Resentment of this generation

vax2002

julieq wrote: »

It did help, Vax, that we could plunder the world for raw materials.

Who is We
Collective guilt failure
Our ancestors lived no better than slaves.
The likes of camerons, most of the Labour party and lib,dems cronies lived in huge mansions funded by these wars and trade and slavery, let them carry the cross with the wealth they still cascade down the generations..
The difference between a Slave and a surf is a surf stands on land he calls home. Both own neither.

skater_kat

seems to me that there is the fact that the generation that has all these properties under their belts/empires, are going to pop their clogs in the not too distant future and people in the OP's generation are going to inherit them.

nembot

We had the same challenges in the 70's/80 with inflation and high interest rates, then the 90's with another boom/crash. You need to direct you anger at the goverment, they are the institution responsible for regulatory bodies which could of limited the money giveaway which ultimately lead to todays prices.

Blame the Blair/Brown Government and insane greed of the lenders, it's got f**k all to do with previous generations.

zagfles

Well I bought my first house 20 years ago, sold it 12 years ago (for a loss, which was good because my new house had also gone down in price).

Now living in my second house, which has probably doubled or even tripled in value, but it's of no benefit to me at all because I need the house to live in, and have no desire to downsize/move abroad/live in a cardboard box.

So just because my paper wealth has increased due to house price inflation doesn't mean I'm better off, in fact I'd prefer if it prices had remained at the level they were in 1999 when I bought this house, as it'll make it cheaper for my kids to afford their own house, reduce my potential IHT, make it cheaper to move house if we decide to move somewhere else, etc.

I'm trying to persuade my parents to leave their house directly to their grandchildren, rather than their children who already all have houses bought before the boom. That way those who will suffer as a result of current silly house prices (ie those yet to buy) will have this offset by being left a share of a house.

bugslet

quantic wrote: »

. I do not know a single person over 40 who lives in a house they could buy today, based on their wages... and no it is not because they have been smart with money or renovated wrecks.

I'm 47, earn 35k, house worth approx 140k - yes I live in a cheap place, but I also didn't get lulled into thinking I should trade up and up because house prices carry on rising, having been through one house price crash before. I have benefitted from house price rises. I also benefitted from working my backside off in the 90s for not a lot of money ( think £90.00 gross for 100- 120 hour weeks). If it helps at all, I couldn't afford a university education back then even when it was free.

Graham_Devon

Really2 wrote: »

My response was not just technology though was it?


Unless we have i-food, i-debt, i-holidays and i-mechanical items.

Sorry facts are facts, cost of living have decreased over the same period. Some on the list may have got cheaper due to technology but we now have many 2 car family's 2+ tv's etc.
So it is hard to argue cost of living has not decreased, seeing as these items have been around for 75 years+

Anyone would think there was a possible link?

Again, you ignore 2 people working.

Do a proper comparison. 1 wage vs 1 wage on the cost of living. Your sums will be different.

Household income has changed. It was generally made up of one wage. It's now made up of two.

Old_Slaphead

skater_kat wrote: »

seems to me that there is the fact that the generation that has all these properties under their belts/empires, are going to pop their clogs in the not too distant future and people in the OP's generation are going to inherit them.

Not unless Dignitas are planning a branch in the UK. Fossils will need to sell their homes to bail out Southern Cross et al.

Really2

zagfles wrote: »

I'm trying to persuade my parents to leave their house directly to their grandchildren, rather than their children who already all have houses bought before the boom. That way those who will suffer as a result of current silly house prices (ie those yet to buy) will have this offset by being left a share of a house.

As will happen with any assets, you can't take them with you.

I inherited £200 in 1993, the partial estate of my nan.
All things being equal, the current generation will inherit more than any other generation.
How unfair, just because they were borne later.;)

Percy1983

Really2 wrote: »

As will happen with any assets, you can't take them with you.

I inherited £200 in 1993, the partial estate of my nan.
All things being equal, the current generation will inherit more than any other generation.
How unfair, just because they were borne later.;)

Well currently there will probably be a charging order on the house my brother and I will inherit but with that I guess we will still get 85% of it. (assuming my dad actually figures how to live within his means soon)

With that yes it will be a nice chunk of cash which will help us get out of the area and will help my brother finally be able to buy a house.

So in short because many of us will have a level of inheritance coming all we have to do is wait for our parents to die, good plan but we can't put our lives on hold that long.

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Again, you ignore 2 people working.

Do a proper comparison. 1 wage vs 1 wage on the cost of living. Your sums will be different.

Household income has changed. It was generally made up of one wage. It's now made up of two.

Mens wages have not grown as much since women entered the workforce?

If you split UK GDP now to "men only" do you not think wages would be higher.

More workers means stifled wages, the idea having two earners meant twice the money is very flawed.

Women working is great, but it is fairly obvious if men or indeed women were the only sex allowed to work wages would be higher.

Think china. (the effect of a high working population has on wage expectation)