Home » Forums

[MSE Lawrence]

Poll between 20-27 April 2009:

Are you richer than your parents?

Is wealth determined by nature or nuture? Are we all destined to live similar lives to our parents? How do you compare to your folks in terms of relative standard of living?

How do you compare to your parents when they were your age?

01. I'm under 30: I'm at least 3x better off- 3% (330 votes)
02. I'm under 30: I'm 2-3x better off - 2% (226 votes)
03. I'm under 30: I'm substantially better off - 4% (398 votes)
04. I'm under 30: I'm better off - 6% (609 votes)
05. I'm under 30: I'm roughly the same - 4% (394 votes)
06. I'm under 30: I'm worse off - 5% (485 votes)
07. I'm under 30: I'm substantially worse off - 3% (321 votes)
08. I'm under 30: They were 2-3x better off - 1% (64 votes)
09. I'm under 30: They were more than 3x better off - 1% (124 votes)
10. I'm 30-50: I'm at least 3x better off - 7% (634 votes)
11. I'm 30-50: 2-3x better off - 5% (473 votes)
12. I'm 30-50: I'm substantially better off - 8% (759 votes)
13. I'm 30-50: I 'm better off - 9% (883 votes)
14. I'm 30-50: I'm roughly the same - 7% (634 votes)
15. I'm 30-50: I'm worse off - 9% (891 votes)
16. I'm 30-50: I'm substantially worse off - 5% (504 votes)
17. I'm 30-50: They were 2-3x better off - 1% (111 votes)
18. I'm 30-50: They were more than 3x better off - 2% (163 votes)
19. I'm over 50: I'm at least 3x better off - 4% (341 votes)
20. I'm over 50: I'm 2-3x better off - 1% (135 votes)
21. I'm over 50: I'm substantially better off - 5% (440 votes)
22. I'm over 50: I'm better off - 3% (270 votes)
23. I'm over 50: I'm roughly the same - 1% (138 votes)
24. I'm over 50: I'm worse off - 1% (112 votes)
25. I'm over 50: I'm substantially worse off - 1% (102 votes)
26. I'm over 50: They were 2-3x better off - 0% (27 votes)
27. I'm over 50: They were more than 3x better off. - 1% (79 votes)

Voting has now closed, but you can still click 'post reply' to discuss below. Thanks

Enter e-mail to get it:   View Past Emails, FAQ Privacy Policy

[JimmyTheWig]

Was about to say how fascinating the results were with some options getting way more percentages than others...
... then saw that only 7 votes had been cast. D'oh!

[gaz_jones]

I voted number 9. My parents are fairly affluent though and I am only 20 so its not really any guesses that I'd be worse off. I hope when I am their age I will have equal wealth to them. Time will tell though eh.

[JimmyTheWig]

Originally Posted by gaz_jones

... I am only 20 so its not really any guesses that I'd be worse off.

The question was "when they were your age"...

[*Louise*]

Under 30 - Substantially better off.

[kindofagilr]

Originally Posted by JimmyTheWig

The question was "when they were your age"...

I dont think its a even question though?

Cos when my mam was 27 the pay wasnt as high etc so I dont know how to figure it out lol

[superstar]

I am better off because of my parents, who have guided me and nutured me with good values and education.

[ceridwen]

I'm over 50 and they were better-off at my age I would say. If my mother had worked full-time (which she could well have done at my age - as both her children had "flown") then they would have been rather substantially better-off. Even with my mother only doing a part-time job on womans wages - I reckon they probably had noticeably higher income than me - (aided by the lower tax they would have paid - with the Married Persons Tax Allowance - called "Married Womans Tax Allowance" if my memory serves me aright?).

Though my parents went through phases of low income - it took a lot of doing before they realised I cant afford things they would have been able to in my position.

If my father was still working now he would be on MUCH better salary than my low-level apology for a salary - and I know (out of my parents) that he sympathises with me being on such low money/knows that he'd loathe being on such poor salary himself and understands. My mother doesnt quite "get it" that my salary is way too low - but thats because she's thinking like a 1950s housewife and still, at some level, thinks its okay for a woman to be earning a pathetic income!!!!! - even though its been such a constant struggle to live on it.

Their house was (still is - as its still the same house) much better than mine. Mine is a tiny little terrace house in a "halfway house" sort of area (ie some people I know - and others I certainly DONT want to know). Their house is a reasonable size detached house in a decent area (no troublemakers either living there or using it as a route to elsewhere).

Think thats the single thing I miss most about the "standard of living" I expected to have by my age - living in a decent house in a decent area. I just have to console myself with "at least I can still retire at my expected retirement age" - I honestly couldnt handle the thought of having to cope with carrying on working in retirement - so I've fought really hard to make sure that that at least goes according to expectation/plan.

************************************************** **

I'm trying to follow the reasoning as to why this question was asked.?

In my own case - as a middle-aged woman - the reason why my standard of living is so much lower than my parents one was at my age probably boils down to the fact that I was brought up by my mother to be a 1950s housewife - but didnt get married. If I had got married - then I would have an equivalent standard of living. If I had been brought up by my father alone - I would have an equivalent standard of living (as I would have a much better job - he'd have made sure of it! <grin>)

I think what this poll is trying to establish is whether a younger generation is worse off than an older generation. Well I give above the reason why things will be "skewed" a bit in the case of some middle-aged women - ie one or both of their parents bringing them up with an expectation of being financially supported by a husband (so that person has done worse personally than they would have done if they'd been brought up by two people from my generation). I very much expect that any woman brought up by two parents from the current middle-aged agegroup has been brought up by them without any expectation of financial support from a husband - ie BOTH sexes are expected to be financially self-sufficient. That wasnt the case for many woman in my agegroup (my mother didnt expect me to have to be).

