"Confirmation Bias" among generation who did well from house prices

Graham_Devon

missbiggles1 wrote: »

Because that group of young men having a drink are all blind drunk, aren't they? They're all lying in the gutter, vomiting and wetting themselves as well - anybody can see that!

I said "didn't get drunk".

I didn't say "I take it no one in the 60's got blind drunk and vomited in the gutter while wetting themselves".

Stick within the context. It's far easier.

wotsthat

ukcarper wrote: »

Then why do you keep bringing up the point that people spent money on certain things in the past. You have ignored the main points I made ie people living with parents until they got married and the way earnings have outstripped RPI. The fact still remains that for every £100 someone earned in the 70s they will be earning the equivalent of £170 now with the cost of living unchanged.

The Independent summarise the social trends survey here..

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/1970-vs-2010-40-years-when-we-got-older-richer-and-fatter-2017240.html

Some key facts..

In 1970/71, there were 621,000 students in the UK in higher education.

In 2007/08, there were 2.5 million students in the UK in higher education.

In 1971, the proportion of babies born to women aged under 25 in England and Wales was 47 per cent (369,600 live births).

In 2008, the proportion of babies born to women aged under 25 in England and Wales was 25 per cent (180,700 live births).

There are some other indicators where spending is being prioritised..

In 1970, nearly half (48 per cent) of all households in Great Britain did not have regular use of a car.

In 2008, just over a fifth (22 per cent) of all households in Great Britain did not have regular use of a car.

In 1971, UK residents made 6.7 million holiday trips abroad.

In 2008, UK residents made 45.5 million holiday trips abroad.

People have more money, there's more to spend it on and technology is being developed to reduce the time from desire to purchase to zero i.e. contactless technology.

I'd suggest as we've grown wealthier fewer and fewer have any experience of something approaching poverty and the culture of saving for savings sake is in decline.

Cornucopia

I'm certainly wealthier than I was as a child in the 70s. And whilst I'm not about to suggest the poverty no longer exists in the UK, I do think that the way it is expressed is very different.

ukcarper

wotsthat wrote: »

The Independent summarise the social trends survey here..

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/1970-vs-2010-40-years-when-we-got-older-richer-and-fatter-2017240.html

Some key facts..





There are some other indicators where spending is being prioritised..





People have more money, there's more to spend it on and technology is being developed to reduce the time from desire to purchase to zero i.e. contactless technology.

I'd suggest as we've grown wealthier fewer and fewer have any experience of something approaching poverty and the culture of saving for savings sake is in decline.

I think cars are a good point. I had old bangers when I was young and girlfriend/wife did not have a car in fact she didn't get her own car until we had moved into our second home and our daughter was 4.

Graham_Devon

The education argument is valid.

However, the people in higher education does need some contect and reflection added to it as just presenting the numbers makes it look like there were no educational opportunities for a 15 year old leaving school in the 70s.

In 1970, while only 621,000 were in higher scholar education compared to 2.5m today, hundreds of thousands more people in the 70's would have been in work based training learning a skill unique to that trade.

The car stuff is also valid, but again, some reflection needs to be done here. The majority of people today need a car as their workplace is further away. No longer is the job in the same town. No longer is the factory in the middle of the town. Buses ferrying labourers into work was quite common then. It's pretty rare now.

While more people have cars now, the need is also greater. You only have to look at London where the need for a car is much reduced....people don't bother having them.

It's all swings and roundabouts and concentrating on a statistic ONLY muddies the water somewhat.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The education argument is valid.

However, the people in higher education does need some contect and reflection added to it as just presenting the numbers makes it look like there were no educational opportunities for a 15 year old leaving school in the 70s.

In 1970, while only 621,000 were in higher scholar education compared to 2.5m today, hundreds of thousands more people in the 70's would have been in work based training learning a skill unique to that trade.

Are you starting to understand Graham yes young people do face many challenges but in most parts of the country house prices is not one of them and even in some of the more expensive parts of the country it's not the major problem.

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

Are you starting to understand Graham yes young people do face many challenges but in most parts of the country house prices is not one of them and even in some of the more expensive parts of the country it's not the major problem.

I understand lots of stuff.

I don't 100% AGREE with your viewpoint.

Please stop making out "I don't understand" as I don't agree with every word you write.

You are confusing a lack of understanding with a plain old disagreement of viewpoints.

This whole thing of "no one got drunk in the 60s" and "everyone saved every penny and never went out" is really quite silly. Clearly people got drunk, clearly people went out. The 60's have the name "swinging" attached to it for good reason!!!

Clearly some people today pee money up the wall and yes, some of today's teens go out looking to get plastered.

But trying to make out the entire youth today do that while trying to save for a house is the part that causes argument. Trying to make out that the entire population in the 60s/70s lived like a monk or the good pope himself is the part that causes argument.

