The "Boomer Vacuum": Who Actually Owns America?

Data Deep Dive: We ran the numbers on 30 years of wealth data. The results explain why your rent is high, why the housing market is broken, and why the "American Dream" math doesn't add up anymore.

1. The Housing "Vibe Shift"

It’s become a truism that buying a home is harder for young people today, but the raw numbers paint a starker picture than most realize. The "American Dream" has long been predicated on the idea of property ownership as the primary vehicle for middle-class wealth accumulation. While there are certainly arguments for the flexibility of renting—mobility, lower maintenance costs, and liquidity—the historical data shows that forced savings through mortgage equity has been the single most reliable way for average Americans to build net worth.

Look at the Red Line below. That's us (Under 35s). We peaked in 2004, fueled by subprime lending that would eventually implode, and then got absolutely crushed in 2008. We still haven't recovered to those pre-crash levels. Meanwhile, the 65+ crowd (Purple Line) barely flinched. They entered the housing market when price-to-income ratios were far more favorable, locked in their gains, and have ridden the wave of asset inflation ever since.

2. The Boomer Vacuum

It’s not just about houses; the divergence in total net worth is even more dramatic. As medical advancements allow people to live longer, they are also holding onto wealth longer, creating a "vacuum" effect at the top of the age pyramid. The wealth that used to circulate down to younger generations through inheritance or spending is now sticking to the ceiling.

This chart shows the total "Pie" of American wealth. In 1990, young adults (Under 40) held about 12% of the nation's wealth. Today? We are fighting for scraps at 7%. Conversely, the 70+ bracket (Purple Area) has exploded. They went from owning 19% of everything to owning nearly a third of the country. This isn't just about "working hard"—it's about the compounding effects of capital over time. If you had assets in 1990, they grew. If you were born in 1990, you started the race miles behind.

3. The "Efficiency Rating" (Per Capita)

A common counter-argument is demographics: "Aren't there just fewer young people now?" To address this, I ran the per-capita numbers to control for population size, creating a Wealth Efficiency Index. If the score is 1.0, a demographic holds its fair share of wealth relative to its size.

The Verdict: Young people (Red Line) have dropped from a 0.28 efficiency to roughly 0.20. We are statistically "punching below our weight" compared to young people in the 90s. But look at the 2008 crisis on this chart. While the Under 40s plummeted, the 70+ crowd actually accelerated. Why? Portfolio differences. Older Americans held more diverse portfolios and owned their homes outright, insulating them from the foreclosure crisis that wiped out the highly-leveraged younger homeowners.

4. The "Smoking Gun" Chart

This is the most important chart I've ever made. I adjusted everything for inflation (2022 dollars) to see how the lifecycle of wealth has mutated.

The Red Line (1989): Used to look like a hill. You got rich, retired, and spent your money until you died. The Teal Line (2022): Looks like a plateau. The modern elderly aren't spending down; they are getting richer well into their 70s.

The Surprise: Look at the far left. Young people today actually have slightly more real wealth ($39k) than young people in 1989 ($13k). You aren't broke—you just feel broke because asset inflation has outpaced your wages. The bar for entry has been raised.

The "Rent and Invest" Arbitrage

There is a silver lining, but it requires discipline. If you are renting, you are likely paying less monthly than you would for a mortgage, property taxes, insurance, and maintenance on an equivalent home (especially at current rates). The "hack" for our generation isn't to stretch for a mortgage that makes you house poor, but to aggressively invest that difference.

If you save the monthly difference between renting and owning and put it into a low-cost index fund, you are effectively building your own equity curve. You are opting out of the "forced savings" of a mortgage in exchange for the liquidity and compounding of the market. It’s not as automatic as paying a mortgage, but the math works—if you actually invest the difference.

The Silent Driver of Discontent

The data is clear: The economic lifecycle has fundamentally changed. The "Old Way" (save cash, retire at 65) relied on a different economic environment where assets were cheaper and yields were higher. But beyond the financial mechanics, we need to talk about the social cost of this structural inequality.

We rarely discuss age-based inequality with the same fervor as other forms of disparity, yet it is perhaps the most defining economic feature of our time. When an entire generation feels locked out of the ownership class, the social contract begins to fray. The hostility inherent in this dynamic—where the future feels structurally foreclosed to the young—is a potent fuel for the extremism and nihilism we see rising in younger demographics. If the game feels rigged, people eventually stop playing by the rules.