The pass down of wealth and why it dilutes the uprising

moneyinmypocket

When the wealth of generation baby bombastic semi fantastic is passed down to generation Xbox they will taste wealth and the motivation for cheaper housing will be gone

DpchMd

Hit that spam button and it'll go away...

michaels

I was thinking abot this and wondering whether the increase in average lifespans was one reason why we are ending up with an increase in generations feeling that it is 'unfair'

Generali

michaels wrote: »

I was thinking abot this and wondering whether the increase in average lifespans was one reason why we are ending up with an increase in generations feeling that it is 'unfair'

Probably. I think the result is that people will work longer.

I was reading something recently (can't remember where) that reckoned that lifespans haven't really been increased as such, all that's happened so far is that people have been prevented from dying early. It results in a higher average age but there is a subtle difference.

The next step, so the theory went, is that quality of life will be improved so that people can live with the health of perhaps an average 30 or 40 y/o up to until close to the end of their life, as long as they look after themselves. After that, longevity will increase.

No idea if there's anything in it but it chimes with the biotech research I used to read a few years back: there was a lot of concentration on quality of life rather than quantity.

grizzly1911

Generali wrote: »

Probably. I think the result is that people will work longer.

I was reading something recently (can't remember where) that reckoned that lifespans haven't really been increased as such, all that's happened so far is that people have been prevented from dying early. It results in a higher average age but there is a subtle difference.

The next step, so the theory went, is that quality of life will be improved so that people can live with the health of perhaps an average 30 or 40 y/o up to until close to the end of their life, as long as they look after themselves. After that, longevity will increase.

No idea if there's anything in it but it chimes with the biotech research I used to read a few years back: there was a lot of concentration on quality of life rather than quantity.

I agree with that view.

I am sure that there are pockets and individuals that have benefited from a longevity but I am not convinced the average will continue to increase unabated.

At the same time as some are benefiting from longevity now there are many coming up behind that will have theirs shortened due to obesity related illness and lack of exercise.

There is no doubt a knock on to health care costs in keeping both camps going too.

Whilst wealth may be being passed down now it is merely paying for living costs and will not be so freely available for the following generations, in westernised countries, it is flowing east.

A._Badger

michaels wrote: »

I was thinking abot this and wondering whether the increase in average lifespans was one reason why we are ending up with an increase in generations feeling that it is 'unfair'

The reason is 'child centred education' - the failed experiment which insisted the little darlings' 'self esteem' must never be threatened.

It doesn't occur to them that prosperity has to be accumulated over time, through effort, not showered on them because they're such little treasures.

See Cartman, Eric.

Graham_Devon

I heard a nugget a while ago now which suggested although wealth is indeed being passed down in larger chunks than it used to, even relatively, more of that inheritance is now being used to pay off debts.

The commentator was suggesting that statistics state that while larger amounts are passed down, in more and more cases those larger amounts are not securing futures as they used to, rather paying for times already gone by by those receiveing the windfalls.

Dunno how much there is in that, but wa surrounding a piece stating were all waiting for tommorow to pay for today and in many cases, large windfalls such as inheritance are already spent, leaving nothing for the next in the chain.

the_flying_pig

Most parents are aged, what, 20-35, 40 at a push, when their kids are born? So one doesn't get one's inheritance till one is, what, probably aged 50+. That's a heck of a long time to wait. Also Probably a bit late to start a family of one's own...

ukcarper

the_flying_pig wrote: »

Most parents are aged, what, 20-35, 40 at a push, when their kids are born? So one doesn't get one's inheritance till one is, what, probably aged 50+. That's a heck of a long time to wait. Also Probably a bit late to start a family of one's own...

Good point and as most of us boomers kids are already doing ok perhaps we should skip them and leave it to granchildren.

moneyinmypocket

This is my point more and more are leaving there wealth to there grandchildren

Jennifer_Jane

moneyinmypocket wrote: »

This is my point more and more are leaving there wealth to there grandchildren

This is interesting - could you supply the source for this information, please? I don't like to quote things unless I've seen the data.

Thank you.