Return to Transcripts main page

Smerconish

What Is The "Great Wealth Transfer" And Who'll Benefit?; Will "the Great Wealth Transfer" Trigger A Millennial Civil War? Local Anchor Goes Viral For Reading Cruel Comments; Politics Drives A Wedge Among Golfers. Aired 9-10a ET

Aired December 13, 2025 - 09:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[09:00:33]

MICHAEL SMERCONISH, CNN ANCHOR: Millennial Civil War I'm Michael Smerconish in the Philly burbs.

Many Americans are worried about making ends meet, unsure that they'll be able to maintain their standard of living in retirement. And yet at the same time, a Wall Street Journal story this week said that 401k balances are creating a record number of new millionaires. Separately, UBS reports that the number of moderate millionaires, those with between one in $5 million, has surged in recent years. Fidelity alone now counts a record 654,000 individuals as 401k millionaires at their brokerage, while UBS says that households around the globe with between one and $5 million in assets have more than quadrupled since 2000 to over 50 million.

In fact, UBS estimates that the U.S. in the U.S. added more than a thousand new millionaires each day last year, and many of those newly minted millionaires will now be part of what's called the Great Wealth Transfer. Over the next 20 to 25 years, research from Cerulli Associates estimates that between 84 trillion and 124 trillion in U.S. wealth is going to move from baby boomers and older generations to their Gen X and millennial children, to their grandchildren and to charity.

To put that in perspective, the high end of that prediction $124 trillion, that's more than four times the size of the entire U.S. economy, and nothing like this has ever happened before. According to Chayce Horton, his projections at Cerulli, and he'll join me in a moment, Boomers alone will pass down more than $53 trillion, about $72 trillion will go directly to heirs, nearly $12 trillion will flow to charity, and roughly 40 percent of all inheritance dollars will come from just 1.5 percent of American households. Millennials and Gen Xers, they'll be the big beneficiaries, but it's hardly equal. Some will inherit life changing sums, many will inherit modestly, and many won't inherit anything at all, widening existing inequalities. This massive wealth transfer is going to affect everything from housing markets to investment patterns.

Younger Americans who inherit will be able to buy homes in places they previously couldn't afford. Older Americans may shift money out of riskier assets as they age, while younger heirs could invest differently, think more tech, more ESG, more risk, perhaps. And Washington? Washington is already eyeing the opportunity or the temptation to revisit estate taxes, capital gains rules at death, and charitable giving incentives.

And then there are the political ramifications. In the 2020 election, voters under 45, mostly millennials, they back Joe Biden over Donald Trump, while voters 45 and older, including most Gen Xers and boomers, they favored Trump. In the 2024 election, exit polls showed a real shakeup. Gen Z backed Harris, but by only a few points far tighter than the democratic advantage in 2020 support among millennials that also narrowed significantly. But Trump opened up a double digit lead among voters in their 50s and early 60s.

That's according to the AARP's analysis of AP VoteCast. So what happens politically after the wealth shifts? Baby Boomers, they accumulated more wealth than any generation in U.S. history, thanks to post war expansion, affordable housing, employer pensions and decades of market growth. Gen Xers now in their 40s and 50s, they tend to be more skeptical of government, more market oriented. Many Xers will inherit meaningful wealth that fits those instincts.

Millennials, they're the wild card. They came of age during 9/11, the Iraq war, the Great Recession, and then a housing market that feels like a locked door. Millennials have tended to lean more progressive than older generations, though that gap has narrowed in recent elections. They own fewer homes at their age than the boomers did. They carry more debt.

They entered a much tougher labor market. Reflecting on all of this, in 2021, Eric Levitz wrote a piece for New York magazine titled "Will the Great Wealth Transfer Spark a Millennial Civil War?" And he argued that the biggest political divide of the future won't between boomers and millennials, but within millennials themselves. Scholarly research suggests the political effect of this great wealth transfer that it won't be one dimensional. Some heirs become more conservative because they now have more to protect.

