Michael Crowley’s excellent analysis of recent Pew data on the yawning chasm between the values of Millennials and those of the “Silent Generation” provides a compelling Theory of Everything for this political moment: Cultural trends in technology, immigration and race have driven older, whiter Americans further to the right, and their younger, more diverse peers further to the left, than at any point in the last 40 years. But the data also show that the age-old power of economic self-interest is at work.
In making his case that shifting social moors are behind this gap, Crowley notes that young people support Obama despite the fact that “Pew’s numbers show that millennials are less satisfied than Silent Generation members with their finances (perhaps because most seniors don’t have to worry about finding a job).” That dissatisfaction can be explained by more that just unemployment. With lifetime savings and government benefits, it makes sense that older Americans would have more wealth. But Pew’s numbers show an extreme divergence in these groups financial security over the last the 25 years:
In 2009, households headed by adults ages 65 and older possessed 42% more median net worth (assets minus debt) than households headed by their same-aged counterparts had in 1984. During this same period, the wealth of households headed by younger adults moved in the opposite direction. In 2009, households headed by adults younger than 35 had 68% less wealth than households of their same-aged counterparts had in 1984.
As a result of these divergent trends, in 2009 the typical household headed by someone in the older age group had 47 times as much net wealth as the typical household headed by someone in the younger age group–$170,494 versus $3,662 (all figures expressed in 2010 dollars). Back in 1984, this had been a less lopsided ten-to-one ratio. In absolute terms, the oldest households in 1984 had median net wealth $108,936 higher than that of the youngest households. In 2009, the gap had widened to $166,832.
The political implications of this are clouded somewhat by the fact that Democrats are staunch protectors of the status quo on Medicare and Social Security, and, as Crowley alluded to, Obama owns a very bad economy. But on the central question of Democrats’ progressive “fair share” vision for tax policy vs. the flatter, more evenly distributed tax burden espoused by almost every major figure in the modern GOP, there’s no doubt: Liberal policies stand to benefit the younger generation’s wallets, while a conservative agenda would keep more dollars in seniors’ pockets. This dynamic is insufficient to explain the new breadths between Millenials and the Silent Generation, but it is most certainly a factor.
(Chart via the excellent Pew Research Center, do read their full report.)