Britain's Fake Recovery: Middle Class Young Worse Off Than Parents

ruggedtoast

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/oct/12/middle-class-young-people-future-worse-parents

Middle-class young 'will fare worse than their parents':

David Cameron's social mobility and child poverty inquiry to issue grim warning as debt and job fears create 'perfect storm'

Today's middle-class children are on track to be the first in more than a century to be materially less well off in adulthood than their parents, a government commission is expected to warn this week.

Leaked findings reveal the existence of a national trend not experienced since the early 20th century, with children from families with above-average incomes, as well as the most deprived, set to enjoy a worse standard of living when they grow up than their mothers and fathers.

Well that's just the lefty Guardian isn't it?

Oh.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/10171591/10-Baby-Boomer-entitlements-todays-youth-wont-have.html

10 Baby Boomer 'entitlements' today's youth won't have
HSBC chief economist Stephen King claims rich Baby Boomers (those born between 1946 and 1964) are behaving like the nobility in the Peasants’ Revolt and risk an uprising by the younger generation. We look at 10 'entitlements' they have enjoyed:

• House price boom.
• Final salary schemes. .
• State privatisations.
• Demutualisation of building societies.
• Jobs for life.
• Free university tuition.
• Bull market in equities.
• Council house sales.
• Riches. More than 80pc of the nation's £6.7trn in wealth is owned by Baby Boomers.
• Health.

A young person lookes forward to not having any of the ten things listed above


Some boomers display the characteristic amount of gratitude we have come to expect from them after enjoying the ten things above

michaels

And i bet most would trade it all in to be 30 years younger....

Carl31

I never really understood the 'job for life' thing

People really did the same thing, for the same company, their entire working lives? Or did they just stay in the same company and have different roles

I think I would actually go insane, either way

Rotor

Two main causes - longevity and debt ( both private and state)

I don't think generation y can really blame boomers for increased longevity - they will benefit from that, and more*, themselves.
Debt , on the other hand , they can apportion blame. it is just borrowing from the future to consume now.

* unless they eat and drink themselves to an early grave

CLAPTON

Rotor wrote: »

Two main causes - longevity and debt ( both private and state)

I don't think generation y can really blame boomers for increased longevity - they will benefit from that, and more, themselves.
Debt , on the other hand , they can apportion blame. it is just borrowing from the future to consume now.

one person's debt is another person's savings

so the future will inherit the savings... we need more threads about the problems all these savings will cause.

ILW

Why does anyone feel they have a right to a higher standard of living than their parents?

kabayiri

The OP article can not be right.

As recently as the mid noughties, the government were selling a 50% target for degree education for our young on the basis that being a graduate would mean a higher income.

Of course, that rather simplistic viewpoint didn't actually consider supply and demand driven by numbers.

Was it all a big con? Get that history degree and become the smuggest call centre team leader on your floor? (but still earning carp)

Linton

Carl31 wrote: »

I never really understood the 'job for life' thing

People really did the same thing, for the same company, their entire working lives? Or did they just stay in the same company and have different roles

I think I would actually go insane, either way

Until perhaps the 1950/60s many people just did the same work for the same company all their lives as their father and grandfather had. Frequently there was little option unless you were unusually bright.

CLAPTON

jobs for life was a myth

Linton

The main reason I suggest is that 40 years ago people who considered themselves "middle class" were a relatively small privileged minority. Nowadays many jobs which were "working class" no longer exist and what were considered "middle class" jobs are no long elite positions. Many more people consider themselves to be middle class.

So the OPs claim may or may not be true, but is irrelevant because the nature of the class system, and its link to whether for example you worked in an office or outside has changed. "Middle class" now is different to "middle class" 50 years ago.

ruggedtoast

[Leaked drawing eaked findings reveal the existence of a national trend not experienced since the early 20th century, with children from families with above-average incomes, as well as the most deprived, set to enjoy a worse standard of living when they grow up than their mothers and fathers.UOTE=Linton;63438011]The main reason I suggest is that 40 years ago people who considered themselves "middle class" were a relatively small privileged minority. Nowadays many jobs which were "working class" no longer exist and what were considered "middle class" jobs are no long elite positions. Many more people consider themselves to be middle class.

So the OPs claim may or may not be true, but is irrelevant because the nature of the class system, and its link to whether for example you worked in an office or outside has changed. "Middle class" now is different to "middle class" 50 years ago.[/QUOTE]

According to the article:

"Leaked findings reveal the existence of a national trend not experienced since the early 20th century, with children from families with above-average incomes, as well as the most deprived, set to enjoy a worse standard of living when they grow up than their mothers and fathers."

So drawing facile analogues with what middle class meant four decades ago isn't relevant.