> Someone making steady contributions should have around 10 times the amount of wealth at age 67 than they do at age 30.

What part of that justifies or explains away record inequality?

> Millennials have more wealth than previous generations _at_ _the_ _same_ _age_[2]. Generation Z is earning even more than millennials _at_ _the_ _same_ _age_[3].

Hm - might that be because they live with their parents and can't afford kids? Or because they're sharing an apartment with 5 other people, and having a lot less fun in their life (aka, quality of life).

And are we ignoring the difference between average and median when cherry-picking statistics?

> If you have evidence for why we should dismiss age cohorts, feel free to share it.

My argument isn't that we should ignore age. I never said that. No one said that.

It's that even accounting for age, however you want to do that, there's an extremely problematic level of inequality.

America has 10 million hungry children. Half a million people claim medical bankruptcy every year. There's no excuse for that - and now a cabal of billionaires is gutting Medicaid to help pay for a $4tn tax break mostly for the top 1%.

As of 2023, the top 1% of U.S. households held 30% of the nation's wealth, while the bottom 50% possessed just 2.6%.

This is all deeply psychotic. It's perverse and abnormal in the extreme; and no, it's not explained away by age demographics. It's very intentional bipartisan policy, inflicted against the will of a large majority of Americans.