Question time next week

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

ILW wrote: »

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.

I was a child in the 70's, but even I remember how incredibly grim it was. The 80's weren't much better for most, unless you worked in the city of London.

The 90's and 00's were better times by far for most people than the 60's, 70's and 80's.

If the young of today think the boomers were 'lucky' they have absolutely no idea of what the reality of living through those times was like.

Jason74

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

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...

Again, much of this is largely true, and as I said in my post, nobody is disputing that the boomer generation worked hard and made sacrifices for the position that they now find themselves in. My own parents were born at the tail end of the boomer generation, and the description you provide of early hardships is not too disimilar to what I remember of my own early childhood. I'm certainly not playing that down, although my first post perhaps didn't fully acknowledge this.

But where I will always maintain (and there is a lot of evidence out there to support this view. I think David Willett's excellent book sums it up well) that the boomer generation were ultimately very fortunate is that while they had to deal with some very difficult times, they came out of the other side very well when the tide turned.

For the under 30s (and like I say, I'm not one of them, so this isn't a personal gripe), the situation is very different. While their young adulthood is almost certainly more comfortable than the boomers due to the dramatically reduced cost of consumer luxuries (something that all generations benefit from of course), their chances of achieving the same level of overall wealth / security as that generation are remote at best. This is because in the key areas of employment, higher eductaion, pensions and housing, the scales are heavily weighted against the young in terms of what is available to them relative to those born 30 years earlier. I don't think my view of the prospects of the younger generations is "overly pessimistic". I think that their prospects in terms of generating wealth and security are truly dire, and certainly much poorer than any generation reaching adulthood after WW2.

Given the choice between the boomers short term harship and long term gain, and the younger generations short term comfort and poor long term prospects, I'd take the former every time. I understand fully the hardships the boomers went through, but I also realise just how grim prospects are for the youngest adults (and those who follow them) in terms of accumulating wealth and security. I think that older people generally fail to gasp this, and I can't help thinking that this will bite us hard on the backside as a society in the coming years. Indeed, perhaps it's already starting to do so.

CLAPTON

Jason74 wrote: »

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.

It seems to me that it is certainly true that the boomer generation are much much richer that people were in the early post war years.

Gen x are much much richer that their equivalents were in the post war years.

The main complaint seems to be

- even though gen x are the richest generation that has ever lived that haven't seen the same growth as boomers (they haven't quantified that but they feel it)

- they fear for the future and don't think it will be very good.

Although both theses aren't really founded in facts, it this case perception is everything.

The housing problem can be easily solved but I've never seen a student march about poor housing provision or serious political campaigning on the subject.
Much of the old council building was built by the private sector : the issues were the available of land in cities (compulsory purchase and so a state monopoly) and funding.

By reform of the planning laws and the reduction on state burdens (taxes) on new builds the level of house building could easily be increased over a period of time.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Jason74 wrote: »

Again, much of this is largely true, and as I said in my post, nobody is disputing that the boomer generation worked hard and made sacrifices for the position that they now find themselves in. My own parents were born at the tail end of the boomer generation, and the description you provide of early hardships is not too disimilar to what I remember of my own early childhood. I'm certainly not playing that down, although my first post perhaps didn't fully acknowledge this.

Fair enough.

(Although some on here really do seem to think the boomers lived in a land of milk and honey....)

But where I will always maintain (and there is a lot of evidence out there to support this view. I think David Willett's excellent book sums it up well) that the boomer generation were ultimately very fortunate is that while they had to deal with some very difficult times, they came out of the other side very well when the tide turned.

I don't agree with the central premises of Willett's book.

Most generations do manage to come out the other side of their challenges very well. All generations have some hard times, and all generations survive them, and go on to prosper.

Just like the older generations are always the ones with the most assets. Thats the way it should be. They've had the longest to accumulate them.

This of course doesn't make it theft from the young, as ultimately ALL wealth is recycled to younger generations, and always will be unless we abolish death.

For the under 30s (and like I say, I'm not one of them, so this isn't a personal gripe), the situation is very different. While their young adulthood is almost certainly more comfortable than the boomers due to the dramatically reduced cost of consumer luxuries (something that all generations benefit from of course),

It's not just consumer luxuries that are cheaper, it's also basics like food and clothing.

