Defeated and trapped. Young look on in despair at The Kingdom of the Boomers

GeorgeHowell

dtsazza wrote: »

If you're being that technical, George, there's no such thing as "the deposit" per se. It's the part of the house that the bank will not cover with the mortgage, the (100-LTV)% of the purchase price that you need to pay in cash because the mortgage provider isn't meeting.

In that respect it's always equity, right from the word go. So I don't think the claim "the deposit itself... remains at £30K" really means anything, as there is no "deposit itself".

I don't understand that point, because everyone talks about deposits, lenders, borrowers, the financial press and media etc. It's the established terminology and concept that there usually has be a down payment before a loan will be made. But it's not necessarily the same things as equity. If the property is grossly over priced (as has been seen with some new flats), then the whole deposit can be absorbed by negative equity more or less form day one.

GeorgeHowell

Jason74 wrote: »

I think this post is fair enough, until the last couple of lines. You're right that boomers never in a million years saw their actions as harmful to the next generation, and in many ways, it's not their fault that time has proven that to be the case. It's also true that many boomers are remarkably generous to younger members of their families. So I for one certainly don't "hate" boomers (for starters, I'm of an age where they're my parents!).

Where I do have an issue though, is where people of the boomer generation refuse to acknowledge just how much harder it is to acquire a foothold of weath for young people now relative to their own generation. Yes, the boomer generation worked hard in the main, and largely earned all they have. But their grandchildren have little or no prospect of attaining similar wealth through their own efforts, and that is a major problem. Boomers should not be blamed for that situation, but those members of that generation who refuse to acknowledge that reality (and we see examples of that on here and elsewhere) are imho a valid target for criticisim. And I say that as a member of the generation in between, who has managed to do just fine without parental help, but who knows full well I would have little chance of doing the same if I was 20 years younger.

But hey, I guess that just makes me a "leftist, agitprop merchants with massive chips on their (my) shoulders"

No it doesn't, because you are making a fair point in a reasoned and civil way and not spewing out "the haves and the have nots" type ageist bile as we sometimes see. I agree that there are also some people purporting to be from the older generation who post spiteful ageist claptrap, but that's the internet for you.

I think the considerable majority of boomers do appreciate the problems, that's why so many provide so much help, especially regarding housing. But I think also that some fair points are made with regard to some younger people who do things that the Boomer generation by and large did not do -- eg gap years, extravagant weddings, following expensive fashion, long-haul holidays, having everything new/ nothing second-hand, regular binge drinking etc -- and yet still moan that they can't get on the housing ladder. I believe that the older generation should, as far as it reasonably can, help those among the younger people who want to help themselves, and who demonstrate it

Jason74

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

No it doesn't, because you are making a fair point in a reasoned and civil way and not spewing out "the haves and the have nots" type ageist bile as we sometimes see. I agree that there are also some people purporting to be from the older generation who post spiteful ageist claptrap, but that's the internet for you.

I think the considerable majority of boomers do appreciate the problems, that's why so many provide so much help, especially regarding housing. But I think also that some fair points are made with regard to some younger people who do things that the Boomer generation by and large did not do -- eg gap years, extravagant weddings, following expensive fashion, long-haul holidays, having everything new/ nothing second-hand, regular binge drinking etc -- and yet still moan that they can't get on the housing ladder. I believe that the older generation should, as far as it reasonably can, help those among the younger people who want to help themselves, and who demonstrate it

That's all fair enough. The only comment I would make, is that the description you give of some young people (and to be fair, you yourself emphasised that you were talking about only some) is very much the exception rather than the rule.

My work sometimes sees me doing money related work with young people in the 16-24 age range, mainly from less affluent backgrounds, and I'm always struck by how motivated the vast majority of them are to do well, and how most have a strong grasp of the big priorities. The people who blow a lot of money on relative frivolity and then complain that they can't get on in life do exist of course, but in my experience, they are relatively rare.

To paint that minority as being representative of a generation (and I know you wern't doing that, but as you say, there are those who do) is every bit as unrepresentative as to suggest that the boomer generation is made up mostly of people who set out to plunder as much wealth as possible while making future generations poor. .

Linton

ukcarper wrote: »

.......

You have no idea if the younger generation will acquire the wealth of the boomers and there is nothing to say they won't. But I would say the biggest problem they face is finding good well paying jobs not house prices.

Who will own the houses in say 50 years time?

Cornucopia

Proof of what we all suspected...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesmarshallcrotty/2013/09/10/10-questions-that-most-college-students-cant-answer-but-you-probably-can/

It’s a frequent Boomer lament: “Kids these days don’t know much about ____ “ (fill in the blank: geography, culture, science, art, history). In bad news for Millennials, a new study suggests that those annoying Boomers might be right.

MrRee_2

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

By the way where is this property that appreciated by 300% during 2013 ? That's pretty good going even by the standards of today's HPI.

The DEPOSIT I gave away increased by 300% (and is still growing at a massive rate). Where it would have only returned 1.5% if it sat where it was.

It's a win, win, win ..... a no brainer.

MrRee_2

Percy1983 wrote: »

But what if your boomer parents have saved nothing and there mortgage is more than it started 25 years earlier?

In that case these Boomers have squandered a golden egg, and cannot be helped I'm afraid.

It didn't take more than 1/2 a brain cell to become very wealthy if you were born after WWII ..... things just fell into place.

Even those in Council Houses couldn't fail to become rich beyond their wildest dreams due to the 50% discounts they were given by Maggie Thatcher.

So, in essence, I have zero sympathy for those Boomers who failed ..... every Baby Boomer should now be sitting on at least £750,000 in assets and equity and cash.

GeorgeHowell

Jason74 wrote: »

That's all fair enough. The only comment I would make, is that the description you give of some young people (and to be fair, you yourself emphasised that you were talking about only some) is very much the exception rather than the rule.

My work sometimes sees me doing money related work with young people in the 16-24 age range, mainly from less affluent backgrounds, and I'm always struck by how motivated the vast majority of them are to do well, and how most have a strong grasp of the big priorities. The people who blow a lot of money on relative frivolity and then complain that they can't get on in life do exist of course, but in my experience, they are relatively rare.

To paint that minority as being representative of a generation (and I know you wern't doing that, but as you say, there are those who do) is every bit as unrepresentative as to suggest that the boomer generation is made up mostly of people who set out to plunder as much wealth as possible while making future generations poor. .

I think maybe the younger-younger generation do have a greater sense of reality, as you suggest. Today's schoolchildren do to a significant extent seem to have got the message about the importance of employability and not assuming that the world owes them a living. Although I agree it is a generalisation with many exceptions, in my experience it is some of the present thirtysomething generation who tend to have this "I want it all now, Mum !" attitude. And it has to be said that these are to a large extent the children of the Baby Boomers, who in some cases gave them everything they wanted too easily and did not bring them up to become responsible, self-supporting adults.

GeorgeHowell

Linton wrote: »

Who will own the houses in say 50 years time?

The main reason why in the past buying a property was seen as the only way to go was because of the parlous state of the private rental market. There were all sorts of restrictions on when and how tenants could be given notice to quit (in many cases never) and on what could be done with rents. The result was that few people wanted to let out private property, and some of those who did were, shall we say, less than generous of spirit.

That's all changed now and the availability of private rented accommodation is vastly greater. It's no longer essential to buy, and for some people probably not the best option. But the cultural pressure to do so remains.

MrRee_2

In 99.9% of cases it's far better to buy, always has been, always will be .....