[09:05:07]

Some become more progressive because financial security frees them to focus on different life priorities. And the largest group, those who inherit little or nothing at all, they may become more frustrated, intensifying pressure for redistribution. Levitz called this potential for metaphorical millennial civil war a deep divide within a generation defined by who got the windfall and who didn't. Here's what he wrote, "The great wealth transfer will exacerbate all of these inequalities. Wealthy white millennials will claim a massively disproportionate share of the impending inheritances and intergenerational gifts.

And as familial wealth is transferred and millennials earned assets appreciate, the generations, internal class divisions are liable to become more invidious than those of its predecessors. The millennial rich and upper middle class they'll be the wealthiest America has ever known. Working class millennials, meanwhile, are poised to enjoy less economic security than their parents as their wages fail to keep pace with the rising costs of housing and health care."

And there's another part of the transfer that we rarely acknowledge, the inheritance of stuff. Bloomberg recently reported that millennials and Gen Xers aren't just inheriting money. They're inheriting the physical contents of their parent's lives, the great stuff transfer, if they want it. The money moves cleanly, the objects do not.

The real battle shaping American politics may not between generations, but within them. And this massive transfer of wealth makes that impossible to ignore. It all leads today's poll question at smerconish.com, will the great wealth transfer trigger a millennial civil war?

Joining me now is Chayce Horton. I just referenced him. He's the associate director of wealth management at Cerulli Associates.

OK, Chayce, what accounts for this? Why has it never happened before to this magnitude?

CHAYCE HORTON, ASSOC. DIRECTOR, WEALTH MANAGEMENT, CERULLI ASSOCIATES: Yes, Michael, thanks for having me. There's really three main factors that we find are really accelerating our expectations for wealth transfer going forward. The first one is just the broad level of wealth that's been created in the United States over the past 10 to 15 years since the great financial crisis, where on an inflation adjusted basis, we've seen wealth more than double. Additionally, we're finding wealth is increasingly concentrated among fewer wealthier households, who are less likely to wind that wealth down in their retirement and therefore will be passing it on. And finally, I think the most important demographic shift is the shift in ownership of wealth to older households.

Whereas in 2011 we find that households over the age of 60 had less than half of the wealth in the U.S. Today they have 2/3. And so that really accelerates how much wealth we expect to transfer intergenerationally in the next 20 to 25 years.

SMERCONISH: I'm going to put on the screen some of the data. It's a -- it's a bar graph. By the numbers, the great wealth transfer. And this is your information showing $56 trillion, the estimated wealth to be inherited. Fifty-six trillion by baby boomers, 39 by gen Xers, 46 trillion by millennials, 15 trillion by gen Z.

We speak often, Chayce, of income inequality. This is wealth inequality and this is unprecedented. True?

HORTON: To a degree. Yes, yes, there's -- we -- it sets to perpetuate the existing level of wealth inequality in the U.S. due to many different factors.

SMERCONISH: I'm interested in the political ramifications of this and I'll get to that in a moment with a -- with a different guest, but let's not overlook the fact that many among us will inherit nothing. Speak to that issue.

HORTON: Yes, I think it's something that's going to affect a lot of people and you know, everybody, or not everybody, but many people can see $124 trillion moving intergenerational -- intergenerationally. And you know, millennials are going to inherit a lot of that at the end of the day, but a lot of the great portion of the millennials will not be inheriting any significant or life changing sums and people are going to take issue with that at the end of the day.

SMERCONISH: You and I are having this conversation at a time when the U.S. debt is $38 trillion, what policy considerations do you see? What changes might result from this is going to be awfully tempting, I would think, by lawmakers if they're interested in doing something about the debt. Speak to that.

HORTON: Yes, of course it's been -- it's been an ongoing debate for really decades around the estate tax, how high it should be, how low it should be. We've found that the reality is that estate tax policy in U.S. has become more lenient over the last five to 10 years. But I think if things do shift in a different direction, that'll be something very much on the top of minds of policymakers.

