No country for young men — UK generation gap widens

ukcarper

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

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.

Do you really think house price inflation is the main problem facing young people?

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

A visual demonstarion of what's happened...

Younger people are much more likely to attend university these days. It delays the age at which peak earnings are reached.

Also reaching retirement age guaranteed poverty not so long ago and it's good to see this has been addressed.

Not a single sane person would swap their living standards today for that of their equivalent of 50 years ago.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

A visual demonstarion of what's happened...

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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. .

Wow.

Just to be clear, a graph which you posted, that clearly says "relative living standards", has nothing to do with, well, living standards?

You have outdone yourself Graham..... :rotfl:

purch

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

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

You don't honestly believe the Government has such a policy do you ??

How naive

Governments do not follow policies, they react to events and by doing so usually turn a mess into a bigger mess.

danothy

Graham_Devon wrote: »

uncertain prospects as they age

Did the older generation not have uncertain prospects as they aged then? What was the source of their prescience about their prospects, and why did the younger generations lose this power of foresight? Seems like that is the real robbery here.

Generali

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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

I was wondering when someone would post this, I thought ruggedtoast would get in first.

This article was part of a series and this is becoming a serious problem IMHO. Older people will always have more wealth than younger ones due to compound interest. If someone has a problem with that they need better maths.

That young people aren't finding work; aren't able to get stable, permanent employment when they do find work (especially lower down the income scale); aren't able to buy a house because they can't get the deposit together or simply don't qualify because of their employment status; and are becoming disengaged with the C21st economy as a whole is going to become a formative thematic for the next few years I think.

If you are expected to save 2 years gross income as a deposit for a house then f... it, why not by an iPhone and a holiday. Behavioural Economics tells us that the vast majority of people will never be able to do that. It's easy to sneer and say "We did without iPhones and laptops". Yeah, that's easy to say as laptops and iPhones weren't available when you were young.

michaels

Doesn't this link back in with your QE post though? Yes the old of course have more assets than the young but perhaps the problem is that QE means those assets, based on the value of the income they create in a low interest rate environment, have appreciated sharply (just as you say the price of a bond fluctuates as interest rates move), much more quickly than assets can be built up via the traditional mechanism of working and saving.

Against this is the fact that the old vote and are thus served by the politicians, is here a chance that the young, especially if they have no stake in society, will chose a civil disturbance path rather than a democratic route to 'balance things out'? However there seems very little sign of this, as the young are only relatively poor not absolutely so still have their iPhones, xboxes and skunk to distract them from the inequality.

purch

This subject does not have enough traction yet to be a game changer for the 2015 election, but I can't see it not being very high on the agenda for the next one.

I worry about the future for my sons, but I cannot imagine that my parents didn't have similar worries about me and my siblings when we were similar ages at the end of the 1970's

The current economic situation has hugely exacerbated the issues around wealth, but it won't continue forever and when it starts to unwind things will change dramatically.

danothy

Generali wrote: »

If you are expected to save 2 years gross income as a deposit for a house then f... it, why not by an iPhone and a holiday.

F it indeed. Two years gross income with a 20% tax rate and when saving 25% of your net would still take five years to amass, and I think that'd be pretty good going.

ukcarper

Do you really need to save 2 years gross income for a property where I am in the south east reasonable commuting distance from London you can get a 2 bed house for £240k or 1 bed flat for £170k.