>How can boomers simultaneously be sitting on all the wealth and ‘not have saved’ enough?

I don't believe my argument is that boomers are sitting on all the wealth. That's the problem.

Who owns the most wealth is just a matter of who has died. The older the generation, the more likely they own significant wealth. Silent and older generations used to own >78% in 1989 and has been declining since. The boomers peaked around 55% several years ago and are now declining. Millenials are more wealthy today than ever before.

https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/dataviz/dfa/distr...

Today: Silent gen, 17%, Boomers, 53%, millenials, 25%.

The Boomers needed to save significantly more and be up in the >75% range before their retirement. The very problem is that the boomers aren't sitting on all the wealth.

>As far as I can see, the boomers just expected there to be continued economic growth in good faith, since that is what they experienced and younger generations have found finding this isn’t true.

To be of this position you would not need to run deficits. Governments and others would not be in this much debt. In fact if you were to debt adjust the wealth figures. I bet there would be an even worse scenario. The boomers didn't save enough and were busy running up debt living outside their means.

>That is absolutely the result of US political decisions, but much more the fault of economists and politicians rather than “Boomers” as a whole.

Well this is happening in virtually all countries. Note: I'm not an American nor am I in the USA.

Your argument also seems to want to blame politicians and economists rather than the people whom they represent. That's incorrect, these are decisions that the boomers made. If they outsourced the decisions poorly, the blame still lays with the boomers.

>If younger generations think they can improve their lot by draining ‘money’ from Boomers,

This is the reality of intergenerational equity. 1 generation cannot indebt the next one. The boomers as they retire will depend on younger generations to service their needs. That labour cost will automagically adjust to service the debt.

At the end of the day, that's exactly what negatives rates represent. The older you are, the more likely you have a low risk pension portofolio. Which means you will be in negative rates. The money is draining from the boomers right now. Google the 'real yields of bonds are negative' as they are often lower than inflation.

>we are going to have a different problem, since the value of anyone’s money is determined by the current health of the economy. Yes a few millennials will be able to displace a few boomers from their decaying houses, but we’ll still have a bunch of sick old people to take care of somehow and an unproductive economy.

We are seeing this in other aging countries like Japan and South Korea. Seniors are largely speaking ending up in poverty. It also creates a new problem of 'silver crime' whereas the seniors basically have to go back to work or start stealing.

Also yes, you are correct about that. The labour shortage of 2030 is set in stone. There wont be enough people to service the elderly or really any skilled trade will be quite short. Therefore wages increase but as we already established, the pensions are shrinking under inflation and negative rates. Seniors wont be able to afford to take care of themselves.