SMERCONISH: The final question, the recipients, do they know what's coming?

[09:10:05]

HORTON: They hope it's coming. They don't know exactly why or how or when the wealth is going to go, where it does go. I think something that we find is that there's a lack of communication in education across generations. And that's something that we had to really advocate for our clients in the wealth management space, is that, you know, talking more about the why the wealth is moving and where it's moving is more important than talking about what's moving and how it's moving.

SMERCONISH: Chayce, thank you very much.

Joining me now is senior Vox Correspondent Eric Levitz. He wrote the piece that I just referenced in my opening about the wealth transfer and its impact on politics. He wrote this for New York magazine in 2021.

Eric, thank you for being here. You wrote those words that I quoted four and a half years ago. Today, do you see us as headed for a millennial civil war?

ERIC LEVITZ, VOX, SENIOR CORRESPONDENT: Yes, you know, I think that it's unclear at the moment. I do think that the millennial generation, we're seeing real changes in the economic fortunes of the generation. And that is also, you know, not entirely in an equal way spread throughout the generation. But basically, since I wrote that piece, the median wealth of a millennial household is actually dramatically increased as a result of the appreciation of stocks, this huge run up in real estate values that we've had. So the portion of millennials that were able to put some stuff in their 401k during these first years of their career, those who were able to maybe purchase a home, possibly with the help of a boomer, and so, you know, with a help of a bit of a wealth transfer, those millennials are really starting to become wealthy, comfortable people.

After this period in their early years when they graduated into the Great Recession and they were notably doing worse than previous generations at the same age, now they're actually doing a bit better. And so the question is, you know, how much is that going to change the politics that we've seen from millennials who famously helps power the campaigns of Bernie Sanders and Zohran Mamdani and these very sort of left wing figures?

SMERCONISH: Well, you know, there's an old political joke that a conservative is a liberal who got mugged last night, there's a similar question here about what happens when millennials have wealth that they've not experienced before. Do they become protective and conservative relative to tax policy, or more altruistic and able now to support their progressive ideology with campaign contributions? Your thought?

LEVITZ: Yes, I think that's a really interesting and tricky question. You know, I do think that we see in the United States on the left, there are some very progressive billionaires who finance a lot of campaigns for people who are asking to raise taxes. And that actually might be easier for like the very, very wealthy than only the moderately wealthy, because fundamentally, you know, nothing is going to really change George Soros' living standard. Whereas, you know, maybe a millionaire would be more nervous about tax policy.

But I do think that it can go either way. We see with Zohran Mamdani, who comes from a family of wealth, that socialism can have appeal to people who it's not necessarily in their direct material interests. At the same -- yes.

SMERCONISH: I was going to say, as I pointed out, a quick final question, many people won't inherit at all. So what does it do in terms of, among millennials for those -- I mean, we're all conversant income inequality. I guess what I'm trying to say is there will now be further wealth inequality. What will be the ramification of that?

LEVITZ: Yes, and you know, you see this also in a context where the federal budget, we're going to have increasing pressure to either raise taxes or cut spending because of Social Security and Medicare. So if you have some millennials who would really be hurt by capital gains taxes or by higher property taxes on their homes or by any kind of wealth tax, and you have another portion of millennials who really stand to lose a lot from cut social services, I think you could see this real tension within the generation. Whereas, you know, previously we'd seen a really strong millennial block for left wing policies and politicians that could erode as this wealth starts trickling down.

SMERCONISH: Eric Levitz, thank you for being here. You were prescient. You were ahead of your time, four and a half years ago you saw this all coming. I appreciate you being here.

LEVITZ: Yes, thank you.

SMERCONISH: What are your thoughts? Hit me up on social media. I'll read some responses throughout the course of the program. Subscribe to my YouTube channel. This comes from YouTube.

