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

andrewf75

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

But on average each generation tends to do better than the previous one. I can only think of one key reason why this might fail to happen for the current young generation, and that has nothing to do with opportunities, or the economics, but everything to do with them being far more self-seeking, unthinking, 'want-it-now', fragile, and expect that the world owes them a living.

while thats true, I think we've reached a tipping point where we simply cannot continue to sustain our current lifestyles especially not in todays globalised world with the rising powers of Asia changing the entire balance of wealth.

Loughton_Monkey

andrewf75 wrote: »

while thats true, I think we've reached a tipping point where we simply cannot continue to sustain our current lifestyles especially not in todays globalised world with the rising powers of Asia changing the entire balance of wealth.

That's not inconsistent.

Like you, I firmly believe the emerging countries will continue to create far more wealth than so-called 'developed' countries. But there are parallels in what I said about the generational issues:

In other words, my father's generation started off very poor, suffered the austerity of the war, but did see vast relative improvements in their economic 'lot'. Meanwhile, they watched on while my generation had far better education, career prospects, gadgets, comfort, ability to get on the housing ladder etc. But my point is they felt standards were improving, but maybe some of them were 'jealous' or 'horrified' by their childrens' wealth or [what they saw as] frittering of that wealth.

In the same way, we in UK will still see improvements, but because of the sheer "baggage" of so-called 'developed' society we cannot possibly hope to emulate the far greater wealth increase from Asia etc. We can be 'jealous' or 'horrified' about this to whatever extent we choose, but it will not change a thing.

All we can do is accept that increased wealth over the next 40 years or so is there to be taken, but only incrementally. Maybe we can find ways of grabbing some crumbs from the exponential growth elsewhere. But beware, they have the full history of UK, USA, Europe and have seen how not to spend exceptional wealth. They will learn. They show no signs of surrounding their population with cotton wool, paid for by crippling taxes. They will thrive for a very long time as a result of that.

Conrad

andrewf75 wrote: »

I think on the whole we'll never be as well off again as we were during the last boom years. The world is changing more rapidly than ever before, Asia is booming now while Europe struggles. A lot of our historical wealth was ultimately built on exploiting resources in former colonies and cheap wages in Asia. Thats going to change. Add to that the pressures on land for food, fuel etc, population growth, resources running low.

I'm not being pessimistic as its not necessarily a bad thing as long as we accept that we can't carry on as before.

Maybe I've gone a bit deep, but the basic point is that theres going to be less money to go round in future!

That's a fairly common view but a bit linear tbh.
You need to take account of the vast technological changes coming through which will present vast opportunities and there's no reason to suppose we can't take a nice slice of the action.


The problem with these debates is we forget our history. Just read back over the last 100 years and you will find the sentiment repeated over and over again that yesterday was better than tomorrow. The best example I've seen is where a major survey in 1950 revealed people felt tomorrow would be very much worse despite this generation having come through 2 world wars!

It is absolute standard Human psychology to hold the view you have so I'm not having a go but trust me, take in a few historical documentaries and spot how many times we thought we'd reached some sort of peak / plateaux / moral precipice.




Countless articles and books in the 60's and 70's told us it was a certainty the UK and US were going down the pan, that HK, Taiwan, Japan, S Korea and Singapore would see to that. This is what I mean by linear predictions - all a bit too basic and not allowing for the trillions of thoughts Humanity will have that will cause a non linear future to unfold.

Conrad

Just ONE example of how badly we predict things if we use a linear logic modality;



In 1970, the first Earth Day was celebrated — okay, “celebrated” doesn’t capture the funereal tone of the event. The events (organized in part by then hippie and now convicted murderer Ira Einhorn) predicted death, destruction and disease unless we did exactly as progressives commanded.




Behold the coming apocalypse as predicted on and around Earth Day, 1970:

1. "Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind." — Harvard biologist George Wald
2. "We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation." — Washington University biologist Barry Commoner
3. "Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction." — New York Times editorial
4. "Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years." — Stanford University biologist Paul Ehrlich
5. "Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born… [By 1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s." — Paul Ehrlich
6. "It is already too late to avoid mass starvation," — Denis Hayes, Chief organizer for Earth Day
7. "Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions…. By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine." — North Texas State University professor Peter Gunter
8. "In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution… by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half." — Life magazine
9. "At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it's only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable." — Ecologist Kenneth Watt
10. "Air pollution...is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone." — Paul Ehrlich
11. "By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate… that there won't be any more crude oil. You'll drive up to the pump and say, ‘Fill 'er up, buddy,' and he'll say, ‘I am very sorry, there isn't any.'" — Ecologist Kenneth Watt
12. "[One] theory assumes that the earth's cloud cover will continue to thicken as more dust, fumes, and water vapor are belched into the atmosphere by industrial smokestacks and jet planes. Screened from the sun's heat, the planet will cool, the water vapor will fall and freeze, and a new Ice Age will be born." — Newsweek magazine
13. "The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age." — Kenneth Watt

Conrad

There are tens of thousand of such predictions made by people that thought in a linear manner.
All of them fail to allow for technological and societal changes that completely alter the path we find ourselves upon.


My own raw prediction is Britain is entering a phase of unprecedented prosperity.

andrewf75

Conrad wrote: »

The problem with these debates is we forget our history. Just read back over the last 100 years and you will find the sentiment repeated over and over again that yesterday was better than tomorrow. The best example I've seen is where a major survey in 1950 revealed people felt tomorrow would be very much worse despite this generation having come through 2 world wars!
.

I see your point but I still think the changes in population and the globalised nature of the world today and shifting power bases means that while we will undoubtedly "have a slice" of wealth as you say, it will be a smaller one and will have to be split between more people living for longer. To me it is logical that with the billions in Asia increasing their standard of living, it will mean that we need to take a drop in ours because until now we've had a lot more than our fair share and there isn't an unlimited amount of resources despite new technology.

CLAPTON

andrewf75 wrote: »

I see your point but I still think the changes in population and the globalised nature of the world today and shifting power bases means that while we will undoubtedly "have a slice" of wealth as you say, it will be a smaller one and will have to be split between more people living for longer. To me it is logical that with the billions in Asia increasing their standard of living, it will mean that we need to take a drop in ours because until now we've had a lot more than our fair share and there isn't an unlimited amount of resources despite new technology.

the population of the world doubled over the last 50 years yet we are all better off.

kabayiri

Conrad wrote: »

...
My own raw prediction is Britain is entering a phase of unprecedented prosperity.

I admire your confidence Conrad, but why do you think in nation state terms still ?

Suppose I have established a Dyson level product. Why wouldn't I seek to relocate manufacturing to the cheapest reliable place possible? Why should I record and generate profits in UK , incurring corporation tax?

I can tap into a wealth of advice to globalise my business. To access cheap resource anywhere around the globe. To use financial engineering to minimise my tax expenditure.

Truly successful companies like Google, Apple etc no longer really rely on a host country.

I don't believe this was the case back in the 50s. You couldn't just shift capital around the world with a few keystrokes then.

Loughton_Monkey

kabayiri wrote: »

I admire your confidence Conrad, but why do you think in nation state terms still ?

Suppose I have established a Dyson level product. Why wouldn't I seek to relocate manufacturing to the cheapest reliable place possible? Why should I record and generate profits in UK , incurring corporation tax?

I can tap into a wealth of advice to globalise my business. To access cheap resource anywhere around the globe. To use financial engineering to minimise my tax expenditure.

Truly successful companies like Google, Apple etc no longer really rely on a host country.

I don't believe this was the case back in the 50s. You couldn't just shift capital around the world with a few keystrokes then.

You would do what Dyson does and manufacture in Malaysia.

As far as I know, however, he is UK based as a company and therefore probably pays a bit of corporation tax.

But as you suggest, a lot of these companies are now 'stateless' and don't pay corporation tax to anyone. For the life of me, I don't see why the EU, USA etc. don't get together, and identify these tax haven countries. All they have to do is [amend any trade agreements as necessary] impose a 10% "Import Duty" specifically on all imports from these countries.

Maybe that's too simple!

CLAPTON

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

You would do what Dyson does and manufacture in Malaysia.

As far as I know, however, he is UK based as a company and therefore probably pays a bit of corporation tax.

But as you suggest, a lot of these companies are now 'stateless' and don't pay corporation tax to anyone. For the life of me, I don't see why the EU, USA etc. don't get together, and identify these tax haven countries. All they have to do is [amend any trade agreements as necessary] impose a 10% "Import Duty" specifically on all imports from these countries.

Maybe that's too simple!

as all taxes on companies are paid by the customer, best to abolish corporation tax for all and raise taxes elsewhere