In Focus delivers deeper coverage of the political, cultural, and ideological issues shaping America. Published daily by senior writers and experts, these in-depth pieces go beyond the headlines to give readers the full picture. You can find our full list of In Focus pieces here.
I’m often astonished at the indifferentism that I encounter among older people (read Boomers) who insist that young people who say they can’t buy a home are just lazy and need to get a better job.
Now I know what you might think. I, a 28-year-old still early in his career who gets paid to write his opinions on the internet, is trafficking in a time-honored cliche of blaming older people for my problems. And yes, I’ll admit, to some degree, that is what I am doing.
There’s a stereotype about politicians that they generally see the world through the lens of the year they were first elected, no matter how different it may be now. If you were elected in 1992, and the year before there had been a wildly successful Middle East military operation, then, obviously, after being reelected in 2002, supporting another Middle East military operation will yield great success and definitely won’t destabilize the entire region for a generation.
And while most Boomers are not politicians, there’s a general truth to the fact that your perspective on the world is largely informed by your life during your early adulthood. After all, this is when you put down roots, start your career, and set yourself up for the next several decades. In other words, if you worked hard, bought a house, and supported a family on a single income when you were in your 20s, then everyone who doesn’t is lazy. And that’s true no matter how different the world may be from 1980.
Which brings me to this data point from a 2019 study from the Economic Policy Institute: Since 1948, worker productivity increased by nearly 250%. At the same time, wage growth has increased by only 114%. Now these two metrics were closely aligned until the late 1970s when they started to diverge. But they really separated during the tech revolution of the 1990s, and since then, worker productivity has continued to grow exponentially, while wages have mostly flatlined.
Now, a lot of this divergence can be easily explained by the reality that today, technology has made an individual employee’s productivity far more efficient. The digital economy alone accounts for nearly 20% of all GDP. Simply put, it takes fewer people to create more productivity in a tech firm today than a factory in the 1970s. Even factories that have embraced automation have seen their productivity increase with fewer employees, and the advent of artificial intelligence will no doubt make it even easier to increase productivity with fewer and fewer employees.
But the story doesn’t end there.
At the same time that this was happening, coincidentally, or perhaps not, the wealth gap between the richest segments of the population and everyone else began to grow. Data from the Federal Reserve shows that in the first quarter of 2025, the wealthiest 20% of the population by income controlled 71% of the nation’s total wealth, which was up from 1990, when the same demographic controlled 60%. The top 1 percent’s share of wealth, specifically, jumped from 16.5% in 1990 to 24% in 2025. The bottom 60%, meanwhile, declined from 23% in 1990 to 15% in 2025.
These statistics are not new to anyone who in recent years has listened to politicians, mostly led by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and other far Left progressives, rant about wealth inequality. “The top 1% controls all the wealth etc. etc.” And while Sanders and his ilk often exaggerate the degree to which wealth inequality exists, the basic premise that wealth is quickly concentrating among a smaller and smaller group of people is factually true.
Now, the fact is that the free market will always lead to wealth gaps of some kind. And that, in and of itself, is not a bad thing. Someone who makes a new product or service that people want to buy and accumulates wealth as a result is exactly the sort of American success story that has given so many people hope.
But as a matter of social cohesion, if the broader economic outlook sees the rich getting richer while the middle class shrinks, the politics of resentment and envy become appealing, which can, and often will, create the circumstances for upheaval and revolution. Just ask the French in 1789 and the Russians in 1917. But while the United States is not currently in the same situation as those nations when violent mobs ran wild in the streets, it doesn’t mean that the issue of wealth distribution is one that can or should be ignored.
The reason that socialist politicians such as Sanders, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), and Democratic New York City mayoral nominee Zohran Mamdani have seen their message resonate is in no small part because they have spoken directly to the issue of wealth distribution. This isn’t to say that their proposed solutions are the answer (they aren’t); but they command support because they have tapped into an anger that exists at wealth distribution.
There’s a genuine fear among many conservatives that even talking about the growing wealth gap is a validation of socialism or communism. But acknowledging this growing divide does not a socialist make; rather, it should provide a further incentive to discuss ways that the free market can correct it.
Defending the integrity of the free market requires an honest assessment of how it is working, and the appeal of socialist politicians such as Mamdani and Sanders is in large part because so many people feel as though the system does not work for them. In many ways, the currents that animate socialist movements on the Left are similar to those that animated the conservative populist movement that propelled President Donald Trump to victory in 2016 and 2024, but in a far more radical form. While Trump promised to bring back good-paying jobs that had helped build the middle class, Sanders and Mamdani want to punish businesses and successful people.
I won’t pretend to have all the answers for how to fix this growing divide. But it is a divide that cannot be ignored. The one solution that I would offer, and I think would go a long way toward making progress on the issue, is to push the market to build more housing and expand home ownership opportunities for those whose incomes should qualify as middle class. Owning property is one of the ways in which people feel as though they have succeeded in building economic stability, and a huge driver of the wealth gap is generational.
POWELL SIGNALS RATE CUTS ARE COMING
According to Fed data, in 1990, people under 40 accounted for 11% of all wealth and held 22% of property. Today, the same demographic holds 6.6% of the nation’s wealth, and, unsurprisingly, their share of real estate holdings has dropped to 12.7%. Those aged 40-54 saw their share of real estate decline from 35% in 1990 to 26% in 2025. At the same time, individuals 70 and older saw their real estate share rise from 15% in 1990 to nearly 26% in 2025.
Expanding the market for starter homes and thus driving the cost of housing down from its current highs, would go a long way towards closing the income and generational wealth gaps and help restore a sense of confidence in the market and the economy. And that is something that every free market conservative should want to see happen.