You can follow me on X as well.

What would a millennial civil war look like exactly? Millennials can't even get out of their parents basements now they're going to rise up? Don't make me laugh.

Mort, Mort, let me show you. Catherine (ph), if you can grab that Fortune piece that I saw just earlier today before I came on air, throw that headline up. This is -- this is what I'm talking about. Yes. The 124 trillion great wealth transfer is intensifying as inheritance jumps to a new record with one 19-year-old reaping the rewards.

[09:15:03]

This is -- this is one stat from this fortune piece. According to the latest UBS billionaire ambitions report, 91 heirs, a record high 200 inherited, a record high 297.8 billion in 2025. That's up 36 percent. So I guess I would say to you maybe it's a little hyperbolic to say that it's a potential civil war. Although I love the story that my guest wrote, 4/2 years ago on exactly that.

But this is huge. This is huge. And for all the talk of income inequality in the country and the problem that it presents and the political ramifications of it, I don't think that we've had sufficient dialogue about wealth inequality. This is going to impact people and their perspectives, both the recipients and those who receive nothing.

Make sure you're going to my website at smerconish.com and answering today's poll question, will the great wealth transfer trigger a millennial civil war?

Up ahead, artificial intelligence, hope of the future, job killer, combination of both? The big question today, who should regulate AI? Make sure you're signing up for my newsletter at smerconish.com for which Scott Stantis, very timely, drew this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:20:31]

SMERCONISH: Artificial intelligence very much in the news. Actually, artificial intelligence is sometimes writing the news. Not here. Not yet at least. So it's no surprise the Time magazine, in its Person of the Year issue, gave the award to the architects of AI.

Symbolically, I think it's perfect, as AI is replacing people everywhere these days. Indeed, job loss due to AI is already a central concern, with hundreds of thousands of positions already gone, more to come. Though, some point out there will be new employment also created by artificial intelligence, noting that one in five jobs that people hold today didn't exist in the year 2000. And of course, there are other concerns. The lack of privacy that comes with widespread near universal surveillance. The shockingly high utility costs needed to run big AI. The dangers of relying on technology that can be biased and make systemic errors, sometimes the kind that no human would make. With the spread of AI, the pressing question among politicians is how should it be regulated, if at all?

On Thursday, President Trump made his beliefs clear, signing an executive order designed to block state regulation of artificial intelligence. The president argues that we're in a battle with China for AI dominance so that we can have 50 different sources of law. We need a single source. Many don't want Washington. Many don't want President Trump, with such close relationships with many tech titans, to have that much power.

Certainly state officials aren't giving up so easily. For instance, in late November, a bipartisan group of 36 state attorneys general sent a letter to Congress telling its leaders not to prohibit states from enforcing their own laws on AI. So that's where we stand today. We're only at the beginning of the AI revolution, and the question is who should decide what direction the revolution now takes, assuming anybody can make that determination. We wanted to hear, by the way, directly from the White House invited David Sacks, the Trump AI crypto czar, to come on this morning, but we never heard back, which is a shame.

Joining me now is NYU professor emeritus scientist and entrepreneur known as a leading voice in AI, Gary Marcus. He's the author of six different books, including the "Algebraic Mind Rebooting AI and Taming Silicon Valley." His most recent Substack piece titled "A Sad Day for America."

Professor, nice to see you. What does AI regulation even mean? Can we agree on what we're trying to encourage? Can we agree on what we're trying to ban?

GARY MARCUS, NYU PROFESSOR EMERITUS, SCIENTIST AND ENGINEER: There are many things it should mean. Right now, there is almost nothing at the federal level. There are many states trying to do all kinds of things to make the companies liable for the things that they're building to protect our children, to protect adults, to protect it against cybercrime. There are lots and lots of things one might want to do.

