Question time next week

ukcarper

ruggedtoast wrote: »

I might be missing something but what about 30 - 60 year olds? They are completely excluding Generation X. The best generation, from this debate in favour of a bunch of crabby boomers and facebook obsessed Millennials?

:mad:

Not to mention the majority of boomers

Wallhart

Love how much crap young people get.

Entitlement seems to to from more than just young people. How about if we have a policy where we build as many houses as possible to try and bring prices down to help young people. No older feel entitled to the equity and the green belt surrounding your properties. No young people at my work feel they are entitled to anything. In fact it's all the old people that complain about being move from 60ths to 80ths. Don't get me wrong I know there are people out there who expect things without working but that doesn't just cover young people.

It's sad that you put all young people, the future of the country, in the same bucket.

ukcarper

Wallhart wrote: »

Love how much crap young people get.

Entitlement seems to to from more than just young people. How about if we have a policy where we build as many houses as possible to try and bring prices down to help young people. No older feel entitled to the equity and the green belt surrounding your properties. No young people at my work feel they are entitled to anything. In fact it's all the old people that complain about being move from 60ths to 80ths. Don't get me wrong I know there are people out there who expect things without working but that doesn't just cover young people.

It's sad that you put all young people, the future of the country, in the same bucket.

I think you will find that most of us don't think like moneyinpocket and I imagine that most young people don't think like toasty.

Jason74

moneyinmypocket wrote: »

The yoof are bitter that is fact. We worked hard for are stamp. Are houses were built with the blood of are hands and sweat of are brows. The yoof go drinking and xboxing while we worked the fields, painted our houses. There will be no back down I can asure you of that. We worked hard.

I'm going to start with the assumption that this post is serious, rather than a case of trolling, although the nature of the language means it's hard to be sure.

I don't think anyone would argue with the statement that the boomer generation worked very hard to achieve the standard of living that it currently enjoys. However, it is also a fact that the boomer generation enjoyed a set of favourable economic circumstances that were almost unique. They enjoyed free (and grant funded) higher education, and more generous pension provision than any other generation before or since.

More relevantly still, they enjoyed a remarkably helpful (for them) combination of high inflation at the time when their debts were likely to be high, and very low inflation when they were likely to be net savers. This led to the real value of their debts being eroded very rapidly, while the value of their main asset (houses) increased significantly. The reduced inflation later in their working lives also made it easier to build up a nest egg that wasn't ravaged by inflation.

None of this is the boomers "fault". They were simply dealt a very good hand, and in the main, played it well. However, this doesn't change the fact that they were the fortunate generation, and it's also a fact (not an opinion, a fact) that much of this good fortune is now being paid for by the younger generation.

People starting their working lives now will not enjoy the pension benefits of the boomer generation, yet will face much of the burden of paying for those benefits for the boomers. They will not enjoy the benefits of fully funded higher education, meaning that their opportunities for advancement on merit are dramatically reduced relative to those born 30-40 years earlier. The dramatically increased real cost of housing over the last 30-40 years or so also benefits the boomer generation to the direct detriment of the young. At best, young people will have to pay a massive portion of their earned wealth to purchase a home, often providing an unearned windfall to an older person in the process. At worst, young people will be priced out of home ownership, and end up paying rent to (mostly older) BTL landlords who are often a large part of the reason they are priced out.

Like I say, none of this is in itself the boomers fault. They didn't create these conditions, they simply were fortunate enough to benefit from them. But, the boomersimho absolutely do have an obligation to acknowledge this fact, and to support policies that try and level the playing field between generations. At the moment, too many are not doing that, and if that continues, I suspect that there is likely to be a damaging breakdown in the fabric of society over time (some might argue that this is in fact already happening). and if that were to happen, imho that will be the fault of the boomers.

ukcarper

I think we were fortunate but no for the reasons you say very few boomers benefited from that free further education and although final salary pensions were more common out of the half a dozen school friends I keep in contact with I'm the only person with one.

The big advantage I had was the availability of good jobs with prospects and companies that were prepared to spend money training their staff. I do not envy young people starting out in work now and can only hope things improve.

CLAPTON

Jason74 wrote: »

I'm going to start with the assumption that this post is serious, rather than a case of trolling, although the nature of the language means it's hard to be sure.

