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

chaostheory

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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.

I can't argue with someone who seems to think that everyone is worse of NOW than in the 1940s, 1950s or 1960s. There is no point. I'll just go and knock my head against a wall.......................

God Help Us.

Graham_Devon

chaostheory wrote: »

I can't argue with someone who seems to think that everyone is worse of NOW than in the 1940s, 1950s or 1960s. There is no point. I'll just go and knock my head against a wall.......................

God Help Us.

I win. Woop.

FATBALLZ

chaostheory wrote: »

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......

I'm not angry - I can accept I can only play the hand life has dealt me, but it baffles me that Baby Boomers sit their in their £300k mortgage-free houses,where only the father works, with a couple of cars sat outside, saying my generation has it all, when despite the fact I have nearly enough savings to have bought a house outright back in their day I still have to take a more expensive mortgage (in real terms) than they would have done with no deposit - we also can't afford to have only one parent working, and have to prop up their pensions to the severe detriment of our own.

Mr_Matey

Really2 wrote: »

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.

See my previous post. It's not the change in the last 15 years, it's the change in 15 years, 65 years ago. You should be asking what happened from 1930-1945?

Differing number of births, and different mortality rates.

Really2

Mr_Matey wrote: »

See my previous post. It's not the change in the last 15 years, it's the change in 15 years, 65 years ago.

Did much happen from 1930-1945?

Different cohorts will have different mortality rates.

got you. Well if I see 83 years I will be a happy old man.

Still does not match the forcast figures though (so wit war compleatly out of the equation)

2031= 15.3M over 65 and only 2.5M @ 85 or over.

That is still only 16-17% of 65 year olds getting to 85+.

Even in 2071 it will only look like 24%.

Not sure who is right but I don't think nearly everyone who hits 65 will hit at least 82 like the ONS stats state.

DaddyBear

I put this to the baby boomers:
1. Take the current 'value' of your house.
2. Take your wage when you purchased the house.
3. Adjust your wage for inflation to the current year.
4. Calculate the salary multiple of your house value.

Is that an affordable wage multiple??

abaxas

DaddyBear wrote: »

I put this to the baby boomers:
1. Take the current 'value' of your house.
2. Take your wage when you purchased the house.
3. Adjust your wage for inflation to the current year.
4. Calculate the salary multiple of your house value.

Is that an affordable wage multiple??

It's not quite as simple as that. Please take into account wage inflation, which is currently non existant.

What would you prefer, a mortgage payment that went doen 10% (relativly) a year or one that goes down 2%.

Mr_Matey

Really2 wrote: »

got you. Well if I see 83 years I will be a happy old man.

Still does not match the forcast figures though (so wit war compleatly out of the equation)

2031= 15.3M over 65 and only 2.5M @ 85 or over.

That is still only 16-17% of 65 year olds getting to 85+.

Even in 2071 it will only look like 24%.

Not sure who is right but I don't think nearly everyone who hits 65 will hit at least 82 like the ONS stats state.

Again you're comparing different cohorts. This time you're comparing those who are 45+ now with those who are 65+ now.

In 2071 you'll be comparing those born before 2006 with those born before 1991.

----
from your original post data

The problem with this is your "age" is not a specific age, it's age above.

Looking at 65 and over now gives you everyone 65-84 and 85+
so, #65-84 = 10.5m - 1.4m = 9.1m

Now when you look in 20 years time, all those people (if alive) will be > 85. So there will be 2.5m alive. Nearly all of those who are 85+ now will be dead. Your numbers are blurred by the fact you're looking at everyone in the 65-84 range. Someone who is 65 now is much more likely to survive 20 years than someone who is 84!

You really want to look at Age 65 now and Age 85 in 20 years time.

DaddyBear

abaxas wrote: »

It's not quite as simple as that. Please take into account wage inflation, which is currently non existant.

What would you prefer, a mortgage payment that went doen 10% (relativly) a year or one that goes down 2%.

See point 3.

Really2

Mr_Matey wrote: »

You really want to look at Age 65 now and Age 85 in 20 years time.

I know it includes over 85s,

65+ now = 9.6M (of which only 1.1M over 85)

In 2031

2.5M will be over 85.

I am not trying to be difficult but the average of nearly all 65s hitting 83ish does not seem to mount up.

Perhaps help the aged are taking the survial figures from current mortality rates (including the war), otherwise the 85+ figure has to be higher.

off your first post in 2031 the average life expectancy for a male should be 86 so nearly all of the people of 65 or slightly over should hit that, I make that about 8-10 million.