One of my books that you just flashed there, "Taming Silicon Valley," lays out 11 things that we might, in particular want to do. Like, we might want to say, hey, if you have something that might pose a risk, like bioweapons risk, somebody in the government should evaluate that. You shouldn't just decide at a company, hey, we want this thing out there, we want to make money, and we don't care what happens to the citizens. Right now, there's no substantive federal regulation around any of this.

SMERCONISH: Here's what the president said in part in his order, and I'll put it up on the screen. "To win, United States, AI companies must be free to innovate without cumbersome regulation. But excessive state regulation thwarts this imperative. State by state regulation, by definition, creates a patchwork of 50 different regulatory regimes that makes compliance more challenging, particularly for startups." Isn't that true?

MARCUS: It's not true. First of all, it depends on what those state regulations actually might be. We have had state by state things that are actually good for the American public. That's where we got seatbelt laws from. That's where we got regulation around that led us to have some electric cars on the road.

So, you know, sometimes states have to step in where the federal government isn't doing anything. And many of us think it would be fine if the federal government did actually have a policy, did have coherent set of regulations that would protect our citizens. The reason the states are stepping in is because the federal government has fallen down on the job. And what Trump is saying here is we're not going to do anything. We're going to make it Wild West out here.

We're going to leave the citizens with no protection at all. And, and if the states don't like that, too bad states can't do anything about it. And the truth is, the history of the United States is that individual states do regulate lots of things.

[09:25:08]

SMERCONISH: I totally get the argument that states, often, I'll get it wrong, but the states often function as laboratories. Actually, I think I got it right. I think that makes intuitive sense. Here's the Washington Post editorial on this, or at least the headline that I want you to see. Because even the Post says AI regulation is properly a national issue. "A patchwork of state laws creates chaos created for fast moving industry, making it harder for startups to take on established players.

It also allows a single state to create a de facto regulatory regime." I mean, essentially it reads like President Trump's order. I think what I hear you say, if the White House would impact, would do something and put forth some regulation that would be superior to having the states go their own separate ways. But I don't want to speak for you. Go ahead.

MARCUS: Sure. I mean, I think everybody would be happy with a real federal policy that required the companies to show that their products were safe, that held them liable. If the federal government wants to put language, excuse me, around that, that would be fine. Instead, what will happen is California will actually lead the way, probably, and everybody will meet California's requirements. So it's a red herring.

It's not like we are in fact going to have 50 different states. And what really I hope will happen in the end is the federal government will take the lead instead of leading from behind and saying nobody should do anything and just letting our citizens be completely vulnerable. And that's what has actually happened.

SMERCONISH: OK. One more.

MARCUS: They're going to sue any state that tries to protect its citizens. It's crazy. SMERCONISH: OK, limited time. One other approach. Put this on the screen. This is from Peter Goettler, the president and CEO from Cato. So it's a libertarian perspective.

Why over I -- AI -- overregulation could kill the world's next tech revolution. I won't read it all. I'll simply say, please respond to the argument that says free enterprise. Let it happen. Let's see where it develops.

You would say what, Professor Marcus?

MARCUS: That's how we've got chemicals stuck in lakes. That's how, you know, we had cars that didn't have seat belts and so forth.

We've always had to have a little give and take. We want to have innovation, but we also have to have regulation that leaves that innovation to be good for our citizens. It's a red herring to say, absolutely, every technology has been good in all possible ways. We often, you know, in every industry except AI, we have some kind of regulation. We have more regulation around food and more regulation around your shampoo than you have around AI where we have basically nothing.

SMERCONISH: Professor.

MARCUS: And we know --

SMERCONISH: Professor --

MARCUS: -- technology could be harm.

SMERCONISH: Professor Gary Marcus, thank you so much for your time and your expertise.

Let's see what everybody is saying via social media. You can follow me on X. Speaking of technology, you can subscribe to my YouTube channel. Regulation of AI should not be up to Trump nor his administration.

