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

MacMickster

ruggedtoast wrote: »

I actually don't disagree with you about much of your list. It would be foolish to suggest that modern life for most people isn't more outwardly more comfortable for most people than in the past.

But today's boomers live in the present too.

The point that article is making is that young people will not retire richer than their parents are now, but worse off. Many of them will rent forever so will never collect any housing equity, and in fact most school leavers now, finding that a degree is now a pre-requisite for a job filing, will incur student loan debt of around £40k to £50k before they even start out in careers which are being characterised by unstable short term and zero hours contracts.

The student loan debt is effectively just another form of taxation. Don't get hung up about this. The basic rate of income tax used to be over 30%.

Many of today's pensioners have also rented forever. Few of these will have inherited a penny from their parents to help them in their old age, whereas a significant proportion of today's youngsters will receive an inheritance.

Every generation faces its own challenges, its own advantages and disadvantages. Within that generation, some will do well while some will fare badly. The world has gone through phenomenal changes over the last 150 years, and there is no prospect of the rate of change slowing.

Each individual needs to rise to the challenges that they face and try to overcome these. This has always been the case. Some will always be born into a privileged position, or have privilege bought for them by their parents. Some will simply get lucky. Some will make their own luck, whilst some will appear to be cursed despite their best efforts.

Decide what you want from your life and try to make that happen, rather than holding a seemingly perpetual grudge against those who you perceive to have had it easier than you. Channel your efforts into making yourself one of your generation's winners. There will be plenty.

ruggedtoast

MacMickster wrote: »

The student loan debt is effectively just another form of taxation. Don't get hung up about this. The basic rate of income tax used to be over 30%.

Many of today's pensioners have also rented forever. Few of these will have inherited a penny from their parents to help them in their old age, whereas a significant proportion of today's youngsters will receive an inheritance.

Every generation faces its own challenges, its own advantages and disadvantages. Within that generation, some will do well while some will fare badly. The world has gone through phenomenal changes over the last 150 years, and there is no prospect of the rate of change slowing.

Each individual needs to rise to the challenges that they face and try to overcome these. This has always been the case. Some will always be born into a privileged position, or have privilege bought for them by their parents. Some will simply get lucky. Some will make their own luck, whilst some will appear to be cursed despite their best efforts.

Decide what you want from your life and try to make that happen, rather than holding a seemingly perpetual grudge against those who you perceive to have had it easier than you. Channel your efforts into making yourself one of your generation's winners. There will be plenty.

Yes, to an extent, though this kind of 'Just World' self determination can also easily be used a trope to ignore genuine inequality (and frequently is).

The problem we will face down the road is that in decades to come at this rate we will have a (comparatively) limited number of working age people having to support a larger number of retired people whom they feel are much better off than they are.

Unless some political seismic change occurs, the next few decades will bring ever more insecure and expensive, mostly privately rented, housing, and unstable short term contract driven employment. Workers living through this period will exist in a culture of subtraction, as benefits and the state are slowly dismantled around them in favour of corporate driven transactional consumerism.

They will have little prospect of a comfortable retirement, a housing equity cushion, or universal health care in their old age, but will be being asked to pay for others to.

It would therefore, possibly be in that older generations interests to try and use their considerable influence now (while they still have considerable influence) to try and reverse this situation now, before it jumps up and bites them in their behinds in a decade or two.

Loughton_Monkey

ruggedtoast wrote: »

......But today's boomers live in the present too.

The point that article is making is that young people will not retire richer than their parents are now, but worse off. Many of them will rent forever so will never collect any housing equity, and in fact most school leavers now, finding that a degree is now a pre-requisite for a job filing, will incur student loan debt of around £40k to £50k before they even start out in careers which are being characterised by unstable short term and zero hours contracts.

Certainly boomers live in the present too. But not for long. The generation or two below will have another 30/60 years yet of life, and anyone who projects continuing 'declining' wealth and opportunities for that length of time cannot be taken seriously.

Ask anyone of any age, and they will confirm that we are all subject to many, many economic cycles - some good, some bad. We are just emerging from a 'bad' cycle and it is ludicrous to take the austerity and hardship (for most) over the last 5 years and project that forward.

I seriously think, with your attitude, you would have committed suicide in the 1970's when inflation was rampant, and everyone's wages were visibly worth less and less every month (let alone year). A £1 note in your piggy bank 31/12/1969 would be worth 29 pence on 31/12/1979. A bank balance of £4,312 would have bought you a house on 31/12/1969, but on 31.12.1979 you would need precisely 5.1 times that! You have no idea of times like that do you?

ruggedtoast

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

Certainly boomers live in the present too. But not for long. The generation or two below will have another 30/60 years yet of life, and anyone who projects continuing 'declining' wealth and opportunities for that length of time cannot be taken seriously.

