Fuel, Not Beneficiaries: The Economics That Sacrificed the Flourishing of the Young for the Indulgence of Asset Holders
Millennials and Gen Z did not just get unlucky. They were born into an economy whose basic rules about money, trade, and domestic policy had already been rewritten to favor older asset‑holders, globally mobile firms, and the financial system—and to treat younger workers mostly as fuel, not beneficiaries.
The Fed chooses devaluation
The Federal Reserve was never a neutral referee standing above the system. From the late 1960s on, it consciously chose inflation over hard money. In the “Great Inflation,” consumer prices rose at an average annual rate of about 7% between the late 1960s and early 1980s, with some years in double digits, as the Fed kept money too loose for too long to help finance big deficits and chase lower unemployment. It eventually broke the last link to gold in 1971 rather than defend the dollar’s old value.
Thanks for reading! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
After Paul Volcker finally slammed on the brakes and crushed double‑digit inflation in the early 1980s, the Fed didn’t return to a world where the dollar’s purchasing power was broadly stable over decades. Instead, like other central banks, it settled on a permanent, low‑grade devaluation as the goal—roughly 2 percent inflation forever—later written explicitly into its framework. That was not an accident of history; it was a decision to run the system on a slow leak, because that leak makes debts easier to bear, gives the central bank room to cut rates in every crisis, and keeps asset markets humming even if wages lag behind.
From the 1980s onward, every major crisis—the 1987 crash, the savings‑and‑loan bust, the dot‑com collapse, the 2008 financial crisis, the Covid shock—was managed with that mindset. When trouble hit, interest rates were cut and liquidity poured into financial markets. That stabilized the system, but through a specific channel: it propped up and inflated the prices of stocks, bonds, and real estate much faster and more directly than it raised ordinary wages. Since 1979, overall productivity in the U.S. economy has risen roughly 60%, but pay for the typical worker has risen only about 16%—a growing gap between what the economy produces and what ordinary people see in their paychecks. Older, richer cohorts, who already owned houses and portfolios, repeatedly saw their balance sheets rescued and boosted. Younger cohorts, who mostly had labor to sell and little or no asset base, watched the prices of the things they needed to buy—homes, education, sometimes even basics—move further out of reach after each cycle.
Letting capital and production run
At the same time, the legal and political restraints on capital and production were dismantled. The formal end of Bretton Woods in the early 1970s was followed by a wave of policy changes in the 1980s and 1990s that liberalized capital accounts, loosened controls on cross‑border money flows, and reduced protections for domestic industry. Exchange rates floated. Banks and multinational corporations gained far more freedom to move capital wherever returns looked highest.
Loosening the old controls on cross‑border money didn’t just make it easier to dodge domestic rules; it also turbocharged global wealth creation. But the gains from that newfound ability to move capital at the speed of light didn’t flow evenly. They shifted from the many to a concentrated few who owned and controlled the assets being shuffled around the world, while ordinary workers saw more volatility, weaker bargaining power, and a shrinking claim on the new wealth that system produced. You can see this in the wealth data: baby boomers today hold roughly half of all U.S. household wealth—on the order of $80–85 trillion—while millennials, despite being a huge cohort in their prime working years, hold only around $18 trillion, or under a fifth.
A key turning point was China’s entry into the World Trade Organization in 2001. Wealthy governments, led by the United States, chose to grant China deep, permanent access to their markets under liberal trade rules. That decision dramatically reduced tariffs and barriers, encouraged massive foreign investment into China’s export industries, and assured multinationals that offshoring production there would be protected by a rules‑based system. The result was not just “more trade,” but a concrete relocation of production. Corporations in high‑wage countries could close factories at home, shift manufacturing and supply chains to lower‑wage regions, and bring goods back into rich markets at lower cost.
The now‑famous “China shock” made the consequences visible. Careful studies of import surges from China estimate roughly 2 to 2.4 million U.S. jobs lost between the late 1990s and early 2010s, including around a million manufacturing jobs, concentrated in particular regions. Those areas saw long‑lasting hits to employment and wages and far weaker “adjustment” than policymakers had promised. Older cohorts often experienced this after they had already ridden the late industrial boom and bought homes in rising markets. Younger people in hollowed‑out industrial towns, by contrast, graduated into labor markets where the best jobs their parents knew simply no longer existed.
Domestic amplifiers: land, debt, and weaker labor
The new monetary and trade regimes didn’t operate in a vacuum. Domestic policy choices amplified their distributional effects. Zoning and land‑use restrictions in many productive regions strictly limited new housing, turning access to those regions into a kind of scarcity asset. Incumbent homeowners—disproportionately older and wealthier—saw their property values soar as demand outpaced constrained supply. On top of that, the long era of low interest rates let millions of existing owners lock in ultra‑cheap 30‑year mortgages. When rates later spiked, those owners had every reason to stay put, since moving would mean giving up their low‑rate loans. That “lock‑in” effect takes a big chunk of the housing stock off the market, keeping inventory tight and prices high for younger buyers who never had the chance to lock in at those old rates. Younger would‑be owners face both much higher prices and much higher borrowing costs, and under the credit regime shaped by low rates and rising asset values, the need to take on far more debt just to get a foothold.
Public funding for higher education failed to keep pace as college became the de facto gatekeeper to the remaining good jobs. Tuition rose far faster than median incomes. Easy credit, in the form of student loans, filled the gap, shifting the burden of adjustment onto young people who entered adulthood carrying large debts tied to an increasingly uncertain payoff.
Tax systems tilted toward capital and high‑end wealth, social protections were trimmed in key areas, and active industrial and regional policies lagged far behind the speed of trade and financial integration. In the older order, a mix of capital controls, domestic industry, and state investment contained some of the harshest pressures on workers. In the post‑1970s model, those guardrails were removed or weakened. The central bank’s job became, in practice, to keep the financial system liquid and prevent asset prices from collapsing. There was no equivalent institutional commitment to keep secure jobs plentiful, housing affordable, and basic costs in line for new entrants.
The new rulebook millennials inherit
By the time millennials and Gen Z came into the workforce, they confronted a landscape fundamentally different from what their parents had faced at the same age. Mid‑skill industrial and office paths had been offshored, automated, or made precarious. A globalized economy and trade regime, anchored by decisions like China’s WTO accession and capital‑flow liberalization, gave firms a credible threat: if workers demanded wages adjusted for inflation, production and investment could move. A monetary‑financial regime built on permanent low‑grade inflation and repeated asset rescues boosted the value of existing wealth while squeezing new borrowers whenever inflation ran hot. Domestic housing, education, and labor policies pushed more risk and cost onto young people while protecting the position of incumbent asset‑holders.
The result shows up in balance sheets. Millennials’ total wealth has finally begun to grow in absolute terms, but they still control a much smaller share of national wealth at midlife than boomers did at the same age, and inequality inside the millennial cohort is extreme: a small elite of high earners and asset‑owners looks fine, while the median household scrapes by with little cushion. Millennials and Gen Z did not “fail to work hard” in the same environment their parents enjoyed. They were born into an economy whose core rules about where jobs live, how money moves, what kind of inflation is considered acceptable, and who gets rescued in a crisis had been rewritten. Those choices systematically tilted the system toward older, richer, and more mobile players. They left younger workers burned to keep the economic arrangement running