I think people, as is often the case, are looking at this as what's Trump for? If he's for it, I'm for it. Or wait a minute, if he's for it, I'm against it. Instead of thinking about the issue, in my opinion, the clear answer. And I think even Professor Marcus, who's a critic of the president, as per his Substack publication that I made reference to, he called it a sad day when President Trump thwarted the state AGs from being involved in this.

But I even hear from him and I certainly hear from the Washington Post. There's an argument here that the feds ought to be taking control of it. But there's concern that President Trump is too close with the tech bros. And consequently he won't be the one to do it. Bottom line is there ought to be state -- there ought to be federal regulation, in my opinion of this issue.

So there you go, Mr. President. You want responsibility for it now you've got the mantle. Go do something with it. Now, to the great wealth transfer covered in my opening commentary today and today's poll question. You can see headlines from all across the country. It's this unprecedented shift of assets from generations, mostly boomers, to their heirs, especially Gen X and millennials. By 2048, we're talking about potentially 124 trillion that could be handed down. It's going to have significant impact on society.

And that's the short version of today's poll question. Will this, the great wealth transfer trigger, as one of my guests said, a millennial civil war. Go vote at smerconish.com.

Still to come, your social media reaction to my commentary. Plus, she could have ignored the hate. Instead, she reads it out loud and she laughs.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CARISSA CODEL, T.V. ANCHOR: Girl look like you was raised on a donkey farm. She looks like the third white Chick.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: Now millions are watching. More on how she handled it coming up. And then a new study finds politics may be costing pro golfers real money on the course even when nobody says a word. What that says about political polarization and whether a little discomfort might actually be worth it.

Go vote on the poll question. Sign up for the newsletter. Enjoy the editorial cartoons from the likes of Steve Breen.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SMERCONISH: Regular viewers know that I'm accustomed to answering without advance notice your social media in real time. And some -- most are not so nice.

[09:35:01]

Well, that's why this caught my eye. A Missouri news anchor, she has a different approach. Carissa Codel is going viral for her reactions to some of the mean comments that viewers send her way. She's a 26-year- old anchor at Fox 29's (ph) Ozarks First news channel in Missouri. Her approach, she laughs off some of the cruelest comments that viewers send her way.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CARISSA CODEL, FOX 49 ANCHOR: Her parents got to be beavers because she built like damn. Shawty obese. You all need to stop bullying fairy godmother from Shrek.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No. Oh, no.

CODEL: Built like my grandma's prescription lenses. And she's blind as a bat. Brick wall? More like brick house. And I'm looking to move in. After the commercial, we're going to explain how you can securely lock your house to keep Brennen out.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: I think she's great. Disarmed every one of those. Let's see if I can take a lesson from that. What do you got? Social media reaction. Follow me on X, subscribe to my YouTube channel.

Michael is so bald -- OK, now listen. Hold on. I want to know, Catherine, was that ginned up for today, or did TC give you that, who's my producer, who looks at -- seriously, did that come in today? OK, so that came in today. And this is what I get.

He's so bald that when he wears a turtleneck, he looks like a roll-on deodorant.

I'm not tall enough to pull off a turtleneck. I wear mock Ts. It's true, it's true. I got them from L.L. Bean. Like $30.00 at a pop. OK, that's typical of what I get. What else? What else has come in today? Let's see.

Replying to Smerconish sounds more like elitist BS. You elites -- this is more of what I get. This is more what I get.

You elites, you love to sit around swirling brandy, that is true, pinky up, I don't do that, pontificating on possible crisis to worry about. The rest of us worry about living our existing lives.

Yes. By the way, Old Arcade, this is exactly what I'm talking about. OK? How is it going to sit with that guy when $124, pardon me, trillion is inherited by people but not him? And therein lies the growing civil unrest that concerns me. Maybe because I've got my pinky finger in the air as I swirl my brandy. That'll be me later today.

More social media. What do I have? Come on.

Gen Xer here. The joke among many of us is that we don't inherit wealth and land. We inherit mental illness, alcoholism, and the shit they hoarded.

