[Zyst]

That's an interesting take I haven't heard ever before. I'd love to ask some questions if you happen to know the answer:

- Since people are constantly retiring, and selling the stocks they are holding at that point: Wouldn't that balance out the limitless demand problem? Boomers/Gen X/Millenials/Gen Z all have around the same segment of the population according to (https://www.statista.com/statistics/296974/us-population-sha...) wouldn't things earlier generations sell get distributed among the next generation, preferentially going to Gen X who will be at their peak earning potential at that point. (Which in turn will sell to Millennials and so on) - How would you actively force money into an economy?

[di4na]

1. They don't sell that much, and more importantly they sell at a far higher price because the market went up. So they comparatively sell more. Studies we have on older people is that they do not actually liquidate theory holdings. What they do is get more loans to invest in rent, backed by their holdings. Or they reduce their money need, by stopping investing in their holdings.

2. Most Boomers are only starting to retire. And they have enormous needs. Plus university endowments, charities funds, etc also are institutional investors. The problem is do they sell. These days usually they only sell to shares buybacks, which actually reinforce the problem.

3. Move pensions to a government tax funded redistributive system, so the income of today pay the pensions of today. Tax land and housing ownership heavily, except for primary house (with a limit based on family size probably for primary house). Heavily (massively. Like 90% at least) tax inheritance. We have good economics support for these, even in heavily capitalistic and neoliberal economic circles. The problem is political. The Boomers will not vote for it, it would take away from them.

[throwaway5959]

I’ve only worked for 15 years but I already know if the inheritance I’ll be leaving to my nieces and nephews will be taxed at 90% I will just retire sooner. And I’m center-left.

[wonderwonder]

I'm not a boomer, and there is no way I would vote to tax what little I am able to leave my children at 90%. I got nothing from my parents and worked hard since i was 15 to scratch out an existence and provide more for my kids than I got. Not a chance I think that the government can do a better job for my kids with what I was able to save by throwing it into a pot than I could

[cagey]

> And [Boomers] have enormous needs.

I extrapolate this to be saying "Compared to other named generations, Boomers have much higher per capita needs". How so?

Or are you rather saying the size of the Boomer generation, being enormous, causes them to collectively have "enormous needs"?