The boomers paid an absurdly high percentage of their income for basic essentials compared to the young of today.

The cost of essentials such as clothing, putting a meal on the table or heating the house was a real struggle.

their chances of achieving the same level of overall wealth / security as that generation are remote at best.

This is because in the key areas of employment, higher eductaion, pensions and housing, the scales are heavily weighted against the young in terms of what is available to them relative to those born 30 years earlier.

I don't think my view of the prospects of the younger generations is "overly pessimistic". I think that their prospects in terms of generating wealth and security are truly dire, and certainly much poorer than any generation reaching adulthood after WW2.

And this is where we fundamentally disagree I think.

I think the young of today have opportunities never even dreamed of by the boomers.

And a standard of living immeasurably better, that outside of recessions like the last few years (which have always resulted in hardship), will continue to improve.

Lets look at these one at a time....

-Employment: Not sure how you think this is worse?

Unemployment is generally lower in modern times than it was then, employment is more flexible, working conditions are better and more comfortable, the range of jobs on offer is far greater, women have far more options and choice in the workplace, discrimination is greatly reduced, etc etc etc.

Now against all of that, I'll agree there is less stability.

But there is more opportunity as a result. People can change not just jobs but also careers at the drop of a hat these days. An opportunity only dreamed of by most in the boomer generation, who faced decades of grind in jobs they often hated.


-Higher Education: Much better for the young of today than for the boomers.

A far greater percentage of the young can attend Uni than ever could in my parents day. Sure, there's now a cost to that, paid through a 'graduate tax' (as student loans should really be called), but the payoff over a career is immense for most, and the percentage of income taken up by income tax is far lower today even with the 'graduate tax' (student loan payments) than was the case for the boomers.

-Pensions: I'll partially agree with you there. You'll have to contribute more to get a good pension today. But the young also have more opportunity, better graduate incomes, better financial resources and education (if they choose to use them), and likely better lifetime work earnings than any previous generation to save up for it with.


-Housing: All generations go through boom and bust with housing.

And the total cost of housing, (despite the high sticker prices), as a percentage of income has rarely been cheaper than it is today.

Yes, we need to build more houses.

Yes, prices will continue to rise if we don't.

But overall, I don't think the young are markedly worse off in terms of housing than their parents were. Certainly better off in terms of comfort levels in those houses. Granted they may have to live a bit further out from city centres to get comparably affordable places as there's simply more people around, but that's a small price to pay.

Given the choice between the boomers short term harship and long term gain, and the younger generations short term comfort and poor long term prospects, I'd take the former every time. I understand fully the hardships the boomers went through, but I also realise just how grim prospects are for the youngest adults (and those who follow them) in terms of accumulating wealth and security. I think that older people generally fail to gasp this, and I can't help thinking that this will bite us hard on the backside as a society in the coming years. Indeed, perhaps it's already starting to do so.

Yeah..... I can see why you think this. But I still think you're wrong.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Jason74 wrote: »

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) .

I would argue all of those things translate directly into better opportunity for the young of today as well.

Arguably, the greatest opportunity in history to build on the successes and hard work of previous generations, from the best starting point ever.

Whether they choose to do so or not is probably a more pertinent question.

Just like self-made wealthy families over the ages have a poor history of descendants being able to hold on to that wealth, as their progeny were often spoiled and unmotivated, it is possible todays generation will throw away their golden ticket in the pursuit of short term comfort and trying to maintain their 'easy life'.

I hope not, as I'd like to think the young of today aren't nearly as f eckless as they're made out to be. But if they do fare worse than their parents, I'd suggest this will be the most likely reason as to why.

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, .

Any reverse is likely to be temporary. And new conditions will result in new opportunities. Their future is in their hands, not ours, and they stand to inherit the greatest pot of wealth of any generation in history.

So we shall see what they make of it.

LydiaJ

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Being born in the Gen X years....

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

How delightfully refreshing to see a post on this subject by somebody who feels lucky rather than hard done by. Thanks Hamish.

Also thanks to Jason, whose initial contribution to this thread seems to have been the point at which what would usually have turned into a slanging match became an interesting debate.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

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.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

The boomers paid an absurdly high percentage of their income for basic essentials compared to the young of today.