Yes, nobody wants what's been hoarded. Nobody wants what -- you know, it's so funny. There are things that I -- this is a little off message but it happens to be true. There are things that I possess that I treasure.

I've been fortunate in many respects to have had just interesting experiences in life. I wish I could give you a good example. And certain of the things that I treasure, I might hold and evaluate and look at with the knowledge that someday it's going to go in the yard sale, not my yard sale, one of the kids' yard sales.

One more. I think I've got time for it. What do we have?

Spoken like a true liberal who is pushing for increased estate taxes so D.C. can continue its spending orgy.

Right, the reason I'm bringing this up is because I'm so liberal and I want to make sure that we seize those assets. Has it occurred to you that I might be one of those that I'm making reference to? Like, maybe I'm going to be just fine and I want to protect my next -- nest egg.

Yes. Fascinating. OK. Anyway, gang, as 2025 comes to a close, an interesting statistic. According to the latest UBS Billionaire Ambitions Report, 91 heirs inherited a record high 297.8 billion this year. That's up 36 percent from just last year.

Think about that. That's what's called the great wealth transfer. And how that plays out from those that receive to those that don't, the wealth inequality that is going to be evident is the subject of today's poll question. Will the great wealth transfer trigger a millennial civil war? Go vote.

Still to come, I think you're going to love this, golfers. They score worse when paired with political opposites, and especially in highly polarized times. A Yale study suggests the closer that we stand to people we disagree with the more it affects performance. What that means far beyond the fairway is coming up.

Sign up for the newsletter at Smerconish.com when you're voting on the poll question. You'll get the editorial work of the likes of Jack Ohman.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:44:11]

SMERCONISH: A wedge shot where you use a special club for short distance accuracy, that's one of the trickiest shots in golf. And now, based on a new study, it turns out there's something driving a wedge between players on the golf course, politics.

Balazs Kovacs, professor of Organizational Behavior at the Yale School of Management, along with research fellow Tim Sels, they've done a fascinating study on the effect of political polarization on professional golfers, and the implications are significant and maybe a bit depressing.

According to the analysis, how well top golfers perform is affected by the political views of those they're playing with. Golf turned out to be the perfect sport to study this effect because the PGA tour player assignments they're random. Players don't choose their partners. Kovacs and Sels were able to determine the players' political views from voter registration records as well as other markers such as social media accounts and political donations.

[09:45:08]

They looked at golfers in PGA tournaments from 1997 to 2022, and they zeroed in on the 278 Republicans and 82 Democrats. In the study, they found that golfers scored 0.2 strokes worse when teamed with those who had opposite political orientations. That might not sound like much, but in the high priced world of professional golf, where every stroke matters, it could mean the loss of tens of thousands of dollars. And more surprising, during highly politicized and polarized times, the performance gap rose to 0.55 strokes more than doubling the effect. During times of low polarization, the gap disappeared.

I think we can safely say we are living in highly polarized times. Here's another revelation physical proximity between the players that makes a difference as Dr. Kovacs told me this week on SiriusXM radio.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BALAZS KOVACS, PROFESSOR, YALE SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT: So, when they were in proximity, the effects are stronger. So in the driving and in the pudding areas, when you are closed -- you know, when you're actually standing next to each other or within very close proximity to each other, the effects are stronger. And when you are on the green somewhere, or you might be far away from each other, then the effects are weaker and they almost become insignificant.

And I mean, that's kind of our interpretation, is that -- and if it's getting to the mechanisms, is that why is this whole effect happening? And you probably have some anxiety or you're kind of a little bit bothered by that person being there. And when you are far away from each other, you don't -- not bothered by this because they're not right next to -- next to you.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: Fascinating, right? And it's not as if the players talk politics or talk much during the match at all. However, they generally know each other from the tour. They're likely familiar with each other's political views. And the implications of this effect for the rest of us has not escaped Dr. Kovacs.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KOVACS: If we find it here, where we shouldn't find it, then it's probably even stronger in other places. Because these are extremely professional people, like the best of the best, who really can focus on what they're doing, the task at hand. And this should not matter.

