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

chucknorris

Graham_Devon wrote: »

no one in the 60's got blind drunk and vomited in the gutter while wetting themselves".

I'm not surprised, that sounds quite difficult to do, it probably would require a lot of concentration and practise to perfect that, even more impressive if they could do it while they were drunk. It just goes to show that you should never underestimate either today's youth or the ability of the human race to advance themselves.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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

Waffling about being on the lash in Butlins, how foreign holidays are now cheaper than camping in Wales used to be and how cars are such a necessity that no-one can do without one is the mud being thrown in the water. Nothing but assertion.

The stats are helping to clear the water.

Our generation had many more opportunities than our peers of 40 years earlier. Horses can be led to water of course.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

Waffling about being on the lash in Butlins, how foreign holidays are now cheaper than camping in Wales used to be and how cars are such a necessity that no-one can do without one is the mud being thrown in the water. Nothing but assertion.

Again, context.

Why was it being mentioned?

It was discussed as someone threw away a line that people spend their money on foreign holidays these days and it didn't happen "back then".

I went on to explain that the holidays were being taken, they were just different destinations.

And then everyone poured in with exotic tales. Including yourself, as per

The very fact that you describe my post looking at the difference in holidays that people took as waffling......but then thank a post which said no one ever got drunk in the 60's shows your position on all of this. it's not about what's posted - it's about the poster who posted it.

If you want to post stats with no context or background just let me know. Honestly, I'll simply not challenge the stats you post if it's easier?

But it's misleading to state that the young have better opportunities today simply based on how many go on to further scholar education. Different opportunities in different times. Your stats ignore the fact that so many thousands of work based training places were available which are not available today. You class this as waffling though, so best thing I can do is just not bother.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Again, context.

Why was it being mentioned?

It was discussed as someone threw away a line that people spend their money on foreign holidays these days and it didn't happen "back then".

I went on to explain that the holidays were being taken, they were just different destinations.

And then everyone poured in with exotic tales. Including yourself, as per

The very fact that you describe my post looking at the difference in holidays that people took as waffling......but then thank a post which said no one ever got drunk in the 60's shows your position on all of this. it's not about what's posted - it's about the poster who posted it.

If you want to post stats with no context or background just let me know. Honestly, I'll simply not challenge the stats you post if it's easier?

But it's misleading to state that the young have better opportunities today simply based on how many go on to further scholar education. Different opportunities in different times. Your stats ignore the fact that so many thousands of work based training places were available which are not available today. You class this as waffling though, so best thing I can do is just not bother.

So are you now saying house prices aren't the main problem.

Talking about figures do you think that in relative terms it means nothing that to buy the equivalent of £100 worth of goods and services now you would have needed £170 in the 70s.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Again, context.

Why was it being mentioned?

It was discussed as someone threw away a line that people spend their money on foreign holidays these days and it didn't happen "back then".

I went on to explain that the holidays were being taken, they were just different destinations.

And then everyone poured in with exotic tales. Including yourself, as per

The very fact that you describe my post looking at the difference in holidays that people took as waffling......but then thank a post which said no one ever got drunk in the 60's shows your position on all of this. it's not about what's posted - it's about the poster who posted it.

If you want to post stats with no context or background just let me know. Honestly, I'll simply not challenge the stats you post if it's easier?

But it's misleading to state that the young have better opportunities today simply based on how many go on to further scholar education. Different opportunities in different times. Your stats ignore the fact that so many thousands of work based training places were available which are not available today. You class this as waffling though, so best thing I can do is just not bother.

You don't like the stats because there's not enough context?

There are 4 x the number of people in higher education than in 1970. What sort of context do you need to work out the effect that might have on entry to the workplace and time to peak earnings?

It's just not the case that people could swan about at school, leave without qualifications and expect to walk into an apprenticeship. The big difference was that there were factory jobs available for those without qualifications.

The other stat to consider is the OO rate which was much lower in 1970. I don't see how that's compatible with the wondrous opportunities available at the time or with the assertion that a certain generation (you'd like it to be boomers but it's your generation too) has benefited from house prices.

cells

ukcarper wrote: »

So are you now saying house prices aren't the main problem.

Talking about figures do you think that in relative terms it means nothing that to buy the equivalent of £100 worth of goods and services now you would have needed £170 in the 70s.

everything should get cheaper in real terms with time thanks to the great scientists and engineers and businessmen that discover ways to make more with less.

people should have it easier and better. what parent or grandparent does want their kids and grandkids lives to be easier and better than theirs were.

It holds true for most things, almost all things, except homes...in the UK. so much so that that one asset seems to determine and override all the other things that have gotten better or cheaper

cells

wotsthat wrote: »

You don't like the stats because there's not enough context?

There are 4 x the number of people in higher education than in 1970. What sort of context do you need to work out the effect that might have on entry to the workplace and time to peak earnings?

It's just not the case that people could swan about at school, leave without qualifications and expect to walk into an apprenticeship. The big difference was that there were factory jobs available for those without qualifications.

The other stat to consider is the OO rate which was much lower in 1970. I don't see how that's compatible with the wondrous opportunities available at the time or with the assertion that a certain generation (you'd like it to be boomers but it's your generation too) has benefited from house prices.

home ownership rate rapidly expanded from after ww2 to about the mid 2000s it then stoped....and went backwards

if you look at that as a measure of "good" then things were getting better and better until about 2000-2005

ukcarper

cells wrote: »

home ownership rate rapidly expanded from after ww2 to about the mid 2000s it then stoped....and went backwards

if you look at that as a measure of "good" then things were getting better and better until about 2000-2005

Looking at ONS figures the strange thing is that the growth in home ownership started to slow down in 90s when prices in relation to earnings were at their lowest.

ukcarper

cells wrote: »

everything should get cheaper in real terms with time thanks to the great scientists and engineers and businessmen that discover ways to make more with less.

people should have it easier and better. what parent or grandparent does want their kids and grandkids lives to be easier and better than theirs were.

It holds true for most things, almost all things, except homes...in the UK. so much so that that one asset seems to determine and override all the other things that have gotten better or cheaper

The reasons prices have become cheaper are more to do with globalisation than the reasons you give. There is no rule to say that each generation should be better off than the past.

wotsthat

cells wrote: »

if you look at that as a measure of "good" then things were getting better and better until about 2000-2005

It's not that clear from the OP how people benefiting from house prices is defined. I took it to mean something like underneath the long term trend line which broadly fits in with an increase in OO being 'good'.

Its why I think some boomers, all Gen X and early Gen Y fit in this category.

If anyone from Gen X is moaning about not being able to afford to buy a house the issue is something other than house prices.