All all of these statistics boil down to is changing times.

People, in the main, don't buy cars for a laugh. They buy them because they need them. The need was reduced 50 years ago through working patterns.

People in the main don't splurge their possible house deposit on foreign holidays in order to get paraletic. People DO STILL go on holiday though. It's just as times have changed, the destinations have changed as you can go further for the same money, so why pay £500 to stay at butlins for a week when you can pay £500 and enjoy a different climate?

These arguments will never end as no one is willing to budge. But to get to the point where we have to pretend no one got drunk in the 60's is truly absurd.

Cornucopia

Graham_Devon wrote: »

While more people have cars now, the need is also greater. You only have to look at London where the need for a car is much reduced....people don't bother having them.

I think you are confusing need, want and ownership. The statistic is about ownership only. Trying to overlay that with notions of need and want is all very well, but I think you'll find that since at least the 1950s, most adults wanted a car for them/their family, irrespective of direct need. That pickup in ownership reflects the increase in wealth that permits that want to be realised.

It's all swings and roundabouts and concentrating on a statistic ONLY muddies the water somewhat.

It's not just statistics, though, is it? There are plenty of us who experienced the 60s and 70s personally, and we can tell you first hand that poverty is a very different experience now.

Poverty then was all-encompassing, visceral, existential even.

Poverty now is expressed in restricted lifestyle choices, selected areas of deprivation ("fuel poverty", "housing poverty"), and having to choose between luxuries. It's also expressed in drug misuse and debt in a way that it wasn't historically - so some aspects are worse than they were.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I understand lots of stuff.

I don't AGREE with your viewpoint.

Please stop making out "I don't understand" as I don't agree with every word you write.

You are confusing a lack of understanding with a plain old disagreement of viewpoints.

This whole thing of "no one got drunk in the 60s" and "everyone saved every penny and never went out" is really quite silly. Clearly people got drunk, clearly people went out. The 60's have the name "swinging" attached to it for good reason!!!

Clearly some people today pee money up the wall and yes, some of today's teens go out looking to get plastered.

But trying to make out the entire youth today do that while trying to save for a house is the part that causes argument. Trying to make out that the entire population in the 60s/70s lived like a monk or the good pope himself is the part that causes argument.

All all of these statistics boil down to is changing times.

People, in the main, don't buy cars for a laugh. They buy them because they need them. The need was reduced 50 years ago through working patterns.

People in the main don't splurge their possible house deposit on foreign holidays in order to get paraletic. People DO STILL go on holiday though. It's just as times have changed, the destinations have changed as you can go further for the same money, so why pay £500 to stay at butlins for a week when you can pay £500 and enjoy a different climate?

These arguments will never end as no one is willing to budge. But to get to the point where we have to pretend no one got drunk in the 60's is truly absurd.

No body is saying that all young people get drunk at weekends and waste all their money that is evident by the young people who do buy but it is more prevalent now and opposite is true and I know many boomers who didn't buy for that reason. How many young girls do you know who do not have a car. You have no idea of how things were in the 60s and 70s but you still insist you know more than people who were alive at the time.

Before we married My wife worked about 7 miles from where she live and caught the bus. After we married she had a mile walk to the station and a 20 mile train journey. When we had our daughter she walked or used my car in the evenings.

Cornucopia

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I understand lots of stuff.

I don't 100% AGREE with your viewpoint.

Please stop making out "I don't understand" as I don't agree with every word you write.

You are confusing a lack of understanding with a plain old disagreement of viewpoints.

It's a bit more than that, though. Both sides are staking a claim to the truth. Both sides cannot both be right.

All all of these statistics boil down to is changing times.

But changing times = changing spending habits, which is the whole point. When I was young, I literally NEVER felt the need to have a pre-drinking drink. That's now so common, there is a leaflet in Wetherspoons, saying that their drink is so cheap, that you don't need to have your pre-drinking drink at home, you can go there instead.

For some of us, that whole notion is just alien.

People, in the main, don't buy cars for a laugh. They buy them because they need them. The need was reduced 50 years ago through working patterns.

No, no and thrice no. People quite clearly do buy cars because they want them for leisure, for shopping, for the school run, or as a status symbol. If you haven't accepted that, I wonder where you've been for the last 40 years.

People in the main don't splurge their possible house deposit on foreign holidays in order to get paraletic. People DO STILL go on holiday though. It's just as times have changed, the destinations have changed as you can go further for the same money, so why pay £500 to stay at butlins for a week when you can pay £500 and enjoy a different climate?

I think there's SOME truth in that, but 45.5 million foreign trips is a lot, and even if only a small proportion of those are more expensive than a UK holiday in years gone by, that could be a significant cost to the population as a whole.