Inter Gen politics

StevieJ

One for Rugged.

The post-war baby boomers did not have it so good after all, according to new figures that show they earned significantly less at middle age than later generations.

Analysis by the Office for National Statistics shows that those born in the mid-1950s were earning less after 20 years of work than those born 20 years later when prices were adjusted to be equivalent to today.

The study compares the income of three generations who entered work a decade apart.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10944176/Baby-boomers-not-the-lucky-generation-in-the-pay-stakes.html

Generali

All that analysis really shows is that labour productivity rose over the period. That's something we already know due to increased GDP per capita.

Wages rise with labour productivity, that's a pretty well accepted economic maxim.

ukcarper

That's true but it doesn't alter the fact that to buy the equivalent of £1 worth of goods in 1975 you would need £6.88 in 2012 whereas someone earning £1 in 1975 would be earning £10.50 in 2012.

Figures measuring worth website.

IronWolf

Or maybe the headline measure of inflation is BS?

antrobus

ukcarper wrote: »

That's true but it doesn't alter the fact that to buy the equivalent of £1 worth of goods in 1975 you would need £6.88 in 2012 whereas someone earning £1 in 1975 would be earning £10.50 in 2012.

Figures measuring worth website.

You've missed what it said in the OP;

Analysis by the Office for National Statistics shows that those born in the mid-1950s were earning less after 20 years of work than those born 20 years later when prices were adjusted to be equivalent to today.

princeofpounds

Yeah it's not a real vs nominal problem (although there are some rational critcisms about how long-term price adjustments are done).

I think anyone reasonable wouldn't have problem saying that we are higher wage-earners now. We also benefit from much better product supply.

So goods like pineapples and smoked salmon, which were once genuine luxuries, are now affordable enough to be regular purchases - even chicken is included in this bracket if you go back long enough! Same goes for pretty much any kind of household electronics. Or aeroplane travel which allows more holidays.

But it totally misses the point when it comes to the housing debate.

Unlike all these things, housing has become much more expensive relative to wages. The fact that real wages have gone up just makes that more extreme in absolute terms, not that it's especially relevant.

The sad thing is that secure housing shouldn't be considered a luxury product.

I'm pretty sure that a majority of young people would happily double the price of smoked salmon or pineapples to be able to afford a decent home whilst still young enough to have a family.

It's the lifestyle equivalent of being dressed in furs with an empty stomach; no matter how glamorous it looks, it's still going to be a miserable situation.

CLAPTON

princeofpounds wrote: »

But it totally misses the point when it comes to the housing debate.

Unlike all these things, housing has become much more expensive relative to wages. The fact that real wages have gone up just makes that more extreme in absolute terms, not that it's especially relevant.

The sad thing is that secure housing shouldn't be considered a luxury product.

I'm pretty sure that a majority of young people would happily double the price of smoked salmon or pineapples to be able to afford a decent home whilst still young enough to have a family.

It's the lifestyle equivalent of being dressed in furs with an empty stomach; no matter how glamorous it looks, it's still going to be a miserable situation.

well no not really

but anyway, fortunately it's an easily solved problem : we just have to build more houses.

BillJones

IronWolf wrote: »

Or maybe the headline measure of inflation is BS?

But is that so? We know the basket, and we know the calculations. People often complain about the measure, but we rarely see a reasoned argument about what basket would be a better measure.

ukcarper

antrobus wrote: »

You've missed what it said in the OP;

Analysis by the Office for National Statistics shows that those born in the mid-1950s were earning less after 20 years of work than those born 20 years later when prices were adjusted to be equivalent to today.

Isn't that what I have just shown.

GeorgeHowell

This corroborates what many of us have been saying for a long time. But I doubt that it will stop the leftist gender warriors, looking for someone else to blame for their own shortcomings and failures, from continuing to wage their anti Baby Boomer war.

princeofpounds

well no not really

but anyway, fortunately it's an easily solved problem : we just have to build more houses.

hi clapton, at least we agree on the same solution even if we share different opinions on this particular perspective. (Not that I'm entirely clear which part you disagree with).

IF we fixed the dysfunctional land market by actually permitting a decent supply response through planning permission then the benefits of rising wages might actually mean something in housing terms.

With higher real wages, the average young person now can afford more house than they could in the past; more timber, more bricks, more tiles and ultimately more floorspace. The only thing they can't afford, which is more expensive to relatively earnings than ever before, is building land.