Babyboomers buying up property and renting back to the young

ukcarper

I've managed to find a breakdown and it look like median age of landlords is 48

http://strategicsociety.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Understanding-Landlords.pdf

Go to section 3.1

Loughton_Monkey

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It would be easier if we had a list of what you will accept really. Actually, forget the list.... five words would do it I guess....."Anything that challenges my statements".

Sadly it's not that simple.

I think the only "statement" of substance I recall recently was your avowed 'coming out' that you are voting Labour this time based upon the single issue of Labour's attempted half-arsed emergency motion to prevent 'consultancies' or 'paid directorships' [which would be another stab in the back for his own brother who is both an MP and a paid director of a consultancy company].

However, I digress.

You do not often make any statments of substance. You rarely do. You simply supply links to doom-mongering articles, political papers of lobbyists and left-wing so-called 'think tanks' etc. and parcel them up with vague observations, innuendo, and snide comments. Just look at your post here as a typical example....

Graham_Devon wrote: »

• it appears to be the media that are talking about it. Whether it's Radio 5 (today).....
• Newsnight who had an entire show devoted to it a couple of weeks ago, the guardian, the independent.... Not the telegraph though, they are just throwing around articles about the neverending riches of BTL......
• The generational thing seems to be being talked about everywhere at the moment......
• Anyway, another day, another article (this one linked to what was being discussed on 5 live earlier)......
• It maybe a topic some do not wish to talk about and simply want to make a mockery of......
• Which is fine. But it doesn't make the subject go away.....

It's a sort of 'hit and run' approach.

Have you never considered that the 'mockery' to which you allude is rarely aimed at any clear "statements" about what you would do instead, or what you think the government should do, or clear opinion of the root cause or pinpoint a solution etc.?

It is, rather, aimed at your habit of posting a poorly framed and political 'article' coupled with childish innuendo. Then you wait for 'real' people to post 'real' views - valid and genuine ones, albeit with widely differing but clear viewpoints - after which you paint yourself into a corner with nit-picking 'I didn't say that..., or 'what makes you think...., or 'not sure what you're asking really, or 'you are flip flopping....'

In rare cases where you do make a clear and rational statement, we can have a robust debate even if we don't agree.

Anyway, your apology is accepted.

Loughton_Monkey

ukcarper wrote: »

I've managed to find a breakdown and it look like median age of landlords is 48.....

So <50% boomers then?

ukcarper

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

So <50% boomers then?

Looking at chart I would say possibly lower as some people over boomer age are landlords as oldest boomer would be 67 and youngest 49 when report was complied. Landlords under boomer age would be about about 40%.

After reading a bit more I see data was from 2010 so youngest boomer would be 46 and oldest 64 but in doesn't alter numbers very much.

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

Looking at chart I would say possibly lower as some people over boomer age are landlords as oldest boomer would be 67 and youngest 49 when report was complied. Landlords under boomer age would be about about 40%.

What's the mean average?

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

What's the mean average?

It's in the report but median is a better measure 50% of landlords are 48 or under.

Cornucopia

These interminable threads seem to major on self-righteous self-pity, whilst being largely silent on potential solutions.

From my perspective as a member of Gen-X, I don't want to live my next 40 or 50 years in the relative poverty of my grandparents' generation. Simply not interested. How dare anyone suggest or imply that I should.

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

It's in the report but median is a better measure 50% of landlords are 48 or under.

It's not a better measure....not when looking at boomers specifically. You are just looking at the middle age of all landlords, not age ranges. The age ranges, speak for themselves.

Neither does it take into account the housing stock they hold. You see, you are just looking at landlords and how many there are (and even then, boomers represent 49% of all landlords, so is not the best report to fight against the theme of this thread)..

The report I linked too said that boomers bought more of the stock.

You are assuming (you may not be, but it seems you haven't allowed for this) that each of those landlords hold the same amount of stock. My report is saying the babyboomer age group bought more stock.

So two different reports looking at two different things. Your report does not therefore mean the report I linked to was wrong.

If 75% of landlords are 35 years old, and 25% are 55 years old.... does it mean that the 35 year olds are buying up all the houses? No. The 55 year olds could have 50 houses each, while the 35 year olds have one house each.

Cornucopia

So do you have those figures?

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It's not a better measure....not when looking at boomers specifically. You are just looking at the middle age of all landlords, not age ranges. The age ranges, speak for themselves.

Neither does it take into account the housing stock they hold. You see, you are just looking at landlords and how many there are (and even then, boomers represent 49% of all landlords, so is not the best report to fight against the theme of this thread)..

The report I linked too said that boomers bought more of the stock.

You are assuming (you may not be, but it seems you haven't allowed for this) that each of those landlords hold the same amount of stock. My report is saying the babyboomer age group bought more stock.

So two different reports looking at two different things. Your report does not therefore mean the report I linked to was wrong.

If 75% of landlords are 35 years old, and 25% are 55 years old.... does it mean that the 35 year olds are buying up all the houses? No. The 55 year olds could have 50 houses each, while the 35 year olds have one house each.

Read the report there are some interesting facts.