How Policymakers Are Screwing Young People

The ladder is being pulled up. The math doesn't lie. And the trends are getting worse.

Here's a fact that should radicalize you: Baby boomers control 51% of American household wealth—$85 trillion—while millennials and Gen Z together hold just 10.7%.

That's not because young people are lazy or bad with money. It's because the system has been systematically rigged to transfer wealth upward—from young to old, from workers to owners, from future generations to present ones.

And it's getting worse.

The Wealth Gap Is Unprecedented

Let's start with the numbers:

At the same age, boomers owned 148.5% more in funds and equities than millennials do today. They bought homes when the price-to-income ratio was 3.2x; today it's 6x. The average age of first-time homebuyers has climbed to 40 years old.

This isn't a generational attitude problem. It's math.

How the Ladder Got Pulled Up

The wealth transfer from young to old happened through specific policy mechanisms:

1. Housing Policy Locked In Boomer Gains

Boomers bought homes in the 1970s and 1980s when housing was affordable. Then policies changed:

• Zoning restrictions made it illegal to build enough housing
• Prop 13 (California) and similar laws locked in low property taxes for existing owners
• Environmental review requirements added years to construction timelines
• NIMBYism became the default—existing homeowners vote against new construction

Result: Home prices rose 400% from 1990-2024. Wages rose less than 200%. Boomers captured massive equity gains. Young people can't afford to buy in.

2. Entitlements Flow to the Old

Where does federal spending go? Overwhelmingly to older Americans:

• Social Security: $1.3+ trillion per year, almost entirely to retirees
• Medicare: $800+ billion per year, for people 65+
• Medicaid: Substantial portion goes to nursing home care for the elderly

Meanwhile, spending on children—education, childcare, child tax credits—is a fraction of that. We invest heavily in the end of life and minimally in the beginning.

3. The Worker-to-Retiree Ratio Is Collapsing

In 1960, there were 5 workers for every retiree receiving Social Security. Today, it's about 3-to-1. By 2042, projections show 2 workers per retiree.

What does this mean practically? Fewer young workers supporting more retirees. Higher taxes on workers. More money flowing from productive young people to non-working elderly.

The system was designed when people died younger and had more children. Demographics changed. Policy didn't.

4. Education Got Expensive; Jobs Got Worse

Boomers went to college when state universities were nearly free. Today, students graduate with tens of thousands in debt for degrees that often don't lead to stable careers.

The jobs that do exist are less secure than they were. Fewer pensions. Weaker unions. More "gig economy" work without benefits. The implicit bargain—work hard, get a stable middle-class life—has been broken.

The Demographic Time Bomb

Here's where it gets really bad: the birth rate is collapsing.

The US fertility rate is currently 1.58 births per woman—well below the 2.1 replacement rate. It's projected to fall to 1.53 by 2036.

What happens when there are fewer young people?

• Smaller workforce: Fewer workers producing goods and services
• Slower economic growth: GDP growth depends partly on population growth
• Worse dependency ratio: Even fewer workers supporting even more retirees
• Fiscal crisis: Less tax revenue to fund Social Security and Medicare

By 2030, deaths in the US may outnumber births. Population growth will depend entirely on immigration.

Why This Continues

If the policies are so obviously bad for young people, why don't they change?

Old people vote. Young people don't. Voter turnout for 65+ is typically 70%+. For 18-29, it's often below 50%. Politicians respond to voters. They respond to old people.

Old people have money. Campaign contributions come from people with wealth. Wealthy people are older. Politicians respond to donors.

Old people have time. Who shows up at city council meetings to oppose new housing? Retirees. Who has time to call their representatives? People who don't work 60 hours a week to afford rent.

The system is self-reinforcing. Policies that benefit the old create wealth for the old. That wealth buys political influence. That influence protects the policies. Round and round.

The Trends Are Worsening

Here's the scariest part: everything points to this getting worse, not better.

Every single major trend is moving in a direction that hurts young people. And the people in power—who are disproportionately old—have no incentive to change course.

What Would Fair Policy Look Like?

If we actually cared about intergenerational equity, we would:

Build housing aggressively. End single-family zoning. Streamline approvals. Make it easy to build near jobs. Let supply catch up with demand.

Reform entitlements. Means-test Social Security and Medicare for wealthy retirees. Raise the retirement age (life expectancy has increased). Redirect some resources to children and young families.

Invest in the young. Universal pre-K. Affordable childcare. Student debt relief or free public college. Make it easier to have kids and raise them.

Tax wealth, not just income. Income taxes hit workers hardest. Wealth taxes would capture gains that older generations have accumulated. Property tax reforms could reduce the lock-in effect.

Plan for demographic change. If birth rates are declining, make it easier to immigrate. Invest in automation and productivity. Don't pretend the old ratios will magically return.

The Political Reality

Will any of this happen? Not without a fight.

The AARP is one of the most powerful lobbying groups in America. "Don't touch my Social Security" is the third rail of politics. Homeowners reliably oppose new construction. The entire political system is optimized to serve people who already have wealth and power.

Young people are scattered, busy, and disillusioned. Many don't vote because they (correctly) perceive that the system doesn't serve them. But that non-participation makes the problem worse.

Change will require young people to organize, vote, donate, and show up at every level of politics—local, state, and federal. It will require making intergenerational equity a political issue that candidates have to address.

It will require getting angry. Because the current trajectory isn't sustainable, and the costs will fall on those least able to bear them.

The Future We're Creating

If nothing changes, here's where we're headed:

• A society where homeownership is reserved for those who inherit wealth
• A workforce crushed by taxes to support retirees who live decades longer than the system assumed
• A birth rate so low that the population shrinks without immigration
• A political system permanently captured by the interests of the wealthy old

This isn't inevitable. But avoiding it requires acknowledging what's happening and demanding change.

The ladder is being pulled up. The question is whether young people will notice in time to do something about it.