On a different tack - I would imagine that many middle-aged people are sacrificing income one way or another to the demands of being a carer (again - probably the women in this generation getting it in the financial "neck" again). There arent many young people sacrificing any income they could earn because of that.

[mau408]

Hmmmmmmmm. I wonder if knowledge is wealth then would the answer be completely different? Especially as a percentage of the information out there!

[poppy10]

When you have so many options the results get lost in statistical noise.

[Tesco-shopper]

Originally Posted by ceridwen

On a different tack - I would imagine that many middle-aged people are sacrificing income one way or another to the demands of being a carer (again - probably the women in this generation getting it in the financial "neck" again). There arent many young people sacrificing any income they could earn because of that.

I could earn more (I only work part-time) but my other half and I work convenient hours so that we are available for our children. Therefore, we are sacrificing income (which means things are rather tight) but many people are jealous of us because both of us parents are around for our children. Therefore, I feel we are "investing" in our family.

I find it hard to compare myself with my parents as they have never spoken about their income. They were certainly better at managing their money than me. I don't think things were ever that easy for them, but they had a large house with a large garden (things that I can only dream of!), but then in those days, weren't the house prices comparitively less than they are now?

[ceridwen]

I DO see the point re income being "sacrificed" if one has children . By "carer" I meant "caring" one hasnt chosen to do - but falls ones way nevertheless - ie being a "carer" for an elderly relative. There is a huge financial impact IMPOSED upon many women in my generation because of being a carer (ie caring for elderly relatives). Many younger generation people do do caring for others - but this is not being a "carer" - its something very different ie caring of their choice (ie for children they have chosen to have).

(for note: I am not a carer - so have no financial interest in that aspect - I just feel very sorry for people who ARE "carers"). Gawd - thinks...that may sound patronising...but I hope its taken in the spirit in which its meant....

It is clear that many middle-aged women are carers for elderly relatives and it has a devastating effect upon their own personal incomes - and was NOT their choice. I very much doubt whether there are many middle-aged women (and - yes - this IS sexist - it does tend to be women from what I can see) who havent sat down and taken a deep (very scared and/or angry) breath at some time at the thought that their society may try and push them into that role to save the State money on providing whatever health care and/or other services their relatives might require at some point.

[ormus]

im not sure if i can make a direct comparison, due to inflation.
but my house alone (no mortgage) is more than a jackpot pools win in my parents day.
i can earn more in a week/fortnight than my father could earn in a year in the 1950s.

[MSE Martin]

Originally Posted by poppy10

When you have so many options the results get lost in statistical noise.

To an extend yet with 10,000 typical respondents actually we get enough numbers to make multi-optioned polls like this worthwhile (better still we need to change the software, so we could just ask for age before people vote)

[torbrex]

At 49 I own my house outright whereas my parent were still in a council house at that age. At the same time they had brought 5 children into the world and I have none.
I have also benefited from the legacy my parents left in their will, I would still be financially better off but not by as much without it.

[gingin]

I am 31 - We are worse/substantially worse off than my parents. My parents are post war baby boomers and I do believe their wealth is, as well as being down to hard graft on my father's part, was also down to luck and timing.

My father ran a light manufacturing company, started in his garden shed, providing small components to the electrical industry and I do believe if it were running now (he sold it 12 years ago, able to retire at 50), most of the work would have been gradually outsourced to other countries and/ or it would have sunk in this recession. My childhood home was bought and subsequently sold, 20 years later for 10x what they paid for it. Today, house prices are so ridiculously high, it is just not possible for that to happen.

It's only since this recession has started to bite that I have realised that my standard of living is much lower. As a child we were lucky enough to have a house in another country and so foreign holidays occurred many times a year. This year we are lucky to be getting a 4 night "freebie" break in Cornwall and it's hard not to become nostalgic and want the same for my kids, as I had.

[Miss Liquorice]

I chose to go to university where I am still working towards my degree, my dad joined the navy at 18, and my mum worked full time when she was my age. Both of my parents had a full time salary, I am working on 18 hours a week in a call centre... my parents were a lot better off than me, but I'm hoping that this time at uni will prove an investment.

[EdInvestor]

Very difficult to work it out without adjusting for inflation, but there has been a huge improvement between the babyboomer generation and their parents,largely because of the very long period of post war peacetime growth combined with the major improvements in technology across a very wide spectrum and gloabilisation, allowing cheap imports.

Looking back over 30 years, many items have barely changed in price, depite massive inflation in wages - including airline tickets, furniture, many electrical goods,restaurant meals,clothes.

Many things regarded as luxuries then are now seen as simply routine.Looking at lifestyle alone, there is no question that young people today are much better off than their parents at the equivalent age.

[sunny skies]

I'm finding this so interesting. I'm under 30 and roughly the same as my parents (I think, from what they've spoken about!) I agree with EdInvestor: lifestyle has changed dramatically. We have a new TV, PS3, cable, etc etc, but we don't own our own house and we'd really love to.

I think there has been a shift in perspective on money, and that many people today perhaps don't save as hard or sacrifice as much. I try to follow my dad's example of only paying cash for things (other than a house of course). I see other people and it's only every want, want, want.

Of course we grew up in SA so perhaps I have a slightly different perspective?

[philnicandamy]

Originally Posted by SamahAmber

I thought you might find this interesting.

logicalpurchase.com

My we have been a busy bunny....although your not too good at this spam lark are you??


SERIAL SPAMMER REPORTED!