same way others suffer. Feminism has helped some families and has led to many men and women not being able to get a foothold at all in the workplace - or in higher education. The middle classes look after the middle classes, no matter which country they come from, along with a few token gestures to give the illusion of fairness. It also gives the higher classes the authority to bring in suitable members of the lower classes to join their ranks. they will have the power to choose. No more of this encouraging of the lower classes to become university-educated.
07:25 PM on 11/08/2011
Everybody crying about how tough it is seems to be missing something

We live in a society where you have the freedom to go as far as your talents & ambitions will allow. But freedom isn't one-sided, it carries the risk of failure

If you are poor, it is because of choices YOU made, failed to make or refused to consider. YOU decided to drop out of school, to have a dozen kids, to not get your GED, Diploma or Degree. YOU decided to buy a new car instead of keeping the old one till the wheels fell off

NOBODY forced you into get-rich-quick scams. NOBODY forced you to buy a house you couldn't afford. NOBODY forced you to sign an overpriced mortgage from a skuzzy lender without reading it first. NOBODY forced you into an Ivy League school, or to sign for $100K in student loans for a useless degree in New-Age Basket Weaving

Don't hate me because I made different choices. Don't hate me because I didn't drop out of High School and I waited to have kids. Don't hate me because I joined the Army to pay for school instead of taking out student loans. Don't hate me because I went to Community College and a State University FOR THE EXACT SAME DEGREE

Don't hate me because I saved my pennies, invested wisely, bought prudently, spent miserly and now have all the things you don't currently have.

I am the 1%. Get over it
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Anne Rutherford
07:38 PM on 11/08/2011
You are one chronic illness or accident from becoming the 99%. Yes, you made good decisions, so yay for you. It isn't always personal choice that is the sole determiner of your destiny. You were fortunate enough to have good health to go into the Army (there are those who can't do that). So folks married what they thought was good match to end up alone because of death or unresolvable issues (think abuse here). Many of us with college debt did exactly what you did, minus the Army, and used those community colleges and state schools - but we still have loans. No one hate you for good decisions - just a lousy superiority complex and a zero empathy rating.
photo
logansteele1
You can't have it both ways.
08:54 PM on 11/08/2011
I agree that there are extenuating circumstances that affect the financial stability one may have, but I also don't see the concept of the "rainy day" in younger generations.

Today many young people think they should have it all. Now. And in a perfect world they would. But the world is not perfect. You do have to consider the worst case scenario when you sign for tens of thousands of dollars in loans. Or have children, or purchase cars and electronic gadgets.

There is no guarantee when you take a college loan that you will get anything more than a college degree...and even then, only if you apply yourself. Jobs are not attached to that contract. You have to strongly consider if that is a risk you are willing to pay for. Because in the end, if it is your loan, for an education, a car or a house, no matter what else happens, that loan must be paid back.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
10:28 PM on 11/08/2011
I'd like to know Spp's age, and socio-economic background, to try to make sense of this.

How is it some people turn out so arrogant, seeing their financial success as meaning they are cleverer than most?

All this, and yet he (it is a he, isn't it) doesn't sound happy.

Just in case he didn't catch this, Anne, I want to make he understands what you meant by your first sentence - lucky, in other words. Lucky nothing bad has happened yet, nothing that got in the way of achieving all he wanted to achieve.

I wonder, too, now that Spp has it all, what further goals could there possibly be? What else could there be to accomplish, or learn, about other people or the world?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
moutonnoir
iconoclastic demagoguery
10:05 PM on 11/08/2011
the 1%?

Hah. i doubt it.. you seem more like the blustery and delluded AM radio listening type... check it out, the numbers dont lie:

profits (after tax) http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CP

the share going to workers: http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/PRS85006173
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
rolor
'round and 'round we go
06:52 PM on 11/08/2011
Remake America: Income Inequality
http://news.yahoo.com/remake-america--income-inequality.html
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
TJ25
Mason
05:13 PM on 11/08/2011
It's a good thing the older generation hasn't taken this younger generations attitude, we could have said to h*ll with them and just partied our brains out or be whining that the generation before us wasn't good enough. This younger generation wouldn't have what they have today including their education, after it's all said and done their parents (the older generation) are the very ones who afforded them these things. I wonder how their children will fare, considering they
have this entitlement attitude.
04:39 PM on 11/08/2011
I think that there is a lot wrong with your thinking , Did you take the fact that most all young people are living with their parents. They are going to school instead of saveing money and aquireing things also I think that there is a whole lot of people begrudgeing that a lot of people saved enough to live on and they like you are still working !! JUST SAYING!!
photo
glers
ambidextrous winger
04:30 PM on 11/08/2011
All thanks to to the new American evil....Conservatism
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Robert Fanney
Scribbler
04:32 PM on 11/08/2011
The youth need a reason to believe there's a future. And everyone wonders why so many people are involved in the Occupations.
photo
logansteele1
You can't have it both ways.
09:11 PM on 11/08/2011
There is always a future. It just won't be what you want simply because you want it. You have to work and plan to make the future the vision you believe in. No one is going to hand it to you. And then there is always the reality of things not working out. I doubt any young people in the 1900's thought about going to war, in 1920 thought about a depression. In the 1940's thought a nuclear bomb would be dropped. That wasn't part of the plan. But these things do happen. We have to adjust. It really is our only option.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
wildbill654
information/misinformation age?
04:20 PM on 11/08/2011
and of course the young have little assets.
(deleted from 1st post)