Danger Ahead?
Forbes recently ran this article — Gen X and Gen Y Wealth Stagnates.
The article is based on a study by the Urban Institute which compares the wealth of various age cohorts as it stood in 1983 versus 2010.
Forbes reports as follows:
“While the net worth of those 47 and older is roughly double that of someone the same age 27 years earlier, today’s adults in their mid-30s or younger have accumulated no more wealth than their counterparts 27 years ago.
Specifically, those ages 29 to 37 (younger Gen Xers and older Gen Yers) actually lost significant ground; they saw their average net worth drop 21% between 1983 and 2010. (The comparison is between people of the same age in 1983 and 2010).”
Those age 20-28 are only 5% better off than their peers in 1983; those age 38-46 are 26% better off.
The study authors blame stagnant wages, diminishing job opportunities and lost home values during the Great Recession, which hit the younger generations the hardest.
Will the Gen X and Yers eventually hit the accelerator pedal? And have plenty of money to give away?
Maybe not. The authors worry that the younger generations could face higher taxes than their parents going forward, and will be less likely to have a pension … “Despite their relative youth, they may not be able to make up the lost ground. If these generations cannot accumulate wealth, they will be less able to support themselves when they eventually retire.”
By comparison, wealth increased for those age 47-55 by 76%, for those age 56-64 by 120%, for those age 65-73 by 79% and for those 74 or older by 149%.
Fish where the fish are, folks.
Tom
P.S. Here’s a blog post by one of the authors on the study if you’d like to explore further.
P.P.S. For a more optimistic view regarding Millennials, try this post.
Behavioral Science Q & A
Integrating an individual giving appeal with other communications from a charity can have both positive and negative effects, and the outcome largely depends on how it’s executed. Advantages of Integration Brand Consistency: Maintaining a consistent appearance and messaging across all communications can reinforce the org’s brand identity and strengthen brand recognition and trust among your […]
Read Full Answer
I’m not aware of any in-market tests specifically comparing recurring vs. gift frequency language. I suspect the answer might not be the same with all gift frequencies, nor with all people. It sounds like a great opportunity for you to test and find out what works for your audience. Based on the literature, here’s a couple […]
Read Full Answer
Based on what we know from existing data, those renewal notices can actually be pretty effective in getting people to donate. They tap into our psychology – creating a sense of urgency, reminding us of past support, and using personalization to make the message hit home. They’re playing on our natural tendencies to feel obligated […]
Read Full Answer
Interesting question. I had a quick look at the testing done on this topic. On the positive side, in all cases, over half of donors decide to cover the fee. In some cases, it goes as high as 65%. Not a negligible percentage at all. Here’s another test from iRaiser showing consistent results (see point […]
Read Full Answer
There’s just one thing to consider when designing a supporter journey: the supporter. More specifically, you need to take into account: Who the supporter is i.e. their identity, which is the reason they support this cause, and their personality, which describes the way they “see” and process the world. These will determine the kind of […]
Read Full Answer
I’m not an expert in this but a quick search surfaced this article on the effect of tax reforms on 2019’s charitable giving. The researchers didn’t find a reduction. Actually, they observed an “increase in charitable contributions in 2019, even with the lower tax rates and the dramatically smaller number of taxpayers who itemize their […]
Read Full Answer