I don't think anyone would argue with the statement that the boomer generation worked very hard to achieve the standard of living that it currently enjoys. However, it is also a fact that the boomer generation enjoyed a set of favourable economic circumstances that were almost unique. They enjoyed free (and grant funded) higher education, and more generous pension provision than any other generation before or since.

More relevantly still, they enjoyed a remarkably helpful (for them) combination of high inflation at the time when their debts were likely to be high, and very low inflation when they were likely to be net savers. This led to the real value of their debts being eroded very rapidly, while the value of their main asset (houses) increased significantly. The reduced inflation later in their working lives also made it easier to build up a nest egg that wasn't ravaged by inflation.

None of this is the boomers "fault". They were simply dealt a very good hand, and in the main, played it well. However, this doesn't change the fact that they were the fortunate generation, and it's also a fact (not an opinion, a fact) that much of this good fortune is now being paid for by the younger generation.

People starting their working lives now will not enjoy the pension benefits of the boomer generation, yet will face much of the burden of paying for those benefits for the boomers. They will not enjoy the benefits of fully funded higher education, meaning that their opportunities for advancement on merit are dramatically reduced relative to those born 30-40 years earlier. The dramatically increased real cost of housing over the last 30-40 years or so also benefits the boomer generation to the direct detriment of the young. At best, young people will have to pay a massive portion of their earned wealth to purchase a home, often providing an unearned windfall to an older person in the process. At worst, young people will be priced out of home ownership, and end up paying rent to (mostly older) BTL landlords who are often a large part of the reason they are priced out.

Like I say, none of this is in itself the boomers fault. They didn't create these conditions, they simply were fortunate enough to benefit from them. But, the boomersimho absolutely do have an obligation to acknowledge this fact, and to support policies that try and level the playing field between generations. At the moment, too many are not doing that, and if that continues, I suspect that there is likely to be a damaging breakdown in the fabric of society over time (some might argue that this is in fact already happening). and if that were to happen, imho that will be the fault of the boomers.

a well reasoned post but maybe needs extending:


try comparing on a like for like basis

so compare say a boomer in their first 21 years of life with a young person today.

how would you make the comparison? what would the important things be?

lets start with housing;
which group had a better housing experience?
-numbers having central heating
-running hot water
-own bedroom
-nice carpet on the floor
-double glazing

lets continue with education
-who had the smaller class sizes?
-indoor toilets
-good sports facilities
-and at uni level only 5% of the early boomers had access to Uni although it was free-95% had no access

general try to compare
-access to family car
-(foreign) holidays
-entertainments

Health
-access to polio
-childhood illnesses

Social
-equality between male and female
-gender equality
-attitude to sexual freedoms, pregnancy outside marriage, divorce etc.


I find it difficult to say that your (young ) generation has had it so very hard.

OK lets take housing for the over 21s:

-Gender equality does now mean that whereas once a single female couldn't get a mortgage without her father being a guarantor or the famale part of a married couple didn't count much towards the mortgage total:
this has meant that house prices as a ratio to a single income have risen
Would you vote for a return to the good old days where women didn't count? Were (female) boomers 'lucky?'

Average house occupancy is lower now that in the boomer young years.

Much of the housing problem has been caused by a large increase in population : what is your view on that?

The housing problem can be solved by simply building more houses: why is that so difficult a problem to solve?

In any event is most parts of the country buying a property is quite affordable.

Road_Hog

Jason74 wrote: »

None of this is the boomers "fault". They were simply dealt a very good hand, and in the main, played it well. However, this doesn't change the fact that they were the fortunate generation, and it's also a fact (not an opinion, a fact) that much of this good fortune is now being paid for by the younger generation.

People starting their working lives now will not enjoy the pension benefits of the boomer generation, yet will face much of the burden of paying for those benefits for the boomers. They will not enjoy the benefits of fully funded higher education, meaning that their opportunities for advancement on merit are dramatically reduced relative to those born 30-40 years earlier. The dramatically increased real cost of housing over the last 30-40 years or so also benefits the boomer generation to the direct detriment of the young. At best, young people will have to pay a massive portion of their earned wealth to purchase a home, often providing an unearned windfall to an older person in the process. At worst, young people will be priced out of home ownership, and end up paying rent to (mostly older) BTL landlords who are often a large part of the reason they are priced out.

