Leveraging Mobility in Boston: Economic Well-Being and the Flow of Wealth Across Three Generations of Low- and Middle-Income Families

On April 16, Boston Indicators hosted researchers from Brandeis University’s Institute for Economic and Racial Equity to present findings from their new report, Leveraging Mobility in Boston, in an online forum as part of the Racial Wealth Equity Research and Conversation Series. 

After welcoming remarks from Boston Indicators’ Kelly Harrington, Brandeis researchers Tatjana Meschede and Sylvia Stewart shared trends and stories their unique project had revealed. Their qualitative longitudinal study has followed the same Boston families at multiple points from the late 1990s through 2025 to trace how wealth, opportunity, and financial security evolve within families and across the generations. They were able to interview 15 Boston families who had participated since the ’90s; all were originally low- or middle-income families but with diverse racial, professional, and family backgrounds. Based on extensive conversations with them, researchers analyzed how generational trajectories diverge by race, class, and occupation.  

In the 2025 interviews, the pool of families was half Black and half White. Most of the original interviewees were in their 60s; half were married, and two thirds were college educated. Sixty percent were homeowners (higher than average for Boston), most having purchased their homes between 1980 and 2008. Half had received an inheritance (higher than the national average) and two-thirds had a pension or retirement savings account. The interviewers asked them questions on four general topics: housing, retirement, wealth transfer, and children. 

The costs of housing dramatically outpaced inflation; for renters and aspiring homeowners, that put the dream of homeownership farther away. Homeowners who purchased before 2020 “won the economic lottery,” as one interviewee put it. But as they aged, it was also seen as a “golden cage”—paradoxically, they can’t afford to downsize. Actual or impending retirement left many with remorse for waiting to begin saving. But occupations made a difference. As Meschede noted, “We started by looking at low- and middle-income families, and they pretty much stayed there. But a pension benefit is huge—it put people and the next generation on a different trajectory. Parents are more secure in retirement, so their kids didn’t have to support them.” Stewart added, “This [not only] gave them security about dollars and cents, but also on an emotional, psychological level.” Wealth transfer is affected by both homeownership and pension/savings status, but in general the team found that in White families with means, resources went to support the next generation; in Black families, resources were more apt to support the parents. For the children of these interviewed families, now adults, there’s a wide range of approaches: Some are better savers than their parents or are actively supporting them; others are unmotivated to save or plan because of a dystopian hopelessness about the future. 

After the presentation, Boston Indicators’ Luc Schuster moderated a lively Q&A with the online audience. It explored wealth-building experiments like “baby bonds,” the importance of Section 8 to economic stability in a high-cost city, the downsides of gentrification, and the financial and psychological challenges of dealing with the “casino of American retirement,” as one interviewee put it—when assets are always front of mind, along with knowledge of their vulnerability. The conversation also covered discussion of the two other cities originally part of the study (Los Angeles and St. Louis, curtailed in 2025 by federal funding cuts), and the team’s hope to get back to them in 10 years.