For comparison, Gen X had 9% of the wealth, and Boomers had 21%. The largest generation in history did everything they were told, became the most educated generation, and now they’re the poorest.

Here are the official numbers from the fed for millennial wealth

Zuckerburg owns a very large amount of Facebook stock, and he sells it on a pre-determined, fixed, schedule. The current amount of stock he has is around $80 billion.

To find out how much he’s sold on what schedule, the easiest answer is Yahoo Meta, insider transactions: https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/META/insider-transactions?p=META

You can also look at the their 2022 proxy report official in Meta SEC filings https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1326801/000132680122000043/meta2022definitiveproxysta.htm

Zuckerburg has 93,675,733 vested shares, 831,706 class A shares, and 349,745,790 class B shares a total of 350,577,496 shares (we don’t care about voting rights, just valuation). At today’s market value, those shares are worth $296.73 each (October 30, 2023). We multiple those numbers together and get $104,026,860,388.08.

So, that rounds to $104 billion dollars in Meta stock.

Finally, he controls additional shares via Chan Zuckerberg foundation, Mark Zuckerberg Trust, and assorted other groups.

  • Kecessa
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    I meant for the various generations.

    What about when adjusted for demographic weight? Because I remember reading that millennials had the highest median net worth of all current generations.

      • Kecessa
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        It doesn’t go back before 1989, at which point boomers were 40 to 44 and a much bigger % of the population compared to the small % of the population of millennials that are 40 to 42 at the moment.

        That’s what the OP implies, if you’re comparing wealth at the same point in life that graphic isn’t the info you’re looking for.

          • Kecessa
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Thanks for confirming what I just said, it doesn’t go back before that point.

              • Kecessa
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                You didn’t do work, you provided sources for info unrelated to your post.

                  • Kecessa
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    See how the silent generation wealth is decreasing as time goes? That’s because they represent less and less of the total population, it’s not because they’re getting poorer as time goes. Boomers represent more and more of the population (% wise) as the preceding generation dies off and in the next 20 years you’ll see the same curve for boomer wealth, it will be going down as they die.

                    The post is about millennials not being equal to boomers at the same point in life? Well using the data you shared doesn’t prove that since it’s not adjusted for the % of the population each generation represents, it’s just total wealth for each generation. If Zuckerberg was the only millennial in existence your graph would show millennials as basically non existent and you would still come to the same conclusion even though the only millennial was a billionaire.

                    What you want is the average wealth for each generation at a certain age, adjust it for inflation and compare that, that’s how you prove your point.