Instead of blaming the Boomers, they need to listen to them and heed their warning. The world is controlled by very nasty people, who control the politicians. These people want everyone to be poor and they have cracked down on the general population, because they were quite concerned at how prosperous the Boomers became.

The brainwashed will come out with the brainwashed names, such as conspiracy theorists. But you are only doing the work of those that want to treat you as farmyard animals.

Yes, us Boomers did okay. I think most of us would like others to do well also, but you've got to stop believing in the LibLabCon propaganda. The elites are getting richer on the backs of the younger generation.

Jason74

CLAPTON wrote: »

a well reasoned post but maybe needs extending:


try comparing on a like for like basis

so compare say a boomer in their first 21 years of life with a young person today.

how would you make the comparison? what would the important things be?

lets start with housing;
which group had a better housing experience?
-numbers having central heating
-running hot water
-own bedroom
-nice carpet on the floor
-double glazing

lets continue with education
-who had the smaller class sizes?
-indoor toilets
-good sports facilities
-and at uni level only 5% of the early boomers had access to Uni although it was free-95% had no access

general try to compare
-access to family car
-(foreign) holidays
-entertainments

Health
-access to polio
-childhood illnesses

Social
-equality between male and female
-gender equality
-attitude to sexual freedoms, pregnancy outside marriage, divorce etc.


I find it difficult to say that your (young ) generation has had it so very hard.

OK lets take housing for the over 21s:

-Gender equality does now mean that whereas once a single female couldn't get a mortgage without her father being a guarantor or the famale part of a married couple didn't count much towards the mortgage total:
this has meant that house prices as a ratio to a single income have risen
Would you vote for a return to the good old days where women didn't count? Were (female) boomers 'lucky?'

Average house occupancy is lower now that in the boomer young years.

Much of the housing problem has been caused by a large increase in population : what is your view on that?

The housing problem can be solved by simply building more houses: why is that so difficult a problem to solve?

In any event is most parts of the country buying a property is quite affordable.

An interesting take on things, and thanks for the considered reply. For the record, I'm in my late 30s, so wouldn't consider myself to be of an age where I'm economically disadvantaged simply by being born when I was (I've been fortunate enough to do more than OK money wise, despite not being a high flyer by any means).

I think though that people 10 or 15 years younger than me certainly are in that category, and the situation gets progressively worse as you go down the age scale.My interest in this issue does not come from any sense of personal loss or grievance, but simply a view that there is in economic terms a generational inequality issue that is (in economic terms at least) actually far more problematic than any of the more commonly debated equalities issues out there.

Your point that there has been a great deal of progress in many ways over the years is a valid one, and I wouldn't dispute that a child growing up today is compared to their grandparents better educated, housed, and with a higher standard of living through their childhood. It's also true that in terms of social freedoms and equalities, we've come a very long way in the last 50 years or so (indeed with many of the boomer generation in the vanguard of driving that process) In many ways though, I'm not sure that any of that is relevant to the point that I was trying to make. .

The short version of my original post is that the boomer generation enjoyed a set of economic conditions that greatly assisted them in making their way in the world. Many of those conditions have in recent years gone into reverse, and that change has also benefited the boomer generation (as it suits their current circumstances), while at the same time making life harder for the under 30s (and as I said in my original post, much of this isn't opinion, it's empirical fact). Boomers should not be blamed for this in any way, but they do have a responsibility to acknowledge it and "do their bit" to level the playing field. I don't think any of the (very valid) points you raise change that reality.

The housing issues you raise are interesting ones. The population issue is certainly part of the equation here, but the housebuilding issue is probably the more pertinent.one. There are a number of reasons why the houses we need don't get built, although primarily it comes down to two things imho.The first is the lack of apetite for public sector housebuilding. This is important given the fact that the only time we have built enough homes has generally been when there has been large scale "public" building.. The second is the planning system, which often makes it difficult to get projects off the ground. Where it sounds like we may be in agreement is that addressing that problem needs to be a far higher political priority than it appears to be at present.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Jason74 wrote: »

I'm going to start with the assumption that this post is serious, rather than a case of trolling, although the nature of the language means it's hard to be sure.

