For comparison, Gen X had 9% of the wealth, and Boomers had 21%. The largest generation in history did everything they were told, became the most educated generation, and now they're the poorest.
Here are the official numbers from the fed for millennial wealth
Zuckerburg owns a very large amount of Facebook stock, and he sells it on a pre-determined, fixed, schedule. The current amount of stock he has is around $80 billion.
To find out how much he’s sold on what schedule, the easiest answer is Yahoo Meta, insider transactions: https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/META/insider-transactions?p=META
You can also look at the their 2022 proxy report official in Meta SEC filings https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1326801/000132680122000043/meta2022definitiveproxysta.htm
Zuckerburg has 93,675,733 vested shares, 831,706 class A shares, and 349,745,790 class B shares a total of 350,577,496 shares (we don’t care about voting rights, just valuation). At today’s market value, those shares are worth $296.73 each (October 30, 2023). We multiple those numbers together and get $104,026,860,388.08.
So, that rounds to $104 billion dollars in Meta stock.
Finally, he controls additional shares via Chan Zuckerberg foundation, Mark Zuckerberg Trust, and assorted other groups.
It doesn't go back before 1989, at which point boomers were 40 to 44 and a much bigger % of the population compared to the small % of the population of millennials that are 40 to 42 at the moment.
That's what the OP implies, if you're comparing wealth at the same point in life that graphic isn't the info you're looking for.
Thanks for confirming what I just said, it doesn't go back before that point.
I guess you'll just have to find it on your own then. I've done enough free work for you here.
You didn't do work, you provided sources for info unrelated to your post.
you're a troll
See how the silent generation wealth is decreasing as time goes? That's because they represent less and less of the total population, it's not because they're getting poorer as time goes. Boomers represent more and more of the population (% wise) as the preceding generation dies off and in the next 20 years you'll see the same curve for boomer wealth, it will be going down as they die.
The post is about millennials not being equal to boomers at the same point in life? Well using the data you shared doesn't prove that since it's not adjusted for the % of the population each generation represents, it's just total wealth for each generation. If Zuckerberg was the only millennial in existence your graph would show millennials as basically non existent and you would still come to the same conclusion even though the only millennial was a billionaire.
What you want is the average wealth for each generation at a certain age, adjust it for inflation and compare that, that's how you prove your point.
The post is about millennials having the least wealth out of any generation, and the disparity in wealth clearly cannot be accounted for by the population distribution as you keep trying to claim. Also, what you actually care about is the median, but I'm not expecting you to understand the difference at this point.
"clearly cannot be accounted for by the population distribution"
Source please, what % of the population did boomers represent when they were 40 vs millennials that are currently 40?
Median or average in this case won't really change a thing, as long as both sets of data are the same, the point is that you have yet to provide a source that confirms the conclusion brought forward by your post.
You're the one who keeps trying to make the case here, so why don't you look it up? It's pretty obvious though that it must've been a lot higher than 2.4% (which is the millennial wealth excluding Zucc) in order to get to where it is in the data set. The fact that you continue arguing here instead of pulling up the data really says all we need to know. If you actually cared to prove your position then you'd pull up the numbers the way I did. You don't do that because you just want to troll.
Zucc single handedly owns around half the millennial wealth, obviously there's a big difference between average and median wealth.
You just proved you don't understand what you're sharing. Zuckerberg is 2% of millennial's wealth, not 2% of everyone's wealth 😂 That's 2% of 4.8%!
I don't pull the info because the burden of proof is on you.
I was very clearly talking about millennial wealth there. Work on your reading comprehension.
It's pretty obvious though that it must've been a lot higher than 2.4% (which is the millennial wealth excluding Zucc)Were you? Because from the original post it's 4.8% (4.4% based on the other numbers) and Zuckerberg represents 2% of millennial wealth, not 2% of total wealth, which means 4.8% - (2% x 4.8%) = 4.704% or 4.4% - (2% x 4.4%) = 4.312%
Zuckerberg doesn't own 40%+ of all of millennial's wealth which is what you implied by saying that millennials without Zuckerberg = 2.4% (4.4 - 2) of total wealth 🙄
Yeah I was, hence why you should spend more time working on your reading comprehension to make your trolling more convincing
US total household wealth: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-fed-wealth/u-s-households-ended-2020-with-record-130-2-trillion-in-wealth-fed-says-idUSKBN2B32H5
130T
4.4% of that is 5.72T
So you're saying that Zuckerberg owns close to 3T in wealth? Making him the richest person in the world by an order of magnitude? That's what you're saying?
