Boris to the rescue!

ukcarper

princeofpounds wrote: »

I was being dramatic, largely for effect.


I appreciate that there is a web of complex problems. I also think there is little intentional agency on the part of the boomer generation, although they have benefitted from a number of important policies which act to the detriment of other ages.


Two areas are of particular interest to me.


One is housing, where supply is being restricted through an over-tight planning system. This (along with low interest rates) has boosted house prices and rents, to the detriment of those citizens who do not hold real estate capital (notably the young).


It's not just about money; it's also about the ability to live in secure accommodation and have decent living conditions.


The other is sovereign debt in all its forms. Not just the obvious government borrowing, but also the implicit liabilities for things like unfunded pensions (which are even longer in maturity and hugely significant).


Debt is simply consumption brought forward in time, effectively leaving later workers to pick up the bill for earlier workers.

That might be true but I don't see how that is boomers sucking wealth from other generations.
Nation debt has increased dramatically since 2007 is that entily down to boomers.

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

That might be true but I don't see how that is boomers sucking wealth from other generations.
Nation debt has increased dramatically since 2007 is that entily down to boomers.

A lot of that debt went to protecting peoples positions though.

It was not targetted specifically at boomers - but there have been plenty of research which shows those who benefitted from the (debt increasing) policies have been the boomers. It's difficult to lose when you hold so many of the cards.

They have not only done extremely well from all the protection over housing etc (as they hapen to own the majority of it), but have also done extremely well out of the pension protection.

Right place right time, you could say. But that's the point others are making. A certain generation always appear to be in the right place at the right time and policy has only helped achieve that.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

A lot of that debt went to protecting peoples positions though.

It was not targetted specifically at boomers - but there have been plenty of research which shows those who benefitted from the (debt increasing) policies have been the boomers. It's difficult to lose when you hold so many of the cards.

They have not only done extremely well from all the protection over housing etc (as they hapen to own the majority of it), but have also done extremely well out of the pension protection.

Right place right time, you could say. But that's the point others are making. A certain generation always appear to be in the right place at the right time and policy has only helped achieve that.

The debt was to protect banks and keep economy going that benefited everybody.

Although property prices have increased in practical terms it does not make any difference to the majority of boomers and low interest rates have had a bad effect on savings and annuities.

The majority of boomers are not pensioners and have been affected by increase in pension age.

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

The debt was to protect banks and keep economy going that benefited everybody.

Although property prices have increased in practical terms it does not make any difference to the majority of boomers and low interest rates have had a bad effect on savings and annuities.

The majority of boomers are not pensioners and have been affected by increase in pension age.

Have you noticed the explosion of BTL landlords?

This is just one example of someone holding a card and able to play another. It's of no co-incidence that the average age of a BTL landlord is 56 years old.

Second home owenership is also a preserve of the boomer.

It's just a case of all stars aligning far more frequently for a specific generation.

That's not a groups "fault". It would just be nice if instead of saying "well you have ipads", they admitted they did well. It seems more and more are though - so that's at least something.

You always disagree and you always state you had it hard. But the raw truth is that a BT engineer (relying solely on wages) in the South East today would not be sitting in a 4 bed detached house. You are. That surely has to have you questioning your stance on this.

CLAPTON

the way to solve a housing shortage is to build more houses and reduce demand (population mainly)

reviewing the last 40 years history, whilst interesting, doesn't build any houses

Fella

ging84 wrote: »

You honestly thing the reason we aren't building enough homes is a lack of brick layers and roofers?

Give them somewhere to build them, and they'd easily build 300k house a year

Actually they interviewed a guy from a housebuilder yesterday on BBC & he said quite the opposite. That all the talk of 400,000 new houses was pie in the sky because there were no-where near enough bricklayers/electricians/plumbers/etc to build that many & to do it we'd either need to ship in tens of thousands of immigrants with those skills or embark on an immediate & huge apprenticeship programme.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Have you noticed the explosion of BTL landlords?

This is just one example of someone holding a card and able to play another. It's of no co-incidence that the average age of a BTL landlord is 56 years old.

Second home owenership is also a preserve of the boomer.

It's just a case of all stars aligning far more frequently for a specific generation.

That's not a groups "fault". It would just be nice if instead of saying "well you have ipads", they admitted they did well. It seems more and more are though - so that's at least something.

You always disagree and you always state you had it hard. But the raw truth is that a BT engineer (relying solely on wages) in the South East today would not be sitting in a 4 bed detached house. You are. That surely has to have you questioning your stance on this.

BTL is not a preserve of boomers and a small minority of boomers have BTLs and second homes.

I never said I had it harder than people do now just that it was not as easy as you make out otherwise I would be living a lot closer to London than I do.

But I didn't have a 4 bed house when I was young and Generation X has benefited as much if not more than boomers. Average house prices now 6.5x average earnings compared to 4.75x when I bought in 70s compared to below 3x in mid 90s when Gen X were in their 20s.

I don't deny this last round of hpi in the South east has pushed housing out of the reach of most people and I would probably have to settle for a 2 bed flat now instead of a terrace. Just don't see how that means I'm sucking money from other generations.

cells

Fella wrote: »

Actually they interviewed a guy from a housebuilder yesterday on BBC & he said quite the opposite. That all the talk of 400,000 new houses was pie in the sky because there were no-where near enough bricklayers/electricians/plumbers/etc to build that many & to do it we'd either need to ship in tens of thousands of immigrants with those skills or embark on an immediate & huge apprenticeship programme.

you don't need to go from 150k to 350k overnight you can expand by 20% a year to meet the 350k a year target within 5 years

It takes less time to get a masters in physics so i'm sure a year or two is fine to train most tradesmen

bouicca21

So what's the definition of a baby boomer then? I thought it was people born in the 5 years or so after WW2, even adding another few years, means that definitely excludes the 56 year old BL landlord, unless you are arithmetically challenged.

By that definition I am a baby boomer. Yes, I got a full grant to go to uni, first member of my family ever to do so. But I struggled to buy a property, certainly never had enough to become a btl landlord, and I paid 15% mortgage rate under the milk snatcher.

I am however partially responsible for the housing shortage in that I have a property larger than is strictly necessary - but I bet there are plenty of others who have a spare room. Unlike my father whose whole family lived in just one room, with no toilet or bath.

I seem to remember that when we were young we blamed both WW2 and the Cold War on the previous generation ...

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

This is just one example of someone holding a card and able to play another. It's of no co-incidence that the average age of a BTL landlord is 56 years old.

Second home owenership is also a preserve of the boomer.

You could prove that by showing the average age has increased over a number of years since boomers were old enough to buy i.e. if BTL is the preserve of the boomer then the average age should have consistently increased as the boomers age.

I expect that BTL and second home ownership is more likely the preserve of those who have taken the time to build some wealth, in 20 years, the average BTL landlord will still be c56 rather than 76.