'Baby-boomers own half of Britain's wealth' telegraph article today.

chaostheory

FATBALLZ wrote: »

I do like this.

"I am bitter and jealous that my children's generation have cheaper and more accessible technology than when I was young, therefore it is completely acceptible to deny them the fundamental things in life I do have, such as housing and pensions. I am of course also completely missing the irony that I myself had cheaper and more accessible technology than my parents did, and my childrens children will have more cheaper accessible technology than my children have."

You having a laugh!?

When I was a kid we worried about where food was coming from. When my shoes wore out, I used card board until my parents had saved up enough money to buy me a new pair. I prayed it wouldn't rain. I was allowed chocolate once a week and I had one pack of crisps per week. My clothes were mostly hand-me-downs. When I was a kid we had no central heating and most of the house was freezing except around the fire.

So don't talk to me about not having access to technology - in my day having technology in the house was owning a pencil and that was sharpened by my dad with a chisel because we weren't posh enough to own a pencil sharpener.

chaostheory

Graham_Devon wrote: »

My son will have even better healthcare, and even better technology.

I personally think we should all therefore join together to make damn sure he never gets a roof, or if he does, he has to at least spend 40 years working hard going without a life to get it. That should teach him for being born later than us.

When was it ever easy to buy a house !!!!!!? Why can't they save up for a deposit like we did? In fact it's so much easoier to get a mortgage these days that it ever was in the past, which is something else they ought to bear in mind when they start moaning.

You really shouldn't encourage them to maon, it'll make them helpless.

Mr_Matey

Really2 wrote: »

They advise to take a lump sum as on average they can expect to live 6-8 years. Cant see why they would make it up as you live longer they lose more if you don't take a lump sum.

So according to office of stats if you hit 65 you should on average hit 82 also....

Check out how many over 60s and over 80s there are. I think the stats must be flawed (no conspiracy just looking at raw data).

6-8 years? What age are they retiring at?

You can't look at the number of people by age, as you are comparing different cohorts. You have to look at mortality rates.

For example, >80 would've lived through the war and a lot of them would've been of fighting age (less of them). 60yos are part of the baby boom (more of them)

From your stats link - last paragraph:
"Life expectancy for those aged 65 in 2008 is projected to be 21.0 years for males and 23.6 years for females."

FATBALLZ

chaostheory wrote: »

You having a laugh!?

When I was a kid we worried about where food was coming from. When my shoes wore out, I used card board until my parents had saved up enough money to buy me a new pair. I prayed it wouldn't rain. I was allowed chocolate once a week and I had one pack of crisps per week. My clothes were mostly hand-me-downs. When I was a kid we had no central heating and most of the house was freezing except around the fire.

So don't talk to me about not having access to technology - in my day having technology in the house was owning a pencil and that was sharpened by my dad with a chisel because we weren't posh enough to own a pencil sharpener.

I'm not quite clear which part of my post you are disagreeing with.

For the record I'd happily wear cardboard shoes for a year or two if it meant I could buy a house without borrowing 8 times my salary and could have a fat non-contributary pension. It's not my fault trainers are cheaper - this is what I'm getting at, you are angry because yesterday's luxuries have become cheaper due to advancements in technology, ignoring that this is how it has always worked for centuries.

Graham_Devon

chaostheory wrote: »

You having a laugh!?

When I was a kid we worried about where food was coming from. When my shoes wore out, I used card board until my parents had saved up enough money to buy me a new pair. I prayed it wouldn't rain. I was allowed chocolate once a week and I had one pack of crisps per week. My clothes were mostly hand-me-downs. When I was a kid we had no central heating and most of the house was freezing except around the fire.

People still worry about where food is coming from. People still wear hand me downs. People still don't have central heating (I don't and my house is relatively new). Ok, I don't wear cardboard on my feet, but thats about it for the differences.

So don't talk to me about not having access to technology - in my day having technology in the house was owning a pencil and that was sharpened by my dad with a chisel because we weren't posh enough to own a pencil sharpener.

No, in your day, technology was the TV, washing machine, car. All those things which you may not have been able to afford then, but they were starting to come in. This is the same as now. Things get cheaper as technology gets older.

I can't afford to cover my roof in solar panels. Doesn't mean the technology is not there or that I won't be able to in 20 years time when it's more standard.

I think you are having trouble thinking outside of your very personal experience, and can't relate what you had, compared to what your parents had as kids.

Andy_L

Really2 wrote: »

According to my fathering law on should he take a lump sum on his pension.

They advise to take a lump sum as on average they can expect to live 6-8 years. Cant see why they would make it up as you live longer they lose more if you don't take a lump sum.

So according to office of stats if you hit 65 you should on average hit 82 also....

Check out how many over 60s and over 80s there are. I think the stats must be flawed (no conspiracy just looking at raw data).

That 8 years is about right for life expetancy at birth (mid 70s). However that includes all those who die young. If you make it to 65 the average is higher as, eg, all the people with poor health have already died off so, by definition, you are healthier than average

Really2

Andy_L wrote: »

That 8 years is about right for life expetancy at birth (mid 70s). However that includes all those who die young. If you make it to 65 the average is higher as, eg, all the people with poor health have already died off so, by definition, you are healthier than average

So why the disparity of 65+ and 80+
http://www.helptheaged.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/972B5831-4587-4EB6-A1E0-D3E15A8CEFF6/0/demographicfactsheet.pdf

There are nearly 10M over 65 yet only 2.6m over 80+., cant se much has changed over the last 15 years to boost that much.

chaostheory

FATBALLZ wrote: »

I'm not quite clear which part of my post you are disagreeing with.

For the record I'd happily wear cardboard shoes for a year or two if it meant I could buy a house without borrowing 8 times my salary and could have a fat non-contributary pension. It's not my fault trainers are cheaper - this is what I'm getting at, you are angry because yesterday's luxuries have become cheaper due to advancements in technology, ignoring that this is how it has always worked for centuries.

I'm not angry. It's you young guys who seem to be angry and seem to believe that life has treated you unfairly. I'm merely pointing out that life's not fair - get over it......

chaostheory

FATBALLZ wrote: »

For the record I'd happily wear cardboard shoes for a year or two if it meant I could buy a house without borrowing 8 times my salary and could have a fat non-contributary pension.

Firstly the shoe thing - you wouldn't.

Answer me this - when was it ever easy to buy a house?

Nor do I have a fat non-contributory pension. I have a pension I have been contributing to for decades.

Davesnave

Pobby wrote: »

We could have been at the same college based on the g/g ratio. Btw, I never completed the course due to illness. Yes I admit that what perhaps we knew was shallow, certainly naive but at least we were in touch with issues.

CND, the Vietnam war were of that time.

Yes, you were on the Anti Vietnam march, if I remember correctly. 'Ho, Ho, Ho chi minh!' and all that .....That was my only riot, and I hadn't intended to be in it, having a friend who worked at the American Embassy, so knowing what was behind the doors....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/witness/march/17/newsid_4090000/4090886.stm