Man... You should tell Bloomberg!
https://www.bloomberg.com/billionaires/profiles/mark-e-zuckerberg/
Maybe YOU should work on your reading comprehension. 110B out of 5.7T? Look at that, about 2%!
oh look the troll finally pulls up some numbers 👏
All depends on how you actually count the wealth doesn't it. American households carry a total of $17.1 trillion in debt as of the second quarter of 2023, and the average household debt is $101,915 as of the end of 2022. https://www.fool.com/the-ascent/research/average-household-debt/
So, that's a bit at odds with your 130T figure in household wealth there. Can't both be 100k in debt and have wealth at the same time. But maybe it's that new math they tech you kids in school nowadays.
The 130T is backed by your own source.
Wealth includes possessions, you can be 100k in debt and still own a house worth 1m, you own 900k in total wealth, you're still indebted.
Maybe you didn't get economy classes in school 🤔
Funny how I proved you don't understand the numbers and you just tried to change the subject and you're wrong again.
Unless you paid the mortgage off on your house, then it's not wealth. It's debt that you owe and the house is actually owned by the bank who will immediately repossess it when you stop making your payments. Zucc owns actual tangible wealth as opposed to having debt.
Funny how you keep proving that either you don't understand what wealth actually is or you're just trolling. Hard to say which it is to be honest.
Wrong again
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/pf/12/assets-that-increase-net-worth.asp#:~:text=Keep%20in%20mind%20that%20when,%2D%20%24200%2C000%20%3D%20%24100%2C000%20equity).
And from your own source:
130T in total wealth for American households.
5.something for millennials
So make up your mind, is your source reliable or not?
lol
Yeah, that's what I thought.
Given that you don't understand the difference between wealth and debt, calling what you do thinking is a bit of a stretch. 😂
Dude... I just showed you a source contradicting you, your debt goes against your wealth sure, but a mortgage doesn't mean the house doesn't count in your wealth, neither does a loan on a car, you deduce the debt from the value of the object against which it's been contracted, your wealth is still positive.
The source doesn't contradict me. Counting the house as your wealth is just playing number games in practice. Same goes for your car loan. These aren't assets you hold that you can just sell off if you need money. You need your house to live in, and you need your car to get to places. The fact that you don't even understand such basic things is truly incredible.
How come households wealth isn't negative in your governmental source then if on average people are indebted? 🤔 You understand how averages work, right? Total wealth / number of people... If the average is negative then the first number needs to be negative... You understand that, right? Right?
Oh, that's right, it's not negative in your source because wealth isn't calculated the way you think.
Your source confirms both the 130T (total) and 5.7T (millennials) wealth numbers, my source confirms that Zuckerberg is worth 110B or 2% of 5.7T, not 2% of 130T, you were wrong all along, your own original post also confirms it (2% of millennial wealth is what's said, not 2% of total wealth), deal with it.
Edit: Even you confirm what Zuckerberg is worth in your own OP message, yet you're arguing that he's worth 40% of millennial's wealth which is a completely different number from what you said yourself 😂 That's completely idiotic, off to the block list with you, troll!
Reference your questions about relative percentages of the population etc., I had a whole big ass post with references but I lost it. I'm not doing all that again so I'll just give the main takeaways from memory and the history in my calculator so unfortunately my source is trust me bro.
Two caveats: I'm using median ages of the cohorts, average could charge things (edit: see correction at end). Percentages are of total population including children (who generally have no wealth), not working age plus retired population.
In 1990 the median boomer was 35, they represented 30.6% of the population and had 21.5% of the wealth.
In 2022 the median millennial was 33.5, they represented 21.7% of the population and had 5.6% of the wealth.
So boomers had 1.4x the share of the population but 3.8x the share of the wealth.
Boomers in 1990 did have 1.5 more years to earn, save, and grow their wealth than millennials in 2022(maybe more or less if you use average age), but I don't see how that alone makes the difference. For whatever combination of reasons, boomers had a much larger share of the wealth, relative to their population share, in their mid thirties than millennials do.
Correction: 35 and 33.5 aren't median ages, that's just the age of the middle of the cohort. The point about using average (or even the real median) age for an apples-to-apples comparison stands, I just misused the word median.
Thank you for that! At least that proves something that actually makes sense!