I don't think anyone would argue with the statement that the boomer generation worked very hard to achieve the standard of living that it currently enjoys. However, it is also a fact that the boomer generation enjoyed a set of favourable economic circumstances that were almost unique. They enjoyed free (and grant funded) higher education, and more generous pension provision than any other generation before or since.

More relevantly still, they enjoyed a remarkably helpful (for them) combination of high inflation at the time when their debts were likely to be high, and very low inflation when they were likely to be net savers. This led to the real value of their debts being eroded very rapidly, while the value of their main asset (houses) increased significantly. The reduced inflation later in their working lives also made it easier to build up a nest egg that wasn't ravaged by inflation.

None of this is the boomers "fault". They were simply dealt a very good hand, and in the main, played it well. However, this doesn't change the fact that they were the fortunate generation, and it's also a fact (not an opinion, a fact) that much of this good fortune is now being paid for by the younger generation.

People starting their working lives now will not enjoy the pension benefits of the boomer generation, yet will face much of the burden of paying for those benefits for the boomers. They will not enjoy the benefits of fully funded higher education, meaning that their opportunities for advancement on merit are dramatically reduced relative to those born 30-40 years earlier. The dramatically increased real cost of housing over the last 30-40 years or so also benefits the boomer generation to the direct detriment of the young. At best, young people will have to pay a massive portion of their earned wealth to purchase a home, often providing an unearned windfall to an older person in the process. At worst, young people will be priced out of home ownership, and end up paying rent to (mostly older) BTL landlords who are often a large part of the reason they are priced out.

Like I say, none of this is in itself the boomers fault. They didn't create these conditions, they simply were fortunate enough to benefit from them. But, the boomersimho absolutely do have an obligation to acknowledge this fact, and to support policies that try and level the playing field between generations. At the moment, too many are not doing that, and if that continues, I suspect that there is likely to be a damaging breakdown in the fabric of society over time (some might argue that this is in fact already happening). and if that were to happen, imho that will be the fault of the boomers.

That is actually quite a well argued post.

However I think it suffer from two things.

1) A bit of a rose tinted view of the life most boomers led.

2) An overly pessimistic view of the life most youngsters today will lead.

I'm not a boomer. My parents on the other hand were though, both born shortly after WW2, in the absolute peak of the baby boom.

They couldn't afford to buy a house without help from their parents, and they couldn't afford to heat it for many years once they did buy one.

The cost of the house they bought was at just under 4 times joint income, and that was in the late 60's, and they were crippled by high mortgage rates soon enough.

Despite being a dual income couple, working as an engineer for the old GPO and a qualified teacher, they spent the first few winters huddled around a coal fire with blankets, with 'hand-me-down' furniture and salvaged bits and pieces for other contents, and it wasn't until many years after I was born and my mother had returned to work, that they could afford to get central heating. I was almost 10 before they could afford to install secondary glazing.

The high inflation you view as such a benefit, they viewed as a curse.

Wage rises always lagged inflation, so they always felt poor, and whilst the debt did reduce in real terms, the high interest rates ensured it sucked up a huge portion of their income. Far higher than than is paid today in mortgage payments as a percentage of income.

Furthermore, interest rates never kept up with inflation, so the value of savings was wiped out, and while wages rose more quickly than they did today, that lag between inflation and pay rises meant earnings often reduced in real terms.

This was a worse position by far to be in than the young of today go through.

And they had to suffer through the 70's. That time of the winter of discontent, years of industrial action reducing incomes, while high interest rates crippled spending power.

I vividly remember my mother in tears more than once because she had to choose between putting fuel in the car to get to work, and putting food on the table to feed her family.

Anyway....

Being born in the Gen X years, I can quite clearly see both the hardships and benefits of the boomer generation, and also the hardships and benefits of Generation Y and the Millennials.

And if I had to choose between those two, so which generation I could be born in, I'd pick Gen Y or Millennial over Boomer every time.

But if any Generation could accurately be called the lucky generation, I'd say it was Gen X...

ILW

Guess I am a boomer, but I do remember my parents and grandparents having their life savings wiped out by the inflation in the mid 70s. Think that does colour my views on the subject.