Rich babyboomers behaving like the nobility in the peasants revolt...

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Yes, I understand this. But you are taking isolated items.

I did a 2 minute search on google for the two separate items of research I found. Both of them found families are worse off today compared to the 1970's, when they look at "all things being equal".

One has calculated families are 15% worse of today compared to 1970.

Granted, it's American research, and given the enthusiasm, I could likely find UK based research.

I'm not trying to make things look bad, I was just stating to you you have to look at how the household income is composed and look at how spending and income has changed. I found research that's done all that on my behalf and calculated that all things being equal, were 15% worse off today than 1970.

Of course, perception is key here. Even if things are 20% worse 40 years from now, I probably won't think that are, as I'd remember building my life back then and then compare it to my relative comfort (hopefully) after a life of working and earning and think back to how bad things were when I was trying to build everything up.

The research is the research though. It's not my research. I'm not trying to do anything, just looking at what the research has concluded, and what I found, concluded, even though were earning more, were 15% poorer relative to 1970.

The RPI/Earnings figures say it all I'm not arguing that overall things are easier now. But I am fed up with people who have no idea telling me how easy it was in the 70s when I know it wasn't.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The petrol sales figures. Were all using more.

More people more cars more non essential journeys.

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

More people more cars more non essential journeys.

I don't quite think it's all down to non essential journeys. It's well documented that people are traveling further to work. It's well documented that people are traveling further to shop. It's well documented that this has increased the decline of the high street. It's well documented more and more families are having to run two cars in order to work, in order to bring in two wages...which will require a higher amount to be spent on fuel, even if it is the same cost per litre roughly as it was in 1970.

I don't want an argument about everything I state that's clearly obvious to most.

As I say, the research has been done, and it suggests the average household (its in America, granted, but think the same pattern would follow here) is 15% worse off compared to 1970. I can't, and don't want to discuss you personal situation in the 70's seemingly all to suggest the research is wrong.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I don't quite think it's all down to non essential journeys. It's well documented that people are traveling further to work. It's well documented that people are traveling further to shop. It's well documented that this has increased the decline of the high street. It's well documented more and more families are having to run two cars in order to work, in order to bring in two wages...which will require a higher amount to be spent on fuel, even if it is the same cost per litre roughly as it was in 1970.

I don't want an argument about everything I state that's clearly obvious to most.

As I say, the research has been done, and it suggests the average household (its in America, granted, but think the same pattern would follow here) is 15% worse off compared to 1970. I can't, and don't want to discuss you personal situation in the 70's seemingly all to suggest the research is wrong.

Can you point me to those documents and the USA is not the UK.

Why do you think my wife didn't have a car and walked 1 and 1/2 miles to the station and caught the train or we had no washing machine etc. Could it possibly be because we couldn't afford it.

By the way we both had good jobs and were not the only people commuting those distances which were forced on us because property where we worked was to expensive.

Graham_Devon

As I say carper, I don't want to argue over every one of your personal aspects.

This was and is about averages.

People do exactly what your wife did then today. Train travel will certainly be more expensive too!

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

As I say carper, I don't want to argue over every one of your personal aspects.

This was and is about averages.

People do exactly what your wife did then today. Train travel will certainly be more expensive too!

What have you got to say about the increase in earnings by 70% in real terms. Don't you think that could take up a lot of the slack.

Then why do they need 2 cars.

Season tickets have gone up about the same as RPI since 1995 can't find any earlier figures earnings have gone up more so train fares cheaper relatively.

grizzly1911

wotsthat wrote: »

Yes of course they have. If pay rises have outstripped inflation since the '70's then stuff is relatively cheaper.

We're a similar age I think - I've noticed this - you must have.

Fair enough essentials seem to be going up in price lately but they're certainly cheaper than the '70's and '80's.

If pay rises have outstripped inflation on the things we need?

Consumer electrical stuff and white goods are cheaper - whether they last as long is questionable in some cases. I also accept we consume more carp.

I honestly can't really remember what food stuffs cost in the late 70/80s. I don't dispute that imported luxuries and fruit may well have cost a lot more rather than locally grown and produced items.

Petrol I remember being around 95p a gallon in 79/80 and beer around 30p a pint, which would make it around £4.75/£1.43 now. In '78 I earned £1/hr in apart time job my daughter earns £5.00 now in a comparable part time job.

I am not saying that prices were cheaper back then or that everything was much easier and we lead the life of Riley

I am just questioning whether, in reality, we are better off, overall to the degree ukc's wage statistics suggest.

ukcarper

grizzly1911 wrote: »

If pay rises have outstripped inflation on the things we need?

Consumer electrical stuff and white goods are cheaper - whether they last as long is questionable in some cases. I also accept we consume more carp.

I honestly can't really remember what food stuffs cost in the late 70/80s. I don't dispute that imported luxuries and fruit may well have cost a lot more rather than locally grown and produced items.

Petrol I remember being around 95p a gallon in 79/80 and beer around 30p a pint, which would make it around £4.75/£1.43 now. In '78 I earned £1/hr in apart time job my daughter earns £5.00 now in a comparable part time job.

I am not saying that prices were cheaper back then or that everything was much easier and we lead the life of Riley

I am just questioning whether, in reality, we are better off, overall to the degree ukc's wage statistics suggest.

Food is the main thing that is cheaper and that includes basic items.

Perhaps the main problem with all this is that you can't really lump such a large age group together. People born at the beginning of the group could face the high house prices of the mid 70s while someone born at the end would have the cheap prices experienced by gen x in the 90s.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Which begs the question - why do we need so much more welfare now than we did then?

..because we'll be eternally grateful to the government and vote for them

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Even for working people, tax credits didn't even exist then and the idea would be unheard of. Now, people are relying on them to get by and people have much higher personal debts...which when you look at the price of staples, doesn't make any sense.

We couldn't afford to pay as much in benefits then - so didn't.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Things like petrol may cost the same per litre (roughly), but were all having to use more to travel further to work? Have to use more to travel to get the food etc. Maybe it's a case that now things may be around the same price or sometimes cheaper, just they are used in different ways making them feel a lot more expensive.

If wages increase consistently RPI then stuff gets relatively cheaper - it's that simple. It's based on averages and typical baskets and you'll be able to find some people worse off based on a particular spending pattern but the big picture is clear.

wotsthat

grizzly1911 wrote: »

If pay rises have outstripped inflation on the things we need?

Consumer electrical stuff and white goods are cheaper - whether they last as long is questionable in some cases. I also accept we consume more carp.

I honestly can't really remember what food stuffs cost in the late 70/80s. I don't dispute that imported luxuries and fruit may well have cost a lot more rather than locally grown and produced items.

Petrol I remember being around 95p a gallon in 79/80 and beer around 30p a pint, which would make it around £4.75/£1.43 now. In '78 I earned £1/hr in apart time job my daughter earns £5.00 now in a comparable part time job.

I am not saying that prices were cheaper back then or that everything was much easier and we lead the life of Riley

I am just questioning whether, in reality, we are better off, overall to the degree ukc's wage statistics suggest.

RPI is based on a basket of goods that is reviewed every year to ensure it remains typical. It means we don't need to argue about whether we were buying more or less fuel etc - it's considered in the calculation.

No one would argue that wage growth being consistently behind RPI makes people worse off - not sure why making the opposite case is controversial.