Why Baby Boomers are richer than Gen X...

lessonlearned

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Indeed.

There would be something very badly wrong if the older groups in society had not managed to amass more wealth than the younger groups, given the extra few decades they've had to do it.

But unless we manage to abolish this little thing called "death", then 100% of that wealth will eventually be transferred to the younger generations.

If the wealth gap between the oldest and youngest has increased, it's probably got as much to do with the increase in life expectancy as anything else.

Spot on - just simple maths.

BobQ

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Money money money. Just sums up the boomer attitude.

Not really.

Generalisations are so difficult to sustain. However, my experience was the pre-boomer generation got old with most of them having very little in savings, did not own a home and very few had occupational pensions. This to me was a great motivator to ensure that when I retired I would have a more comfortable lifestyle.

This was not motivated by money but did involve financial planning. It has not worked out for all of us, not everyone saved and invested, but a fair proportion have managed it.

Many younger boomers have done well from good pensions, some of the older boomers have benefited from housing investment. What I daresay none of us imagined when we decided to do what we could within the economic system that prevailed, was the vitriolic criticism of some of Generations X and Y. Ironically its these generations that are more driven by money, albeit spending it rather than saving it.

The_White_Horse

my friend's parents bought their first house when they got married - and they were both earning a pittance. That house is now worth over £3m (in Wimbledon). There is no way people in their equivalent jobs (a school teacher and a junior civil servant) could afford such a house as their first place! Also, they managed to send their kids to private schools, go on holidays and own a couple of holiday homes. The mother remained a school teacher. The father rose up in his job - but when he retired about 6 years ago, he wasn't earning more than just over 55k. therefore, these are hardly "wealthy" people. The opportunities they had are simply not open to their kids. It is that simple.


Edit - i accept that one of their kids has an ipad.

molerat

I live in what could be described as a nice development ie generally above average house prices for the area and can assure you that there are plenty of children of the 70s and early 80s living here with Jags, Mercs, BMWs and Range Rovers in the drive.

BritRael

BobQ wrote: »

...the vitriolic criticism of some of Generations X and Y. Ironically its these generations that are more driven by money, albeit spending it rather than saving it.

Too true. It always makes me laugh when I read comments on here about how easy it was/is for us boomers with all that money being thrown at us at every turn. I wish somebody had told me that at the time because then I wouldn't have got a job, learnt a trade and supported myself my whole working life...

BritRael

The_White_Horse wrote: »

my friend's parents bought their first house when they got married - and they were both earning a pittance. That house is now worth over £3m (in Wimbledon). There is no way people in their equivalent jobs (a school teacher and a junior civil servant) could afford such a house as their first place! Also, they managed to send their kids to private schools, go on holidays and own a couple of holiday homes. The mother remained a school teacher. The father rose up in his job - but when he retired about 6 years ago, he wasn't earning more than just over 55k. therefore, these are hardly "wealthy" people. The opportunities they had are simply not open to their kids. It is that simple...

Dream on. How do you know what their situation was?? If they really were on 'a pittance' they wouldn't have got a mortgage. Also, of course, it is possible that the purchase was funded by money from elsewhere; their own parents for example.

ruggedtoast

BobQ wrote: »

Not really.

Generalisations are so difficult to sustain. However, my experience was the pre-boomer generation got old with most of them having very little in savings, did not own a home and very few had occupational pensions. This to me was a great motivator to ensure that when I retired I would have a more comfortable lifestyle.

This was not motivated by money but did involve financial planning. It has not worked out for all of us, not everyone saved and invested, but a fair proportion have managed it.

Many younger boomers have done well from good pensions, some of the older boomers have benefited from housing investment. What I daresay none of us imagined when we decided to do what we could within the economic system that prevailed, was the vitriolic criticism of some of Generations X and Y. Ironically its these generations that are more driven by money, albeit spending it rather than saving it.

I think the problem The Boomer grapples with, which might explain this complete refusal to address extant facts, and respond to all arguements viz generational theory with crude and miserly stereotyopes is generational status anxiety.

Coming hot on the heels of the Heroic Generation boomers had big shoes to fill and doubtless always felt inadequate that they would never match their parents' achievements.

The Boomer then set about developing things like Starbucks, genetically modified food, obesity, the War on Drugs, gas guzzling cars, crass corporations like McDonalds, unsustainable public spending, neo-liberal neo-militarism, high house prices, and a lot of other things like that.

And now Gen X and Y come along and have to point out the boomers have created a neo-liberal, neo-militarist society defined by undemocratic corporations served by supine, obese debt ridden consumers, who have guzzled all the gas, modified all the food, spent all the money unsustainably and criminalised millions with the War on Drugs.

Meanwhile the boomers are sitting pretty like a thick layer of pastrami on the middle of a NY Delhi sandwich.

POOR BOOMERS!


The sweet spot

robmatic

ruggedtoast wrote: »

I think the problem The Boomer grapples with, which might explain this complete refusal to address extant facts, and respond to all arguements viz generational theory with crude and miserly stereotyopes is generational status anxiety.

Coming hot on the heels of the Heroic Generation boomers had big shoes to fill and doubtless always felt inadequate that they would never match their parents' achievements.

The Boomer then set about developing things like Starbucks, genetically modified food, obesity, the War on Drugs, gas guzzling cars, crass corporations like McDonalds, unsustainable public spending, neo-liberal neo-militarism, high house prices, and a lot of other things like that.

And now Gen X and Y come along and have to point out the boomers have created a neo-liberal, neo-militarist society defined by undemocratic corporations served by supine, obese debt ridden consumers, who have guzzled all the gas, modified all the food, spent all the money unsustainably and criminalised millions with the War on Drugs.

Meanwhile the boomers are sitting pretty like a thick layer of pastrami on the middle of a NY Delhi sandwich.

POOR BOOMERS!


The sweet spot

Aren't you bored with this trolling yet?

mystic_trev

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Meanwhile the boomers are sitting pretty like a thick layer of pastrami on the middle of a NY Delhi sandwich.

I like to think of myself more like a pig in !!!!!! :j

ukcarper

The_White_Horse wrote: »

my friend's parents bought their first house when they got married - and they were both earning a pittance. That house is now worth over £3m (in Wimbledon). There is no way people in their equivalent jobs (a school teacher and a junior civil servant) could afford such a house as their first place! Also, they managed to send their kids to private schools, go on holidays and own a couple of holiday homes. The mother remained a school teacher. The father rose up in his job - but when he retired about 6 years ago, he wasn't earning more than just over 55k. therefore, these are hardly "wealthy" people. The opportunities they had are simply not open to their kids. It is that simple.


Edit - i accept that one of their kids has an ipad.

When was that, I live a few miles from Wimbledon in the 70s and I don't recall property being that cheap then.