The generation poorer than their parents

mumps

Percy1983 wrote: »

So if your parents have no money you are screwed, and if they do your life is under there control.

Talk about keeping a generation down.

I don't control their lives, if they don't want the money I am happy to give it to charity.

mumps

Percy1983 wrote: »

There is one big problem with that statement. Many could afford to live on 1 normal wage back then (so mum stayed at home with the children).

Now 2 people have to work just to get something has basic as shelter and food.

I worked because we needed the money, many of my friends were in the same position. I didn't know many stay at home mums in the 70s although I did know lots who only worked part-time.

Percy1983

mumps wrote: »

I don't control their lives, if they don't want the money I am happy to give it to charity.

Your missing the point, its great you can help you children, but what about those who can't help there children.

Why should a whole generation have to wait for the generation above to either give them something or die to get something.

mumps

Percy1983 wrote: »

Your missing the point, its great you can help you children, but what about those who can't help there children.

Why should a whole generation have to wait for the generation above to either give them something or die to get something.

No I'm not missing the point, I was replying to someone who said people of my generation (in their 50s) weren't bothered about leaving anything to their kids and were spending their money, they also said older people (I guess people now in the 70s) were more frugal and wanted to help and had provided childcare which young parents now have to pay for. In the interests of fairness I was pointing out that families differ and some people still help their children by providing childcare and hope to leave them something.

ETA The original post way by twirlypink and this is some of what she said, "The other thing i notice is the change in generations spending. I'm 29, my parents are in their fifties, and my grandparents if they were all still with us, would be in their late seventies and eighties. That grandparent generation are still thrifty. My grandad, despite living in a massive house, hates waste. He only heats the three rooms he uses and is careful with what he spends his money on. He has said to me several times that he wants something to leave behind, which is sweet really.

My parents and their generation on the other hand don't seem to feel this need. I'm not one of those "don't spend my inheritance" types, at the end of the day they've earnt it it's their money. But it's not all is it? My parents inherited thousands and thousands from the thrifty grandparnets that have passed on. They're spunking all of it. It seems to me that my parents and their friends are the ones with the beemers and the three foreign holidays a year and the massive tellies, and the big houses. My friends and i are the ones watching all this happen, while trying to save every penny.

No one has mentioned the cost of child care either. I've got a friend who is going to work three days a week to earn twenty pounds, because she pays the rest out on childcare. Yet when she was a baby her nan looked after her. I see this over and over again..."

Hope that explains.

Percy1983

I will say things are very different, many things come into play here.

With childcare, we have had to delay having children until we can afford a home, to which our parents are now older and unable to help in the same why my grandma did with me.

I will agree that many are helping there children which is great, but my point is we shouldn't need that help and you shouldn't have so much wealth to be able to help so much, the balance is all wrong and most of the wealth is at the top.

As I say with the boomers if you worked hard you got somewhere.

Now you have to work hard and have parents who haven't spent everything, or work hard than those before you to get less.

mumps

Percy1983 wrote: »

I will say things are very different, many things come into play here.

With childcare, we have had to delay having children until we can afford a home, to which our parents are now older and unable to help in the same why my grandma did with me.

I will agree that many are helping there children which is great, but my point is we shouldn't need that help and you shouldn't have so much wealth to be able to help so much, the balance is all wrong and most of the wealth is at the top.

As I say with the boomers if you worked hard you got somewhere.

Now you have to work hard and have parents who haven't spent everything, or work hard than those before you to get less.

I think the number of young people delaying having a family is sad. I know a couple of people at work who delayed too long and found they couldn't have children when they finally decided to go ahead and that was so traumatic for them. Having said that they are only about ten years younger than me so I think they probably just about fit into the boomers generation.

As to me having too much wealth, I suppose that is a hard one. I have worked for over 40 years, only had a handful of foreign holidays, never received benefits, never spent money on cigarettes or alcohol or gambling and brought my family up while caring for elderly relatives and now my husband. I sort of think I have earned what I have but I do understand your frustration.

StevieJ

mumps wrote: »

I worked because we needed the money, many of my friends were in the same position. I didn't know many stay at home mums in the 70s although I did know lots who only worked part-time.

I try to explain that, but they think family life in the 60/70's was like daddy bringing home the cash and mummy doing a bit of dusting around the house, something like the Doris Day show. I can only think that all their parents must be loaded

FTBFun

Percy1983 wrote: »

There is one big problem with that statement. Many could afford to live on 1 normal wage back then (so mum stayed at home with the children).

Now 2 people have to work just to get something has basic as shelter and food.

Both my parents worked in the 1980s when my brother and I were at school (86+ for me, 87+ for him). We had a childminder from 3ish until mum got back from work.

ukcarper

Percy1983 wrote: »

There is one big problem with that statement. Many could afford to live on 1 normal wage back then (so mum stayed at home with the children).

Now 2 people have to work just to get something has basic as shelter and food.

Here are some figures for you to think about

1974 Interest 14%, house price £10k, average wage £2k £166 per month
Miras in operation so effective interest rate 9.8% £9k mortgage £81.35 per month

So mortgage 49% of gross wage

Now interest 5% house price £160k average wage £25k £2083 per month
£144k mortgage £851

So mortgage 40% of gross wage.

Percy1983

ukcarper wrote: »

Here are some figures for you to think about

1974 Interest 14%, house price £10k, average wage £2k £166 per month
Miras in operation so effective interest rate 9.8% £9k mortgage £81.35 per month

So mortgage 49% of gross wage

Now interest 5% house price £160k average wage £25k £2083 per month
£144k mortgage £851

So mortgage 40% of gross wage.

Yeah thats great so in 1974 I could be safe in the knowledge that interest will have to come down.

Now I can buy worrying that interest rates can only go up.

What would the mortgage payment be now on a 9.8% as per you example (not unreasonable with the amount of trackers/SVRs which are base + 4%)