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

cotleigh

At least some of today's young people will do well, because they stand to inherit their parents' accumulated wealth - cash, houses, maybe holiday homes, BTL portfolio etc etc.

MacMickster

If more than 80% of the nation's wealth is owned by the Baby Boom generation, then who will inherit that wealth when the boomers shuffle off their collective mortal coil, and what will they have done to deserve that inheritance?

CLAPTON

so even though we have had the worst recession since the 30s, the young people of UK enjoy a fantastic quality of live undreamed of by the 1946 generation

yes, by choosing very very selective comparisons one can show that there the current generation of 20s somethings are slightly worse off compared to the best that ever lived.

Even so, they are the second richest ever ... well that's pretty bad isn't it?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

For heavens sake toasty.....

Another boomer bashing thread?

Is there a reason the last 300 on the subject from you weren't enough?

dryhat

CLAPTON wrote: »

so even though we have had the worst recession since the 30s, the young people of UK enjoy a fantastic quality of live undreamed of by the 1946 generation

Let's not confuse "quality of live [sic]" with "standard of living"

I would argue that a young person in 1946 had a better quality of life than a young person today.

makeyourdaddyproud

As someone said a while ago, lower class is having your name on your lapel, middle class sporting your name on the office door and upper class flaunts your name on the factory gates.

makeyourdaddyproud

dryhat wrote: »

Let's not confuse "quality of live [sic]" with "standard of living"

I would argue that a young person in 1946 had a better quality of life than a young person today.

You used the [sic] endorsement incorrectly.

LMAO.

dryhat

makeyourdaddyproud wrote: »

You used the [sic] endorsement incorrectly.

LMAO.

LMAO?

LMAO

It's a good job I didn't do something really funny.

I can't imagine what would happen then.

CLAPTON

dryhat wrote: »

Let's not confuse "quality of live [sic]" with "standard of living"

I would argue that a young person in 1946 had a better quality of life than a young person today.

I see what you mean

they had better access polio, untreatible leukaemas, freezing cold houses and lots lots more

Linton

ruggedtoast wrote: »

"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."

.

Surely you would expect that children of the richest parents will tend to be relatively poorer than their parents - reversion to mean.

Though almost everybody now has a far higher standard of living in real terms than their equivalents of 40 years ago.