Ask anyone of any age, and they will confirm that we are all subject to many, many economic cycles - some good, some bad. We are just emerging from a 'bad' cycle and it is ludicrous to take the austerity and hardship (for most) over the last 5 years and project that forward.

I seriously think, with your attitude, you would have committed suicide in the 1970's when inflation was rampant, and everyone's wages were visibly worth less and less every month (let alone year). A £1 note in your piggy bank 31/12/1969 would be worth 29 pence on 31/12/1979. A bank balance of £4,312 would have bought you a house on 31/12/1969, but on 31.12.1979 you would need precisely 5.1 times that! You have no idea of times like that do you?

Between 1969 and 1979 average nominal wages grew by almost 400%, and in real terms grew by £2500.

In November in 1979 your £4312 would have been earning you 17% if you had it in a bank account rather than under the mattress.

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/publications/re-reference-tables.html?edition=tcm%3A77-222531

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/boeapps/iadb/repo.asp

http://www.measuringworth.com/datasets/ukearncpi/result2.php

Of course if you were refusing to work for more than three days a week or were just perpetually on strike for other reasons I imagine times were tough.

CLAPTON

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Yes, to an extent, though this kind of 'Just World' self determination can also easily be used a trope to ignore genuine inequality (and frequently is).

The problem we will face down the road is that in decades to come at this rate we will have a (comparatively) limited number of working age people having to support a larger number of retired people whom they feel are much better off than they are.

Unless some political seismic change occurs, the next few decades will bring ever more insecure and expensive, mostly privately rented, housing, and unstable short term contract driven employment. Workers living through this period will exist in a culture of subtraction, as benefits and the state are slowly dismantled around them in favour of corporate driven transactional consumerism.

They will have little prospect of a comfortable retirement, a housing equity cushion, or universal health care in their old age, but will be being asked to pay for others to.

It would therefore, possibly be in that older generations interests to try and use their considerable influence now (while they still have considerable influence) to try and reverse this situation now, before it jumps up and bites them in their behinds in a decade or two.

If we truely are going to have a shortage of labour due to demographics then one would expect companies to have to compete for this now limited resource.
One would expect salaries and conditions of employment to improve and those workers to enter a golden age of full employment and high salaries.


Solving the housing problem simply requires building more properties.

Thrugelmir

CLAPTON wrote: »

one person's debt is another person's savings

Until 2000 this was the case. After which the banks became addicted on securitisation and wholesale funds. By 2008 the UK banks had a 60% balance sheet exposure to property (in all it's guises).

CLAPTON

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Until 2000 this was the case. After which the banks became addicted on securitisation and wholesale funds. By 2008 the UK banks had a 60% balance sheet exposure to property (in all it's guises).

where do wholesale funds come from?

Conrad

ruggedtoast wrote: »

I actually don't disagree with you about much of your list. It would be foolish to suggest that modern life for most people isn't more outwardly more comfortable for most people than in the past.

But today's boomers live in the present too.

The point that article is making is that young people will not retire richer than their parents are now, but worse off. Many of them will rent forever so will never collect any housing equity, and in fact most school leavers now, finding that a degree is now a pre-requisite for a job filing, will incur student loan debt of around £40k to £50k before they even start out in careers which are being characterised by unstable short term and zero hours contracts.

So pro's and con's between the two eras then. Seems fine to me.

This thing about never being able to buy merely reflects how a person runs their life.

I'm from the generation that started living into late 20's and beyond with parents. Most of us can do this, work, save, spend little and surely buy a property, and yes there are lots of cheap properties in most of the country. A FTB client of mine bought a £50k flat up in Liverpool with 10% deposit, which she then didn't move into (cough........) but has let out to the hospital.
She's a recent immigrant and came here with nothing. SIMPLES.

If people chose to start a family young / have a dog / spend too much and then struggle to save a deposit to buy a house, well that's their choice.

Conrad

CLAPTON wrote: »

If we truely are going to have a shortage of labour due to demographics then one would expect companies to have to compete for this now limited resource.
One would expect salaries and conditions of employment to improve and those workers to enter a golden age of full employment and high salaries.

According to a recruitment agent mate, wages are deffo rising as competition hots up


Solving the housing problem simply requires building more properties.

It solves nothing really. All you'll do is attract even more immigrants.

Me in red...

John1993_2

ruggedtoast wrote: »

I'm sure the fact you aren't worried about them is a great weight off their minds.

I live a life undreamed of by my parents, and most of my relatives (senior investment banker, with all that brings, as is the wife). My children will see none of it. They'll grow up not realising how very wealthy their parents were, because I think that this will make them happier on the long run.

I could make them rich enough that they never have to work, nor their children. I wouldn't wish that on anyone.