Part of the problem with discussing "boomers" is that it covers too wide a range and it's not even very well defined. When you think of boomers, Hamish, you think of your parents, born shortly after WW2, being young adults in the late 60s and early 70s. When I think of boomers, I think of my brothers, born 1957-1963, being young adults in the early 80s, when they certainly didn't have to spend an absurdly high percentage of their income for basic essentials.

MobileSaver

Jason74 wrote: »

nobody is disputing that the boomer generation worked hard and made sacrifices ... their chances of achieving the same level of overall wealth / security as that generation are remote at best

I disagree with this - I think the younger generation have an even better chance of achieving wealth and security. For those willing to put some effort in, the entire world is their oyster thanks to the benefits of the internet and cheap travel.

The problem is that, in my opinion, the younger generation are simply not prepared to put the effort in. Whether this is the fault of the parents for poor upbringing and/or too much spoiling or whether the youth are just lazy I don't know but in my experience the majority are not prepared to work hard and make sacrifices; they only want to do jobs that interest them, pick and choose when to work when it suits them, clock-off at "home time" on the dot regardless of whether the job is finished but still have all the latest gadgets, nice car and brand spanking new home filled with shiny new appliances.

It's this sense of entitlement from the younger generation that we should all be worried about - they don't seem to realise the hard work and sacrifices their parents made to get to where we are today.

Jason74

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Lets look at these one at a time....

-Employment: Not sure how you think this is worse?

Unemployment is generally lower in modern times than it was then, employment is more flexible, working conditions are better and more comfortable, the range of jobs on offer is far greater, women have far more options and choice in the workplace, discrimination is greatly reduced, etc etc etc.

Now against all of that, I'll agree there is less stability.

But there is more opportunity as a result. People can change not just jobs but also careers at the drop of a hat these days. An opportunity only dreamed of by most in the boomer generation, who faced decades of grind in jobs they often hated.


-Higher Education: Much better for the young of today than for the boomers.

A far greater percentage of the young can attend Uni than ever could in my parents day. Sure, there's now a cost to that, paid through a 'graduate tax' (as student loans should really be called), but the payoff over a career is immense for most, and the percentage of income taken up by income tax is far lower today even with the 'graduate tax' (student loan payments) than was the case for the boomers.

-Pensions: I'll partially agree with you there. You'll have to contribute more to get a good pension today. But the young also have more opportunity, better graduate incomes, better financial resources and education (if they choose to use them), and likely better lifetime work earnings than any previous generation to save up for it with.


-Housing: All generations go through boom and bust with housing.

And the total cost of housing, (despite the high sticker prices), as a percentage of income has rarely been cheaper than it is today.

Yes, we need to build more houses.

Yes, prices will continue to rise if we don't.

But overall, I don't think the young are markedly worse off in terms of housing than their parents were. Certainly better off in terms of comfort levels in those houses. Granted they may have to live a bit further out from city centres to get comparably affordable places as there's simply more people around, but that's a small price to pay.

Employment - This is worse in part due to the lack of stability you mention. Things like the exploitative use of zero hours contracts (rather than in cases where they are genuinely useful on both sides) impacts disproportionately on the young. There is also nothing like the established apprentice system of 30 years ago (and this has implicatiions both for young people and the skill base of our economy). Reduced job security also tends to have a disproportionate impact on younger people, and certainly unemployment over the last 30 years has been consistently higher than the previous 30. There is little to suggest that this wont continue.

Higher education - I can't agree that this is better now than in the past, even though you are right that more people are going. The cost of going leaves graduates in debt before they start, and "credential inflation" (largely because more people are going of course) means that a good degree is no longer the near guarantee of a successful career that it once was.

Pensions - We agree that in itself, pension provision is poorer for the young than for previous generations. You believe that this is offset by better earning opportunities, while I take the view that this is aggravated by generally poorer career prospects

Housing - You are right that homes are generally more comfortable and better heated / insulated than they have ever been. That is part of progress. My point however is around the issue of housing affordability, and for me there is a very clear linear progression in this regard. Broadly speaking, the younger you are, the worse your long term housing affordability is. Yes, the monthly payments are relatively affordable at the moment thanks to historically low interest rates. However, at some point, rates are likely to noramlise (if they don't we're in even more trouble longer term!). When they do, housing affordability will plummet, and it is the younger generation who will bear the brunt of this.

