Bishop Bashes Boomers

ukcarper

JencParker wrote: »

Depends on the industry so is irrelevant. My daughter's London weighting is approx. £1,100 pa. A drop in the ocean compared to the much higher rent she is paying - and forget any hope of ever buying property.

I worked for a large national company and my London weighting no where near cover extra expense of living in London. Although my wage was higher than National average it was a lot lower than the London average.

silverwhistle

Percy1983 wrote: »

Treat them as cash machines.

Really? How does that work then? Many of us "accused" of being baby boomers find it particularly difficult to find work after a certain age. Many of us bought houses to live in - admittedly when they were more affordable (although I could add a few caveats) - and the concept of downsizing is greatly overrated for those of us who have always had modest homes. Then for many of us the state pension will only start at 67 - when only a few years ago I'd have had it at 60.

What !!!!es me off the most is that all the figures suggest that the proportion of national income that has gone to wages/labour has declined in the last few decades. The fact that some of us modestly paid saw the writing on the wall and made sure we'd paid for our housing is ignored: it seems it's all our fault, and nothing to do with the increasing proportion of national income taken (and hidden) by the rich, which isn't recycled within the economy like my limited income is. Some of you may remember the formula from economics regarding the velocity of circulation of money - at this time of night I can't! - but if I earn an extra 25 on a private lesson for example - that gets spent within my local economy, to everyone's benefit. If I were really rich it would be saved.

Percy1983

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Let's consider then your property goes into Negative Equity, not a problem provided you retain your job and have the ability to service the debt, however what about should you need to move to another location or lose your job and are finding it difficult to clear your debts.

In that situation, being in negative equity reduces the opportunity to clear your debts and start afresh.

In 2004 I bought what we considered to be our family home for life, in that it was large enough for our family.
Within the last 8 years, I've moved abroad with work, returned to the UK, sold that house and am now building a new one.

Plans may be best made, however often when it comes to home ownership, the family home does not remain so for life and if your in NE, without an income to support the debt, it severely limits your options to adjust.

I totally agree, I don't want to be in NE, but if it happens I will just take what comes and make the best of what happens.

I complete agree inflation linked hpi is fine and if prices need to come down stagnation with real terms drops is the best way to avoid problems for many.

undetterred

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I agree with the bishop. And bashing.

Always had you down for w@nker

Sibley

Who cares what he says?
Another nobody.

I'll keep the money I made on my house.

vivatifosi

JencParker wrote: »

Having bought my house in 1989 I was in negative equity for some years afterwards. You ride it out. If plans change, then you need to do the best you can in the circumstances.

Exactly! That's the circumstances under which I bought my first house in late 1988 - top of the market. Still, never let that get in the way of saying how the boomers have always benefitted.

How quickly they forgot Bradley Stoke, the town that was nicknamed Sadly Broke as everyone there was in neg eq.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/6227609.stm

roddydogs

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Right, and I doubt your parent even HAD a TV, or a washing machine, or an iron....

I don't really get what your point is here.

Perhaps is because the thread starter is about baby boomers, not about their parents? (DOH)

roddydogs

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Considering 4 weeks rent costs about 5 weeks average wage now, I don't think you were too badly off.

I think if its a choice between being able to afford a tv and being able to afford somewhere to live most people would happily choose the latter.

This is the common misperception with boomers, you all seem to assume that having smart phones and gadgets makes young people much happier than they actually do.

And as far as this paradigm goes, I know far more boomers toting around expensive iPads in fancy leather cases than I do younger people. As a generation you have far more money than anyone else does, largely due to young people having to pay you rent to exist in places you occupied for nothing.

As the average monthly wage is now £2,200, you really saying you cant rent for less than that?, and could you explain the bit about "Young people paying me rent in places I occupied for nothing?

DaddyBear

Percy1983 wrote: »

Falling prices wouldn't bother me all that much to be honest, I bought a house to live in not an investment.

I mean in the public sector they are ending the final salary pensions, but if your within a certain 'older' age range you can stay in it longer until you retire.

Exactly. Anyone under 50 is being switched to the new scheme, yet those over 50 are exempt. Why? They are still 15 years from retirement.

grizzly1911

vivatifosi wrote: »

Exactly! That's the circumstances under which I bought my first house in late 1988 - top of the market. Still, never let that get in the way of saying how the boomers have always benefitted.

How quickly they forgot Bradley Stoke, the town that was nicknamed Sadly Broke as everyone there was in neg eq.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/6227609.stm

I used to do some work around Stoke Gifford and always thought the whole set up was bit "distant" (probably not the best word) now I know why.