'Are you richer than your parents?' Poll discussion

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

poppy10 wrote: »

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_2

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

SamahAmber wrote: »

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!

Spots_2

Thanks Martin for an interesting question.

I'm better off than my parents. As a concrete example, they were never home-owners, whereas I am. Mind, they migrated from Ireland in 1950s searching for a better standard of living. In a sense they achieved it, for their chiildren at least... my sisters and myself all enjoy more comfortable and wealthier lives than our parents.

I'm beginning to wonder if the UK hasn't passed the high water mark in terms of standard of living. My generation benefitted from free University education (actually, we had living grants!), occupational pensions, benign job prospects. Perhaps we didn't realise how good it all was...