You made the point in your post that every generation has challenges, that they then overcome. I truly believe that the challenges faced by those reaching adulthood in the past few years are such that the game is effectively rigged against them (albeit by !!!!-up rather than conspiracy imho) in such a way that in huge numbers, they have no realistic prospect of prospering.

Those who can rely on inherited wealth from parents will be fine of course, but in terms of home ownership in particular, the chances of young people "bettering themselves" are significantly poorer today than at any time since WW2 imho. And that loss of social mobility is extremely damaging for our society.

Jason74

MobileSaver wrote: »

I disagree with this - I think the younger generation have an even better chance of achieving wealth and security. For those willing to put some effort in, the entire world is their oyster thanks to the benefits of the internet and cheap travel.

The problem is that, in my opinion, the younger generation are simply not prepared to put the effort in. Whether this is the fault of the parents for poor upbringing and/or too much spoiling or whether the youth are just lazy I don't know but in my experience the majority are not prepared to work hard and make sacrifices; they only want to do jobs that interest them, pick and choose when to work when it suits them, clock-off at "home time" on the dot regardless of whether the job is finished but still have all the latest gadgets, nice car and brand spanking new home filled with shiny new appliances.

It's this sense of entitlement from the younger generation that we should all be worried about - they don't seem to realise the hard work and sacrifices their parents made to get to where we are today.

With the best will in the world, this is a very long way wide of the mark imho. There is this idea that younger people are lazy and not interested in getting on, and my own experience is that this could not be further from the truth. My work means that I am sometimes involved in dealing with work placements for young people from less afluent backgrounds, and they are in the main keen to grab any opportunity that is presented to them to improve their long term chances.

The picture that some like to paint of young adults as this lazy / slefish group who want everything on a plate has no bearing on the reality of my own experiences. I can't help but wonder whether people like to hold this view (as some like to hold such views of any group who hasn't had their level of opportunity) as a way of rationalising the problem so that it is the fault of the disadvantaged person, therefore meaning that the rest of society doesn't have a responsibility to address the problem.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

LydiaJ wrote: »

How delightfully refreshing to see a post on this subject by somebody who feels lucky rather than hard done by. Thanks Hamish.

Gen X had a once in a lifetime opportunity with housing being at record low prices in the mid 90's, and then a second almost as good opportunity with mortgage availability in the mid 2000's.

We reached adulthood in the mid 80's to mid 90's, so yes some of us dealt with high rates and a severe recession with crippling youth unemployment, but then we had a good run with the following boom.

We've also had the privilege of being the first generation to embrace the information age, a truly life-changing experience that has transformed the way we all work, interact, and live. Something that I suspect those younger than me don't fully appreciate....

So we had hard times, for sure, like every generation does.

But we were in a very real sense lucky with demographics, replacing the larger generation before us meant good career progression, and the massive building booms of the 60's and 70's meant less competition for housing.

The information age has transformed our lives.

And now we'll benefit again from demographics with the largest generation of consumers and young workers in history growing up to replace us, while generating growth in most employer structures and ensuring demand for our services at the top of the heap remains strong for decades.

Lucky? I'd say so.

More so than the boomers anyway.

Which is not to say there weren't also very tough times and a lot of hard work put in. But we had it easier than our parents, for sure.

Also thanks to Jason, whose initial contribution to this thread seems to have been the point at which what would usually have turned into a slanging match became an interesting debate.

Absolutely.

More of that around here please.

Part of the problem with discussing "boomers" is that it covers too wide a range and it's not even very well defined. When you think of boomers, Hamish, you think of your parents, born shortly after WW2, being young adults in the late 60s and early 70s. When I think of boomers, I think of my brothers, born 1957-1963, being young adults in the early 80s, when they certainly didn't have to spend an absurdly high percentage of their income for basic essentials.

I think of boomers as being born in the mid 1940's to late 1950's. The post war baby boom, although granted the definitions are vague.

I think of Gen X as being born mid 1960s to early 1980's. Young adults from the mid to late 80's until 2000 or so. The Nirvana generation.

Your brothers, while technically on the cusp of two generations, would have been a bit old for the bulk of the Gen X'ers, and a bit too young to be in with the bulk of the boomer generation. The original 'tweeners perhaps.