No country for young men — UK generation gap widens

Graham_Devon

Britain’s young adults, who for much of the 20th century enjoyed living standards well above average, have been displaced by the rise of the comfortably-off pensioner in the most dramatic generational change in decades.

Average twentysomethings have seen their living standards slip from a position of comparative affluence to well below par over the past 35 years as average pensioners have enjoyed a rapid rise up the national league tables of incomes, according to Financial Times research.

The findings based on official incomes data on over 800,000 households from over 50 years of income distribution statistics held at the UK Data Service, highlight the disunity between the generations in the UK.

The pattern of gains for the old at the expense of the young is repeated for rich and poor alike, but it is strongest for average and poorer families.

Those born in the 1940s belonged to a particularly lucky generation. On average they were relatively rich as young adults and remain relatively rich today. Those born in the 1980s and 1990s, however, have missed out on the former experience and have uncertain prospects as they age.

A major reason for the shift is the rise in house prices in recent decades. Many older people bought cheap and have locked in sizeable gains, although, with people living longer, some are now facing the prospect of having to sell those homes to pay for expensive care.

Go ahead, shoot me.

But the facts, based on extensive new research carried out by the Financial Times speak for themselves

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/60d77d08-b20e-11e4-b380-00144feab7de.html#axzz3Sgnh2r8h

moneyistooshorttomention

Interested to know "how come the young women will be okay then?" if its the young men only that are going to be hit in your scenario.

Visions of women getting off scott-free and the men going to them for financial subsidies:rotfl:

****************

Well you did rather invite that putting "young men", rather than "young people" in your title.....:rotfl:

Graham_Devon

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

Interested to know "how come the young women will be okay then?" if its the young men only that are going to be hit in your scenario.

Visions of women getting off scott-free and the men going to them for financial subsidies:rotfl:

****************

Well you did rather invite that putting "young men", rather than "young people" in your title.....:rotfl:

Seems you've amused yourself there!

The title is from the FT. I can only imagine is based on the Coen brothers film "No country for old men".

stator

If only a political party came along promising to stop screwing over young people and to reform the baby boomer subsidies they would get my vote.

ukcarper

stator wrote: »

If only a political party came along promising to stop screwing over young people and to reform the baby boomer subsidies they would get my vote.

What boomer subsidies are they.

Loughton_Monkey

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Go ahead, shoot me.

Just give me your address. Someone on here will offer me an M16 or similar, in which case I would be happy to oblige.....

Graham_Devon wrote: »

But the [STRIKE]facts[/STRIKE] surprisingly woolly suppositions, based on [STRIKE]extensive[/STRIKE] biased and flimsy new research carried out by the [STRIKE]Financial Times[/STRIKE] the namby-pamby, pinko, left-wing, chip-on-the-shoulder, highly political lobbying group called Intergenerational Foundation [STRIKE]speak for[/STRIKE] exposethemselves[/STRIKE] as complete scaremongering charlatons.

As usual, I've had to fix it for you.

Graham_Devon

A visual demonstarion of what's happened...

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

There's a clue for you in there.

It starts with the word "relative"....

Much like with "relative poverty", where even the poorest have got significantly richer over the last 50 years, but we can claim "relative poverty" has increased as the rich have done even better.

I suspect you'll find the "living standards" of both young and old have increased markedly, but the old (and lets not forget many of them used to live in dire poverty in absolute, not relative terms) have seen a bigger increase than the young.

Meaning the 'relativity' index shows what it does.

Despite both groups being better off.

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

There's a clue for you in there.

It starts with the word "relative"....

Much like with "relative poverty", where even the poorest have got significantly richer over the last 50 years, but we can claim "relative poverty" has increased as the rich have done even better.

I suspect you'll find the "living standards" of both young and old have increased markedly, but the old (and lets not forget many of them used to live in dire poverty in absolute, not relative terms) have seen a bigger increase than the young.

Meaning the 'relativity' index shows what it does.

Despite both groups being better off.

No.

You are trying to confuse living standards with disposable income here.

Living standards are something the FT article delves into (i.e. better health), but it's not related to the graph above in any way, shape, or form. Furthermore, those benefits (inside toilets, central heating etc) are open to all, young or old.

Ros Altman tried to do exactly what you are trying to do here on Jeff Randall live earlier today, but she found herself quickly having to concede that she was confusing two issues as the "young person" on the panel was quick to highlight you can't replace income with technological advances.

purch

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Go ahead, shoot me.

You've got to stop asking that Dev

We are starting to worry about you :eek:

TickersPlaysPop

To original poster .... Thank you for posting this

It is yet more proof that things are not going in the right direction for the youngest in our country. If this continues they will not stay subdued, apthetic, disaffected and disillusioned for much longer. They will not sign up for a life paying rent.

The government policy of supporting house price inflation has been a terrible mistake that is very difficult to fix.