And if it matters, maybe not too much, maybe a little bit. Then the people who are like the rest of us, who are more fallible humans, it's probably going to matter even more.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: Which is why these researchers are now looking closely at other settings to see how this golf effect generalizes regarding productivity in the workplace. It ought to be noted what this study does not mean. While golf scores may be negatively impacted by polarization when it comes to creative endeavors, having diverse opinions, according to these authors is a good thing.

So, what's the takeaway? Political polarization, it doesn't just shape how we vote or what we post. It affects how we perform even when the stakes are high and the task is supposed to be purely professional. If it can cost a tour pro a half a stroke, imagine what it's doing in our offices and in our classrooms and in our communities.

The lesson isn't that we should avoid people who think differently. It's that we should be aware of the invisible pressure, that polarization is creating and work against it. Because if politics can get into a golfer's head during a wedge shot, it can get into anything. I'd like to think that my own game is indicative of the data, but as a 27 handicap, I doubt politics is my primary problem.

Coming up, the results of today's poll question. You still have time to vote at Smerconish.com. Boomers, they make up the lion's share of the ultra-wealthy. What will happen when this historic transfer of money is passed down to Gen X and millennials? Some are going to inherit life changing amounts, while others won't see anything at all furthering wealth inequality. And that's why I'm asking today, will the great wealth transfer trigger a millennial civil war?

Subscribe to my newsletter while you're there. You'll get exclusive editorial cartoons from the likes of Rob Rogers.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:53:27]

SMERCONISH: OK, there's the voting so far from Smerconish.com. Will the great wealth transfer trigger a millennial civil war? Twenty-two thousand and two, two-thirds say no, 64 percent say it will not happen. If you haven't voted, go to the Web site at Smerconish.com and cast a ballot.

Here are some of the social media reaction that has come in during the course of today's program.

As usual -- as usual -- I may as well stop right there, right? Smerconish takes an important topic and draws the wrong conclusions. Yes, Timothy, that's my M.O. The poll results show his audience disagrees. That's always the case that the audience disagrees with me.

Must cite size of baby boom generation when describing the wealth inequality. The size of that generation also contributes the rise --

Look, I'm not making it up. OK? You heard from the architect, the person who saw this trend coming wrote about it. And it's been picked up all around the globe. The great wealth transfer is upon us, and you're fooling yourself if you don't think that there will be political ramifications to it. That's the bottom line.

In other words, let me come at it from this standpoint. We live amidst great income inequality. So, imagine somebody right now who's getting the short end of the stick. They are struggling now because of rising prices, you know, to maintain their household. OK?

They see job loss spurred by artificial intelligence getting even worse. And now you're saying to that person, $84 to $124 trillion are about to change hands and end up in the hands of, you know, some idiot offspring, and you're going to get totally cut out of that, too?

[09:55:05]

That's going to create some resentment that will have political implications. That is my thesis, and I'm sticking to it. More social media reaction. What do we have?

Wealth has always changed hands from one generation to the next. Yes, but not to this extent. Yes, it's significantly more than the previous times, but it's still just one more cycle. What will trigger a civil war will be how the government responds to its debt and funding social security.

Right. Well, thus far there's been no response because we're $38 trillion in debt and there hasn't been anything addressing the level of debt in this country since Simpson-Bowles on President Obama's watch. One more. I can do it real quick. Let's go. Here we go.

How can you regulate something that's global? Regulate how? America is let's regulate everything nation. Anybody remember prohibition?

This is on the issue of artificial intelligence. I think we need federal regulation. That's my view. The president wants it to be at the federal level. Now, he's got to step up and seize that responsibility.

If you missed any of today's program, you can always listen anywhere you get your podcasts. Thank you so much for watching. See you in a week.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)